I guess it was inevitable that Joe Romm would find a way to link global warming to the popular uprising in Egypt. After taking heat from a few right wing blogs, Romm sketches out his equation:
The question is why specifically now have the Egyptians and Tunisians rioted after decades of anti-democratic rule? Certainly one can ignore the experts and say that it is a complete coincidence that the rioting occurred as food prices hit record levels “” in spite of the fact that the last time there was this kind of rioting globally food prices were at record levels, which is precisely why experts were predicting that record hide food prices would lead to riots. Now the question is, why are food prices are at record levels? Again, reality pretty much speaks for itself here. Extreme weather is a major contributing factor “” and our top climate scientists say global warming has contributed.
Let the record state that Egyptians have previously taken to the streets over food. For example, there were the “bread riots” in 1977, and in recent years the food riots in 2008 (which hit other parts of the world, as well). Was global warming involved in these instances, too?
Has it even occurred to Romm that Egypt, after smoldering for decades under a repressive regime, was primed to erupt? In The New Republic, one analyst recently wrote:
It takes some hubris to write about events unfolding as fast as the protests in Egypt, especially when it’s clear that nobody saw this coming.
Leaving aside that it takes some hubris to write a sentence like that, you also have to marvel at the hubris of someone who sees a global warming angle to the Egyptian revolt.
a masterly exercise in rear-guard tactics disguised as visionary optimism. A section was devoted to fighting climate change, but under an assumed name: “clean-energy technology,” for which he proposed new public investments “that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.” (The second of that trio of goals was as close as he came to pronouncing the dread words.) He set a goal of generating eighty per cent of America’s electricity from “clean-energy sources” by 2035. Even as he called for a review of “unnecessary” regulations, he declared that he “will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people,” an apparent reference to the E.P.A.’s ambitious plans to limit carbon-dioxide emissions. And he called on Congress “to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies,” the grotesque pastiche of tax expenditures that subsidize oil over other, less harmful sources of energy. The President has not, in fact, given up on doing something about climate change. If he holds firm, perhaps his efforts will yet make a difference. But Mother Nature is growing impatient, and she has a hot temper.
The same can be said for some climate bloggers, who seem to be growing crankier by the day.
I am violently opposed to the warmistas, their beliefs and their crusade to tax and control me. Let my language make it plain that I believe that this is a war.
No reconcilliation ““ no surrender.
Lest you think I’m cherrypicking the thread, here’s one WUWT reader sarcastically noting the angry, folded arms posture:
Well, it’s good to see that most comments on this post have paid exactly no attention to cooling down the rhetoric. Hell, half of them want to heat it up!
Meanwhile, over at Climate Etc, the reaction seems to range from bemused to not buying it. Scattered between them are those that feel the conference was “a fantastic step in the right direction to achieve better climate science.”