Snowmageddon

All the talk of “snowmageddon” (President Obama, 2/6/10) leaves some of us wondering about the claims of global warmageddon alarmism. Although now conveniently disguised under the name “climate change,” the theory of global warming is that man’s impact is creating climate havoc that will lead to higher mean temperatures globally and alter every known climate pattern, So the claims go. Climate change (formerly global warming) alarmists attempt to deceive the general public into believing that skeptics who question their theories are “anti-science.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Climate change (formerly global warming) theories are questioned because of science.

Rather than being able to provide specific, empirical evidence for their claims, climate change (formerly global warming) advocates have been attempting to hide the evidence that appears to weaken or destroy their presumed models. That is an action that is clearly not compatible with the scientific process. As far as we know, collected data fails to fit the models created for climate change (formerly global warming) theories. This is one reason why Professor Al Gore is always telling us that he believes that he must exaggerate the climate change (formerly global warming) claims in order to get our attention. It is also the reason why legitimate scientists who support climate change (formerly global warming) are always having to correct Mr. Gore’s outlandish claims. They value their credibility.

What about scientists who believe that climate change (formerly global warming) theories are correct? I am certainly not accusing all of them of deception. Some no doubt genuinely believe that their conclusions are correct. I merely suggest that we place such conclusions in the light of historical fact before affording them infallibility. In spite of all the sincerity in the world, scientists can still be mistaken; they have been in the past. Consider that in 1972, Dr. Reid Bryson and Dr. John Ross, Director and Associate Director of the University of Wisconsin Institute for Environmental Studies, wrote an article for the World Book Science Annual entitled “Is Man Changing His Climate?” Reflecting the scientific conclusions being drawn then, the authors wrote, “The increase of field dust in the air, much of it the result of our mechanization, could change the climate enough to affect the world’s capacity to produce enough food… A lower mean annual temperature, including summer frosts, could result if dust levels continue to rise.” Nearly forty years later, such a notion would be scoffed at by the current science community, yet this was a part of the conclusions being drawn then. It makes me wonder a little what scientists forty years from now will be saying about the conclusions being formed from today’s climate change (formerly global warming) theories.