Whatever happens, it's all climate change
E. Thomas McClanahanThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says last year was the hottest on record in the contiguous United States. As The New York Times put it in a recent headline, it was “Not Even Close.”
A couple of days later, The Times published a roundup of global weather gone wild, reinforcing the shift that took place some time back, in which “global warming” became the more vague and menacing “climate change” — a semantic adjustment that neatly accounted for the annoying lack of statistically significant global warming in recent years.
Along with heat in the United States, The Times story described snow in Jerusalem, endless rain in Britain, heat waves in Brazil and Australia and an arctic air mass settling in from Central Europe to South Asia — a cold wave severe enough to cause several hundred deaths. In Siberia, it was so frigid that natural gas liquified in its pipes.
Omar Baddour of the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva told The Times that these events were a sign that, as the paper put it, “climate change is not just about rising temperatures but also about intense, unpleasant, anomalous weather of all kinds.”
In other words, if the temperature isn’t rising globally then “climate change” is pretty much anything bad that happens. I wish I could remember the blogger who crystallized the fallacy at work here, but he nailed it perfectly: If everything that happens becomes evidence for what you want to believe, how can you call it “science”?
The Earth may well start warming again and human activity may be the cause, but there are signs that many people have lost patience with the greens’ insistent predictions of doom.
At the “Watts Up With That” blog, meteorologist Anthony Watts found that search trends on Google for “global warming” and “climate change” have radically dropped off in recent years, while searches for “extreme weather” barely registered.
One reason may be that many people picked up on the dodginess of the shift from “global warming” to “climate change.” The Climategate scandal of 2009 — in which scientists wrote back and forth on how to thwart freedom-of-information filings or manipulate data — was a major blow to the theory’s credibility.
Then there’s the lack of significant warming since 1998, still the hottest year on record globally. What’s more, that trend will continue if you believe scientists at the British Met Office, an agency sometimes described as Britain’s NOAA.
The Met created a minor flap recently when, over the Christmas holiday, it posted a new set of predictions coughed up by its computer models. Unlike the previous year’s forecasts, these saw no significant warming for the next five years.
Moreover, the greens have failed to propose any workable policy levers for dealing with “climate change.”
The Kyoto process was stillborn given the refusal of big developing countries like China and India to participate. And the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade bill rightly died in the Senate. Politicians, especially in a chronically weak economy, aren’t likely to approve measures that could reduce growth and jobs even more, especially given the failure of climatologists to explain why global warming seems to have ceased.
The greens’ biggest problem is their tendency to package proposed remedies with a big dose of redemptive castor oil. We must do penance for our sins of waste, we’re told. But if they’d drop the moral exhibitionism, constructive options might appear.
You want a carbon tax? Fine. Make it revenue neutral and use the proceeds to lower the payroll tax — a direct levy on job creation — and cut taxes on saving and capital formation. That could well change the nation’s energy-use patterns, but I suspect many greens would see a downside: It might also accelerate growth and jobs.
To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, call 816-234-4480 or send email to mcclanahan.com
Mark Hastert
4 months agoI’ve got some beach front property I’d like to sell you E. Thomas. It’ll be a great place for you to retire….do you scuba?
Dennis Lawrence
4 months agoClassic Logical fallacy.
The world may be warming, it may be humans doing it, but the real problem are the liberals who keep saying this. But, its okay do support some money spent on the problem as long as it is offset by supporting my ideologies.
Classic example of the reductio ad absurdum coupled with circular reasoning that is the hallmark of pundits and politiicians of all stripes
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months agoYou cannot confuse these libs ET. They “know” there is global warming and all that is takes to fix it is more taxes and controlling behavior THE WAY THEY WANT YOU TO BEHAVE. Less freedom, the lib way to live.
Global warming is all about jobs to those in the know, power to those in the know and of course a butt-load of new taxes the libs can piss away on “stuff” they want.
The FACT that those in the “know” have falsified historical temperatures to suit their story is all people need to know.
Fortunately more and more people realize the scam and are resisting the cries of disaster these “smart” people are screaming. Once more, right wins over might!!!!!
Mark Hastert
4 months agoGH, I got another lot for you right next to ET’s. I know you don’t scuba so just buy a raft. I’d be a great investment for all your gold. You can corner the market.
Mark Hastert
4 months ago“The world may be warming, it may be humans doing it, but the real problem are the liberals who keep saying this.”
no…. I think the bigger problem is the flat earth types who keep denying it.
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agohttp://www.theclimatebet.com/
“I think the bigger problem is the flat earth types who keep denying it”
What an ignorant statement. Science is in fact showing that the global warming is not occuring. Lemmings such as Lewis and Mark just repeat one sided propaganda.
If you want to talk real science, please find and share peer reviewed studies that validate the computer models that Global Warming is based on.
“Then there’s the lack of significant warming since 1998, still the hottest year on record globally. What’s more, that trend will continue if you believe scientists at the British Met Office, an agency sometimes described as Britain’s NOAA.” Furthermore, they also concluded that the computer models have been wrong to this point and that global warming stopped over a decade ago.
Mark Hastert
4 months agoI have a beachfront lot for you too!
A federal committee has published a draft of the nation’s third climate assessment report, a comprehensive analysis of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States. 1/11/13
George Hunsucker
Northland
4 months agoBurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr libs
http://www.weather.com/health/cold-flu/cold-plunge-below-zero-frostbite-20130115
JR Beillenhouser
4 months agoThe feds are hardly bi partisan in the Global Warming Debate. They have been stacking committees with pro Global Warming types. What would you expect to come out from these committees?