"...huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles...

There is a poetic justice to this of course...it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact."

Thanks to Chris Ciancio for the link.

Update... Reader Patrick Duggan writes,

The twisted fantasy of Dave Lindorff is a great example of the real silver lining within the global warming scam. Lefty moonbats are revealed for what they really are: hate-filled, anti-progress, anti-business, anti-human lunatics. They might not come to an understanding of the Laffer curve in several cat lifetimes but we’ll all know soon enough that this whole movement is just a big alarmist myth. I had great fun making handshake bets at holiday parties that by next Christmas the press, (yes even the mainstream media will capitulate), will be telling a different tale as more scientists come to the forefront and proclaim their disagreement and even disgust with the whole deal. Certainly in my dog’s lifetime this scam will be revealed for what it is and those who truly do care about the environment will realize that the greater cause suffered a setback in credibility from Gore and his ilk.

Lindorff apparently ignores the fact that rising sea levels will inundate the expensive coastal properties owned by so many liberals in California, New York, and Massachusetts. I'd rather live in a land-locked red state myself.

And then there are tsunamis. If rising sea levels aren't occurring quickly enough, maybe a tsunami will wipe out the coasts quicker (or at least clean them of elitist liberals). Perhaps global warming will also contribute to earthquakes and related tsunamis. Heck, liberals seem to tie any environmental catastrophe back to global warming and the awfulness of human beings. Again, give me a land-locked red state.

Besides, people who actually READ the Scriptures already expect environmental turmoil. It's part of the whole "end times" scenario that has been forecasted for centuries. But the Scriptures don't blame it on "global warming." The actual cause is morality-related. And liberals, moral-relativists that they are, are a major contributor to the moral degradation that we currently see, and that the Scriptures have predicted for centuries. Now that's ironic, isn't it?

We know Donald Luskin is too stupid to understand that consumers enjoy premium ice cream...

But what's really remarkable to me about this is PGL's seeming obsession with me. Why must I be dragged in to so many unrelated arguments he (she?) chooses to make? Why such animus? Why risk his (her?) credibility by lying about me, and then linking to the truth? And how did he (she?) ever happen to remember this posting from almost five years ago, on the subject of ice cream of all things? People of substance and reputation who appear frequently in the media, especially on TV -- as opposed to obscure mental-masturbator bloggers like PGL -- do sometimes attract the morbid attention of disturbed individuals with various kinds of personality disorders. I wonder if PGL, whoever he (she?) is, has a crush on me? Well, Merry Christmas, PGL. Remember, I take the Second Amendment literally. And be sure to take your meds in the New Year.

Update... Reader Dave Lundry says,

PGL's comments simply demonstrate that they are committed to the (usually unstated) axiom of modern liberalism: Everything good must come from, or at least be protected by, government. Premium ice cream is good, therefore government MUST protect its production from the ravages of the evil capitalists. You disagree, therefore you must hate premium ice cream. (Obviously, since you are against government health care, you must hate health as well.)

I am a history teacher and used the information from the premium ice cream case in a lesson on the late 19th century anti-trust efforts. After some background and discussion of several anti-trust cases, I quizzed my 8th graders on several cases. 100% thought the ice cream case a waste of time and money--the wisdom of 14 year olds trumps that of the FTC.

The headline reads, "Tent city in suburbs is cost of U.S. home crisis." But the article admits, "While no current residents claim to be victims of foreclosure..."

Then it goes for an outright lie: "...all agree that tent city is a symptom of the wider economic downturn. And it's just a matter of time before foreclosed families end up at tent city, local housing experts say." The next paragraph admits, "They only hit tent city when they really bottom out," but the whole implication is that once people lose jobs and their houses, they're out on the streets.

What economic downturn? And who the hell is this "Steve" who is only 50 and already getting government benefits? He's like the ass I used to see a lot on the subway shuttle from Grand Central to Times Square. He'd ask for money to help his daughter, because "the government doesn't give me enough." Of course, he claims to be a vet.