TIME magazine has produced a special edition on climate change in which some of the world’s most hysterical alarmists – Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann – have been space to gibber and shriek about how totally doomed we are thanks to our selfishness, greed and unwillingness to change our carbon-guzzling lifestyles.

There is little if any evidence to support this theory: just a bunch of increasingly discredited computer models.

So the editorial staff of this once-distinguished journal have been tying themselves in knots trying to explain why one-sided, hysterical, factually dubious journalism is in fact good journalism.

Here is TIME‘s editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal setting the tone:

 

“Core to our mission is bringing together diverse perspectives,” says Felsenthal.

Right. Got that. A bit sententious maybe. But let’s give Eddie babes – as I’m sure he’d encourage me to call him if we met – the benefit of the doubt and assume that bringing together diverse perspectives really is ‘core’ to Time‘s mission.

How, though, does that possibly gel with his boast in the preceding sentence that ‘What you will not find in this issue are climate-change skeptics.’?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not even does it make sense when followed with self-justificatory paragraphs like “there is no serious doubt that those effects are real,” that “we are witnessing them right in front of us” and that “the science on global warming is settled.”

None of those statements is true – except in the trivial sense that climate changes and that everyone knows that climate changes. But that’s not what Eddie babes means, is it?

Climate alarmism is above all about hypocrisy: rich, privileged people like Al Gore, Tom ‘Rhymes with liar’ Steyer, Prince Charles and Woke Prince Harry telling poor people to live the kind of low-carbon lifestyles that they have no intention of living themselves because, hey, someone has to keep the private jet industry going, don’t they?

Here is contributor Michael Mann in classic ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ climate hypocrite mode.

Though air travel accounts for only a paltry 2% of global emissions, whether or not climate scientists should fly consumes far more than 2% of my Twitter timeline. Unfortunately, sometimes doing science means traveling great distances, and we don’t always have the time or luxury to take slower low-carbon options. We have a job to do, after all. But even still, a single scientist, or even hundreds of scientists, choosing to never fly again is not going to change the system. Purchasing carbon offsets for flights is a viable means of decarbonizing your air travel, for now.

Methinks the creator of the discredited Hockey Stick and fake-Nobel-prize claimant doth protest too much, don’t you?

Mann has just used about 1/6 of his 600 word allocation to Mannsplain why it is that even though the world is in serious, nay dire trouble due to man-made carbon emissions it’s fine for him to go on racking up the international air miles because “science” and “carbon offsets.”

Earlier in his piece, Mann speculates on some of measures we might adopt in our personal lives to combat climate change:

Everyone faces choices every day that carry a climate cost. Do we turn the lights on in the morning, or is the light of daybreak sufficient for finding matching socks? Do we feast on bacon and eggs for breakfast, or will a bowl of oatmeal suffice?

I wonder how much Time paid for this weapons-grade drivel. And how many trees were cut down to produce the print edition. Presuming, of course, that Time still does have a print edition. Does anyone know? Does anyone even care?