The View From 1776

Revelations From Our Pagan Weather Gods

Today’s frenzied adulation for ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is a throw-back to primitive paganism. 

The tribal shaman was thought to have power because he could incant a secret name for an object or phenomenon.  In the same way today’s radical environmentalists - those of the ClimateGate variety, President Obama, and John Kerry - believe that giving names to climate phenomena and creating fantastical computer models gives them special power over the future of earth’s weather.

To support their claims to the power of omniscience they invoke a non-existent concurrence by ‘all the world’s scientists.’

Charles Krauthammer dissects The myth of ‘settled science’

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/23 at 12:33 AM
  1. Thomas,

    Krauthammer is of course correct that everything in science has always been subject to refinement and revisiting as new information comes to light. He is also correct that most scientists would certainly not lay the cause of an individual storm or drought to a global warming. Weather patterns are complex and any particular weather event arises from the intersection of hundreds of independent factors.

    But on the other hand, our science is not totally impotent. We can collect and analyze data and come up with a "model" that fits the data, and will help us predict what will happen in the future given present trends.

    "Global Climate Change, based on an undisputed enormous increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, is one such model. You will find few responsible scientists (and not even Krauthammer) who will will deny that the ice caps and glaciers are melting at a rapid rate, the seas are rising, and that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is very high. The model says that there is great certainty that the high CO2 concentration and global warming are related. The data also indicate that a large percentage in the increase in CO2 concentration is man made.

    When a politician says the science is "settled," he is not saying that the model will never be improved. Science is never settled, in that sense.

    He is, however saying something equivalent to "The 'science is settled' that cigarette smoking will kill you."

    Now we all know people who smoked and lived to a ripe old age. Our science does not predict the effect of cigarettes on an individual, but only on the average of the population. You may dodge the odds and not get lung cancer, but on average, you smoke-you die early.

    Computer models do not, as you suggest, give scientists "special power over the future of earth's weather," but our science can tell us, with an increasing degree of probability, that if continue along the present course, there will be the piper to pay.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/23  at  03:28 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.