When Matt Drudge, founder of the popular Drudge Report news headline aggregation site, tweeted out recently that the federal government’s preeminent weather agency might be just a bit politicized under the policy direction of President Obama, the “scientific” media went ballistic.
Guess Drudge must have hit a nerve or something.
As Hurricane Matthew was battering the Caribbean on its way to the Florida coastline, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which was tracking the storm and warning of its potential to develop into a Category 4 monster with winds over 150 miles per hour, Drudge was tweeting out that the agency’s warnings might be just a bit overplayed:
Hurricane Center has no monopoly on data. No way of verifying claims. Nassau ground observations DID NOT match statements! 165mph gusts? WHERE?
Drudge was making accurate observations about what NOAA was saying and the reality on the ground.
In addition, Drudge invoked a term used by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to describe half of GOP opponent Donald J. Trump’s supporters in a follow-up tweet that questioned NOAA’s sincerity:
The deplorables are starting to wonder if govt has been lying to them about Hurricane Matthew intensity to make exaggerated point on climate…
These tweets prompted much consternation and response from establishment scientific journals and organizations that have bought into the whole government “climate change” narrative hook, line and sinker, including Popular Science, which ran a piece headlined, “Don’t Take Weather Advice From Matt Drudge – Seriously, Stay Safe.”
“And then there was Matt Drudge, who was instead declaring a state of conspiracy,” wrote Grennan Milliken of PopSci. “The founder of the Drudge Report spent his evening blasting out tweets that the storm’s forecast was grossly overblown. He even went so far as to accuse the government of exaggerating Hurricane Matthew’s intensity just to make a point about the dangers of climate change. Not kidding. What. The. Bleep.”
Of course, it is easy to denigrate opinions that go against the status quo.
PopSci wasn’t the only outlet that picked up his tweeted statements and ran with them. Many questioned Drudge’s judgment and intelligence. Some even dragged other conservative media figures into the mix, such as Rush Limbaugh – all because they and others have dared question the government’s nonsensical (and unproven) claims that modern human activity is responsible for changing weather patterns.
What Drudge was questioning was the Obama administration’s (and Hillary Clinton’s) narrative on global warming, climate change, and climate shift. This past September, Clinton herself tied Hurricane Hermine to man-made climate change, saying it was “another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause…”
Yes, hurricanes happen. But, mankind isn’t causing them.
There are 30 peer-reviewed studies that debunk the so-called “link” between hurricanes and global warming/climate change, despite Clinton’s (and Obama’s) claims that the link is “real” and that it’s “established science.”
Tell that to green guru James Lovelock, who now believes the ‘issue’ of climate change is nothing more than a fabricated problem for political purposes.
“Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly,” he told
The Guardian last month. “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change[emphasis added]. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
Who is Lovelock? A British independent scientist who introduced the Gaia theory to the world, a hypothesis that is now accepted as a leading principle in climate science.
This is the hypocrisy and misguided “science” that Drudge was attempting to showcase. And he was right.