Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that everything the media says about global warming is true–humanity is the primary cause of a huge warming trend in the last century and it’s a serious threat to the future.
Even in that case, every single bad thing that happens in the atmosphere is not caused by global warming. This should be obvious, right? Climate change could exacerbate some violent weather, but not cause all of it.
I did some research, and it turns out that Earth actually did have some storms before 1900. Who knew?
And yet, on the political left, any and every meteorological disturbance is automatically the direct result of, and an opportunity to preach about, global warming. This kind of knee jerk overreaction isn’t science, it’s superstition.
In Dean Koontz’s The Taking, a sudden global superstorm causes impossibly giant waterspouts throughout the oceans and torrential rain across the planet, at the same time that Earth’s satellite network starts going dead. Naturally, cable news anchors instantly pin the responsibility on their trusty old go-to, global warming. That was published in 2004, though. Alas, it’s hard to satirize a reality bent on being even dumber than satire.
There’s one big question that I haven’t heard yet about an anti-Mormon author’s twisted article on a CNN blog about the LDS Church. She says that she disbelieved in the religion at least since the time she was nine years old, yet she was married in an LDS temple, which would require a long period of prior faithfulness: was she lying about not believing in the religion throughout her childhood, or did she lie to the Church so she could get married in the temple?
It’s been my experience that people who are inactive, or no longer members, in the LDS Church, hate being asked about when they did have faith, and how that changed. They’ll often give sketchy answers, if any at all, and quickly change the subject. Fair enough—private business is private business—but if you want to be taken seriously as a public opponent of something, don’t you owe the public an explanation that establishes credibility better than this?
This author seems to base her credibility on the fact that her she was raised in a Mormon family (as if being raised by Darwin would automatically qualify you as a scientist), and the fact that she can quote distorted versions of some doctrines and out-of-context materials from the temple endowment ceremony. So she can use Google. Big whoop.
You know how sometimes a reporter will try to play “gotcha” with a politician by asking him or her an incredibly simple question, like the number of amendments to the Constitution or the name of a foreign head of state? Continue reading