So it has now been a week since the I35W bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, and where are we now? As expected, the tragedy has been used for every sort of political agenda gain out there, and instead of bringing people together to not only mourn a tragedy but also to try to solve a problem, the people have been ripped apart by partisan politics and name calling. Not even me, the cynic extraordinaire, could have seen just how damaging this event was to the fabric of this community. Maybe this is how things were down in New Orleans. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. This time I’m here to see the fallout, and I’m not happy about it.

But that is neither here nor there. After a full week of political mudslinging and finger pointing, what is left to point the finger at? Ah, I’m glad you’re as curious as me, and in turn, I will tell you. Believe me, I wish I was making this up, and I can’t believe that I even have to go here, but people need to know just how sick and out of control this has gotten.

First off, I’ll start with the roots of this thing, by looking at what State Representative Melissa Hortman said a week ago:

“Did the heat put extra strain on the steel?” Hortman said. “You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer.”

Uh oh. It sounds an awful lot like Rep. Hortman is bringing global warming into this. This was from an article written on August 2nd, which means it took her less then 24 hours to try to make a connection between global warming and the bridge collapse. And what is this“massive heat” that she is speaking of?

But it gets worse. It seems that the greenies took off with this nonsense and ran it full tilt, using Hortman’s comments as gospel in their new crusade against humanity. Here are just a few examples…

• From a former Minnesota meterologist
• From a Minneapolis software consultant
• From a Greenie who claims to be an “insider”
  

And it is this post from the greenie (Joe Romm, a former Clinton official) that I will use because he was kind enough to not only sum up the other two posts, but to throw off dissenting opinions from structural engineers as well. This one is a real head scratcher too, since the greenies are listening to a meteorologist, a state Representative and other citizens over structural engineers because… Well, because the former support the global warming and climate change “crisis” while the engineers say it’s hooey. I guess anyway.

I ordinarily wouldn’t be surprised since this is the sort of thing we have come to expect from the environmental nutjob crowd, but I can’t recall a more blatant misuse of a tragedy by them than this one. I mean, I can almost see how they could draw the line between Katrina and the environment, but not the bridge. This is pure insanity.

Sorry, I’m getting off topic here. Let’s take a look at this for a second:

So these greenies over at “Climate Progress” start out by referencing James Hansen’s (of NASA ilk) claim that we’re turning Earth into a “different planet” with our greenhouse emissions etc. Of course, it would seem that the greenies are mistaking “different planet” for “turning into Venus,” but that could just be me. Whatever, I guess they just think it lends credence to their claims if they open with something from a NASA official. Either way, it gets worse

They go on to introduce the the link between global warming and the bridge and quote the meteorologist and than (quite humorously I might add) quote a “remarkable conclusion of one Minneapolis resident” who is treated as a valid source of scientific information by these people even though he’s just a software consultant. While this Minneapolis resident has an interesting point, it is nothing more than interesting speculation that operates on the assumption that the bridge couldn’t handle 90 degree heat, which is absurd.

Here is where it gets loony (loonier?). They next quote a British structural engineer who dares to render a dissenting opinion by claiming that the bridge couldn’t handle the “heat” was not a likely explanation. The author counters this by saying (quite authoritatively at that):

“But I don’t I think this answers the scenario just laid out, and the question isn’t whether modern bridges are built to cope with extremes, but whether more extremes than anyone might have designed for contributed to the unusual collapse of a ’structurally deficient’ bridge.”

The scenario referred to is the “excessive heat” causing the bridge to buckle and collapse. Somehow this author seems to think that 90 degree weather is so extreme that the engineers wouldn’t have considered it when designing the bridge.

They then go on to quote Rep. Hortman, which I’m sure just tickled them to no end since they have a government official who is supporting their claim… They also call into the question the water level, since it is yet another thing they can tag on global warming.

But interestingly, the author takes a vicious stance towards the end of the article, and says:

“Some may object to even asking the question, ‘Did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?’ My guess is those are the same people who deny that global warming is caused by humans or that it is a serious problem — the same people who inevitably say ‘we can adapt to whatever climate change there is.’”

You mean those of us with an ounce of common sense in our skulls? Those of us who would listen to a structural engineer over a meteorologist or a local congresswoman when it comes to talking about structures? Those of us who think that the only serious problem that global warming is presenting is the inflated sense of self importance that it is giving the greenies and their loyal band of puppy-dog politicians?

But it continues…

The article then goes after Bush and his administration for “muzzling” climate scientists and blocking climate research. Not only that, but they dare to make references to “intense Atlantic hurricanes” (where?) and the “inevitable” superhurricanes and sea level rise.

The author rounds out the post by saying:

“But given that a remarkable 70,000 other bridges in the country are also structurally deficient, we should seek to learn whether such troubled bridges can take the ever-growing stresses generated by global warming.”

I can think of at least a dozen other contributing factors that are more relevant and plausible than global warming as far as the need to deal with infrastructure problems, yet the greenies are out there pushing this crap.

I don’t know. I mean, I can somewhat handle the tripe coming down from the tax pushers who claim that we are lacking the funds to fix the bridges and hence we need to raise taxes. I mean, it’s a bunch of lies, but at least they’re tangible lies. THe global warming thing on the other hand? The worst sort of garbage I have ever heard. To use a bridge collapse to accuse people and the government of not doing enough to stop global warming is absolutely revolting. I mean, the final line of this greenie post is:

“Indeed, if the adapters have their way in blocking serious efforts aimed at prevention, we’ll need to be prepared for the very worst.”

Which makes me feel a little green.. Except my green comes from the feeling of bile rising in my throat, not from my desire to run out and sign the Kyoto accord so we can save our bridges from collapsing.

This is absolutely unbelievable, folks, yet here I am, writing this and still in utter disbelief myself. If ever there was a line that shouldn’t have been crossed, I have to commend the greeies on this one. They not only crossed it, but they then turned around and gave the rest of us the finger. This is nothing more than the exploitation of a tragic disaster to push for way out agendas while all the while pointing the finger at the rest of us as if we’re the not only the cause of this tragedy, but will be responsible for future tragedies if we don’t start doing what they tell us to… And that is the worst part of it all. To accuse us… The nerve.