Oh Jesus, really?

The thing about the man made global climate change crowd is that they sound like house wives from the middle ages. Superstitious bags.

So get this, we had Algae recently blaming some awful natural disaster on his pet project. Now, Black Hawk Down.

So, another elected official has tried to out Gore Gore:


"In Somalia back in 1993, climate change, according to 11 three- and four-star generals, resulted in a drought which led to famine," said Markey.

"That famine translated to international aid we sent in to Somalia, which then led to the U.S. having to send in forces to separate all the groups that were fighting over the aid, which led to Black Hawk Down."


This particular example of idiocy combines several strains of lefty idiocy. First, yes, any weather event aside from a nice summer day (possibly, I don't really know, it could cause melanoma) is, of course, the result of MMGCC. Second, it ignores the virulent violence that has followed radical Islam across the globe. It is not a religion, but rather, ta da, a consequence of an economic inequality. Third, it just sounds really really stupid and assholish.

Look, droughts have occurred throughout history. But most famines occur because of totalitarian regimes. Somehow, Ireland was exporting food during the potato famine. And somehow -it's not a bug, it's a feature - socialist regimes specialize in famine. Can you say the Ukraine in the 20's (how's that feel Duranty?), China in the 50's, Ethiopia in the 80's, North Korea right now. I bet Cambodia would have gotten a famine too if that regime wasn't so awesome at killing one third of it's population with guns. I think, if you read the book or watched the movie, Somalia was in a civil war where one side hoarded and confiscated food as a strategy. Or maybe both sides.

But whatever, theorize backwards from the idea that MMGCC causes everything. What gets me about these post-Christian dirt worshipers is that they drape themselves in science. But really, where are the temperatures actually rising? The data used is based on land based temperature stations that, charitably, cover 40% of the earth's surface. These temperature data are then "corrected," based on God knows what. NASA finally let it be known that their corrections mimic their predictions. Reading from years ago are adjusted down. Modern readings are corrected up. So, there is your warming. Too bad satellite data does not concur, instead showing stead or falling temperatures. Satellite data also shows that the seas have risen about 2mm a year for a couple of decades. So, if all that ice has already melted, where is the flooding?

And no, this isn't political, this is common sense to me. Although, when the left brings forward comparative worth for carbon emissions and has a politburo decide how much carbon dioxide you are allowed to emit, you can be that will political.