So according to ThinkProgress, a top climate scientist has said that "it is irresponsible not to mention climate change" in connection with the devastating storms that rampaged through southern states this week (hat tip: memeorandum).
Just like the birthers, climate alarmists will interpret anything and everything as validating their dogma. Lots of storms? Must be global "climate change" --as if devastating storms did not exist prior to the Industrial Revolution. Earthquake hits Haiti? Yeah, celebrity climate alarmist Danny Glover pinned that one on global warming. It's getting warmer? Global warming. It's getting colder? Global warming-- er-- climate change-- yeah-- that's it! Climate change!
Remember that earlier this week in my discussion of the "After-Birther" movement I wrote:
That is the hallmark of a true "wingnut," "barking moonbat," or whatever other dysphemism you want to use for someone who has decided ahead of time that they believe a proposition is true so that no matter what evidence you give them to refute their belief, they will remain intransigent in their faith. 20th century philosopher Karl Popper, made an important contribution to philosophy when he asked: what would you do to prove yourself wrong?
That is a question we all must sincerely answer about our beliefs if we want to consider ourselves earnest seekers of the truth, and not merely dogmatic adherents to whatever belief we want to be true. What would you do to prove yourself wrong? What evidence or fact-- if someone could verify its truth to you-- would shake your belief in a proposition? If the answer is nothing at all-- then you are not a true seeker, but a dogmatist, as so many birthers, truthers, climate alarmists, race baiters, war mongers, welfare statists, drug prohibitionists, and so very many other "faithful" adherents to anything but the truth are.
So let me ask the climate alarmists, what would you do to prove yourself wrong? I'd really love to know.
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page