Avoid the term "global warming." I prefer the term "global weirding," because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington -- while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought -- is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.
Tom clearly missed the memo.
But beyond that, it's a sign of obvious desperation when the defenders of climate alarmism bring out the big gun: reliance on foreign oil.
Indeed, I suspect China is quietly laughing at us right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia.
As if confusion about climate change has any rational connection to the inclination to move toward clean-tech and away from oil addition. For the record, I'm all for that move, climate change (whatever Tom Friedman wants to call it) or no climate change.
Perhaps liberals can't manage to generate sufficient enthusiasm for
independence from foreign oil on the basis of very real political, economic
and national security threats. Maybe they can only find the will for
that effort based on exaggerated environmental threats? Sad, if
true, but let them tell themselves whatever they need to hear to get on
board. Just do it.
The problem is that reasonable people also understand economic trade-offs. Many don't like intrusive legislation. Others can sniff out fear-mongering for what it is. Some even trust in humanity's ability to adapt to any changes in climate trends.
In the end, though, the burden of proof is on the believers. And if they're going to ask a nation -- a world -- to fundamentally alter its economy and ask citizens to alter their lifestyles, the believers' credibility and evidence had better be unassailable.
Bottom line.
