New York Times Magazine writer Emily Bazelon: 'Well, I think it would, so—and I’m not wishing this upon anyone—but it would be helpful for Hillary to have a natural disaster to deal with in a red state where she could go and be because she would be able to be—no, seriously—I’m not saying I want it to happen, but the timing would be helpful… You just think that’s a totally bad thing to say.'
"Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change."
"Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years. If a major hurricane is approaching with a predicted storm surge of 10-14 feet, are you really going to worry about a sea level rise of 1 inch per decade? If Hillary would have fact-checked her example of sea level rise in Norfolk, Virginia, she would have found out that the experts already know this is mostly due to the land there sinking."
Many facets of the new religion are merely substitutes for aspects of the old religion. The crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine; priests have been replaced by climate scientists; false prophets by the likes of Al Gore and Prince Charles; hair shirt penance and daily ritual by recycling; pilgrimages and purgatory by IPCC conferences; and so on. Conservatives naturally feel towards environmentalism as they do towards Scientology or pastafarianism or Jedi: why subscribe to a silly, made-up new religion when you’ve got a much preferable one sanctified by 2000 years of history?