Everything Confirms it and Nothing can Falsify it

This has long been my problem with global warming. Every slight statistical deviation in the weather of a given year is chalked up to global warming regardless of whether it makes for a milder season or a more extreme one. Every bad storm or perceived change in insect behavior suddenly has climatic implications without even a discussion on what should be the statistical norm, or what constitutes a meaningful change from past trends.

George F. Will has a nice Op-Ed in the Washington Post about the extended "very bad day" that global warming advocates are having:

Last week, BP America, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar, three early members of the 31-member U.S. Climate Action Partnership, said: Oh, never mind. They withdrew from USCAP. It is a coalition of corporations and global warming alarm groups that was formed in 2007 when carbon rationing legislation seemed inevitable and collaboration with the rationers seemed prudent. A spokesman for Conoco said: "We need to spend time addressing the issues that impact our shareholders and consumers." What a concept.

Global warming skeptics, too, have erred. They have said there has been no statistically significant warming for 10 years. Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, source of the leaked documents, admits it has been 15 years. Small wonder that support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers that an IPCC report asserted, without serious scientific support, could disappear by 2035.

Jones also says that if during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (circa 800-1300) global temperatures may have been warmer than today's, that would change the debate. Indeed it would. It would complicate the task of indicting contemporary civilization for today's supposedly unprecedented temperatures.

It is nice to see the climate change politicos finally getting a little of the scrutiny they deserve, even if it is short lived. All we need is a hot or a "not hot enough" summer for the IPCC to start pushing their snake oil again.

Share this

It is tough having a bit of

It is tough having a bit of a green streak. Statist domination of the debate has poisoned most grassroots action into a "politics only" movement, everyone seems to be either clamoring for or against laws. Protesting instead of planting. All while the planet is being polluted massively, which indisputably has a localized effect on the region where the pollution is being created. A good example would be Beijing prior to the olympics.

Then we have humans claiming that this localized pollution is causing a global problem which cannot be summed up as anything less than the ethereal and subjective term "climate change". I know one thing about the climate of our planet, it is incredibly complex system that CAN NOT be predicted. Yet some apes with sheep skins on their walls claim they can!

I think not.

We are in a transitory period where technological advancement is being slowed down by government which encourages (via TDC) the continued use of established energy sources. All the while benighted politicians clutch their collective breast and shout "I care about the planet!" to all who will listen.

They don't. If they did, they would not stop at politics.

I know this because I plant trees, and I am an anarchist.

Save the Palnet

Yes!

Pollution is bad. We should try to be environmentally sound so we have a beautiful world in the future. But this should be common sense and so we do not need laws getting into every nitty detail of our lives to get people to do it.

I find it silly when I see news reports like "It snowed, we should pass laws stopping global warming". Some people are just looking for any excuse to add more laws.

By the way, did anybody else see the headlines about now congress thinks the Toyota mess means we need government oversight of the auto industry?