Somewhere out in the watery expanse, cool-blue winds meet red-hot air. Unable to reconcile their inherent barometric differences, they become entangled—circling round and around, round and around, forever swirling and dancing about a common epicenter to no resolution other than a mutual will to destruction. And so Irma, a Category 5 liberal conspiracy is born.
Energized by unseasonably warm Caribbean waters—completely unrelated to the unseasonably warm climate to which they are beholden—Irma has wrought destruction from Cuba to Florida and beyond, costing lives, livelihoods, and economies.
But that’s beside the point. The real question is: When are liberals going to stop attempting to prove the existence of anthropogenic climate change by offering colossal amounts of empirical evidence? What, I got to have visceral, objective “facts” shoved down my throat every time I go online? Did we lose a war or something? This is America!
#ClimateSilence — a rhetorical event
The exigence of increasingly frequent, more powerful weather events strongly invited utterances from both those on Twitter who would pummel us with “scientific explanation”, and the virtuous warriors who would defend poor Irma’s right to exist free of the defamatory association with either science, or climate change.
Liberals, as they do, exploited the opportunity to reaffirm the findings of learned experts, and to call upon climate scientists to come out of whatever closet they’ve been hiding in and shout some more about their falsified reports, until a change in governmental policy is forced. Commies! Meanwhile, a cavalcade of conservatives—sporting far more attractive gym selfies, btw—joined the forum to pose rhetorical questions, in between squats and high-fives, such as @HMSPitts who asked:
“Okay, if Harvey and Irma were caused by climate change, then can you explain the previous 10 years of mild hurricane seasons?”
(Note: Don’t go back 12 years, because you might happen upon the strongest hurricane in human history, but whatever)
But stop right there, eggheads. Don’t even try it! We’ve heard all about your “statistics” and “observations” and years of peer reviewed, UN sanctioned “findings”. @HMSPitts isn’t actually looking for an answer. We never were. Stop trying to explain things all the time, not every question requires a reasoned response. We already know what we know, and the climate battering down our doors, or oceanic swells drowning our dogs isn’t going to change that.
[lights up a cigarette *cough].
All we really need to hear is @katxarielle ‘s #WednesdayWisdom:
“ … Hurricanes are called natural disasters for a reason. #ClimateSilence Climate change = Pseudoscience nonsense #MAGA #News.”
Take that, science! There’s a reason for stuff, you see! You can’t argue with something as invariable and constant as language, especially from the shaky foundations of your physical “laws”. But if you need it put more academically, Barbara Biesecker (a woman… just saying) suggests that a rhetorical event has some potential to influence us (good luck), but hasn’t the power to adjust our identity (unlike transsexuals in bathrooms). It seems Irma’s greatest power is in creating for us an opportunity to reinforce and strengthen our pre-existing biases via the process of exhausting hot air, and selectively metabolizing the gases of those whose farts we already enjoy.
[sparks up another fag *cough… *cough…. I wonder what’s causing that *splutter]
Indeed, new research has told us something I already wanted to believe: that humans have an excellent ability to ignore facts and research that doesn’t fit with our own biases, not just on Twitter where the stakes are pretty low, but even when it can cost us money. So good luck permeating this sphere of incomprehension!
A free exchange of ideas?
By virtue of the fact that the publics involved in #ClimateSilence perceive themselves as having a voice within the forum, they also perceive in themselves an equivalent level of authority, it would seem. On Twitter, at least. A Liberal lackey of Big Science, with no scientific authority, can reaffirm the existence of climate change as evidenced by bad weather, science communication and nothing more. And the Jesus-enthusiasts can refute these notions with no more reasoning other than pointing out their own obstinacy (bring us the evidence we asked for, so we can deflect it). This misguided, narcissistic tendency to believe in one’s self with absolute surety is disrupting any network of useful discourse or ideas that might be constructed under the banner #ClimateSilence. Instead, we have an online space where liberals attempt to promote engagement and a louder discourse from climate scientists (as if they haven’t been shouting about climate change for decades); whilst conservatives spray the realm with rhetorical questions before slamming the door on any responses, ensuring #ClimateSilence.
So what good is the forum when nothing is exchanged?
Breezy out, isn’t it?
[*coughs blood into hands. Not good. Throws cigarette away. Starts chewing tobacco instead]