As pointed out by Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), it was former President Obama crony and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel who once infamously remarked that political leaders should never let serious crises “go to waste,” because they can use them to advance a political agenda where they could not do so before.
As for the recent Hurricane Matthew, it appears as though a number of political operatives and true believers in the global warming religion likely wanted it to be worse than it actually was (which, to many people, was bad enough).
Why? Because that would be consistent with their history.
For the record, the storm killed 30 Americans and more than 1,000 people in total. Early damage estimates were put at about $5 billion. Yet that is not enough death and destruction for the global warming hoaxers.
For the record, the hoaxers have tried advancing the narrative that in this day and age, thanks to man-caused actions, the weather is getting worse and more severe. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton enlisted the assistance of the hoaxer-in-chief, Al Gore, her husband’s vice president and today’s chief global warming liar, to use Matthew to advance the phony narrative.
Only, before the hurricane actually made landfall days ago in South Carolina, it had been more than 4,000 days since a hurricane actually struck the United States. That’s 10 years, 11 months and some change.
Alarmists were “itching for a large-scale disaster,” IBD reported, because every day that passed that didn’t herald a major weather event, especially one on an epic scale, meant that their dire predictions of more and bigger storms made them look like clueless, silly con artists (which they are).
Their sick impatience for a major weather-related crisis was summarized very well a couple of years ago when a guy named Greg Blanchette announced that since the weather is getting worse and more severe, that he “kind of” hoped that North America “gets it’s a** kicked this hurricane season. It would motivate us on climate action.”
Like we said, sick.
This may or may not be the same Greg Blanchette who advocated placing scary global warming warnings on gasoline pumps – which is now law in North Vancouver, British Columbia. That doesn’t matter, though, because if it’s not the same person, that only means there are two global warming hoaxer cranks out there sharing the same name.
Then, as IBD noted, a couple of years before this Blanchette dude was hoping for weather-related death and destruction, British naturalist David Attenborough noted that a “disaster” was required to wake people up to the massive threat of climate change.
Up to that point, the “disasters” that the U.S. had experienced “with hurricanes and floods … [didn’t] do it.” So, a cataclysmic event was needed in order to scare enough people into demanding some sort of action, which of course would come in the form of costly government regulations that are not based on sound, demonstrable and replicable scientific data.
Then, as Matthew tore up Florida’s Atlantic Coast, Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Georgia, outed the sick hoaxers, tweeting that he was hearing “ridiculous complaining” that the hurricane was actually less powerful than anticipated.
“Some seem disappointed there isn’t tragic loss of life/apocalyptic,” he noted, adding: “I am thankful.”
IBD summed up the facts: While the environmental movement contains sincere people, it is also replete with idiots and lunatics who yearn for a planet devoid of humans (with the exception of themselves, of course). Attenborough himself has complained to the British press that human beings are a “plague on the Earth.” (We assume he is counting himself as well, which – if he is – seems even less rational, if that’s possible.)
There are nothing but theories claiming that man-caused activity is responsible for changing weather patterns. There is no hard evidence and there is no replicable data, which there should be if such claims were provable outside of anecdotal findings. If this was a real issue the language would not have changed from “global cooling” in the 1970s, to “global warming” in the 1980s and ’90s, to “climate change” today.