Global Warming Hysterics

From Boston Diaries:

Meteorologists have a hard enough time predicting the weather two weeks out, and yet to read this report, Global Warming™ is a done deal and we're all screwed

That's why Global Warming™ is now the new Climate Change™. Since the climate is always changing, there is always proof of Climate Change™ and no evidence can disprove it since Climate Change™ is always happening.

More here on censoring dissenting views on Global Warming™ (from a journalism professor!) [Link]

A professor of journalism proposes that there be legal or ethical standards that might be deployed to censor or sanction skepticism about anthropogenic global warming. The idea is, of course, asinine, for the many good reasons set forth here. The censorship proposal did, however, raise an issue that is worth serious consideration (emphasis added):

So, let’s ask: what would happen if denial of both a) human-caused climate change and b) the dangers of such rapid change, were to be censored? If the science is beyond reasonable doubt, and miscommunication and denial leads to damaging inaction, should it not be censored? Beyond reasonable doubt is all we need to put someone in prison, or in the US, put them to death.

When you have to censor your opponents' arguments you have already lost the argument as your ideas are weak and will not stand up to scrutiny.