Editorial tries, fails at making linkage between President Obama, Osama Bin Laden and global warming.
Strange bedfellows? Really, Washington Times?
It's been a while since some folks on the right have used the campaign-time strategy of equating Osama bin Laden with Barack Hussein Obama. A strategy that those employing it hoped would instill the idea that our American-born, basketball-playing, Bud Light-drinking, Christian-church-attending, Harvard-educated President of the United States is similar to the freedom-despising, America-hating, radical-Islamic-fundamentalist-terrorist -- just because their names sound alike, sort of.
But that doesn't mean the strategy is behind us.
In fact, just last week an editorial in the conservative Washington Times did just that. And they didn't even try to make any substantive connections between the two, except for saying that the pair believes global warming is real and that it is a threat:
"In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama said there was "overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change." In his most recent message to the world, Osama bin Laden said that climate change "is not an intellectual luxury but an actual fact." It's nice to see these two leaders can agree on something."
The editorial goes on to make the argument why the global warming theory is dead, stating first and foremost that that the world has been cooling when, all signs point to the decade of the 2000's to be the warmest on record:
"Evidence had been mounting for years that there were problems with the global warming model; most telling was that the globe refused to warm up. Carbon emissions continued apace, but the world began cooling. This is why true believers abandoned the "global warming" brand name and tried to shift the debate to the more ambiguous label "climate change," which is something the rest of us like to refer to as "weather."
Actually, "true believers" were calling it climate change long before they were calling it global warming. Why? Because they knew people--and especially those in northern climates--would either/both welcome the warming, with little care for how a changing climate manifested elsewhere on the planet; and equate changes in the weather with changes in the climate.
The editorial goes on for four paragraphs, reading something like a "Greatest Hits" of global warming skepticism.
I won't bother with the details, but the argument goes something like this: sunspots, polar bear baby boom, climategate, record cold winter in Scotland, cherry-picking data, climate change fanatics, etc...
"The simplistic and increasingly discredited theory of carbon-based, man-caused global warming needs to be discarded, and the scientists who sought to squelch skeptics and artificially inflate their own reputations must be disciplined.
Not until the very last sentence does the editorial make the big connection:
"Alas, Mr. Obama and Mr. bin Laden need to update their talking points."
That's it? They need to update their talking points? That makes Obama and Osama strange bedfellows?
To its credit, I suppose, The Washington Times makes no bones about where it sits. But that seat just so happens to be on the wrong side of science; and on the side of reality.