UPDATE: Greg Pollowitz at NRO's Planet Gore provides some additional information from the climate deniers at FEMA and NOAA, that debunks the ridiculous premise of the original TP post. Question: Why does Think Progress hate science?
Via Hot Air, that's the headline of a post by the smart folks at ThinkProgress -- illustrating once again that some people will politicize about anything, even the death of 267-plus Americans:
The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.
For the rest of our lives, every time a natural disaster strikes anyone, anywhere, conservatives who support lower taxes or less intrusive government will be faulted. (You know, even if all Southern representatives believed in anthropogenic global warming theory, you hope they'd vote against lefty environmental policy simply because it’s far more destructive than global warming ever could be.)
And before the 80s, hurricanes and tornadoes only existed in mythology, apparently. Look, ThinkProgress explains, Kevin Trenberth says so.
“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’
All of them.
Now, most people understand what ThinkProgress is up to, but thanks to files from computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit we know that Trenberth is also a propagandist – though a poor one. In an email dated October 14, 2009, Trenberth wrote: “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” and “any consideration of geoengineering [is] quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!”
Trenberth argued that skeptics had cherry-picked his comments and they were out of context. So, at the time, I sent him (and National Center for Atmospheric Research) a Freedom of Information request to see e-mail correspondences between these leading climate scientists so the public could better contextualize what he really meant.
The reply: "My email is none of your business." The next reply was from a lawyer. Turns out Trenberth has no qualms living off taxpayers, but has a big problem with transparency. When he finally gets off the dole, I'm sure John Podesta will have work for him.