Over the weekend, we got yet more snow here in New Hampshire. It’s been a record winter, with more “snowfall events” than ever before. we’ve had an astonishing number of roofs collapse under the weight of snow, we’re expecting record floods from the spring runoff, I’ve had to shove at least eight feet of snow off Mongo’s roof this winter (thank heavens, not all at once), and I find myself thinking about global warming with a wistful attitude.
This is the point when the global warming alarmists argue (unconvincingly, at least to me) that “global warming” is an overly simplified term. The proper term should be “climate change” and extremes of weather are yet another symptom of the problem.
To this, I say “bushwah.”
The more I hear about global warming, the more I think it’s to climatology as astrology is to astronomy. It has more traits of a religion than a science. (And as someone who rejects all religions, that’s an insult.) It requires “true belief,” and “heresy!” is a fair description of the reactions of the true believers.
A little while ago, I asked two very simple questions that, I believe, cut to the core of the global warming argument. I never got an adequate answer, so I’m going to repeat them:
1) It seems that every single meteorological or climatological event is cited as evidence of global warming — warmer winters, colder winters, strong hurricane seasons, mild hurricane seasons, droughts, massive rains, and absolutely nothing at all. What sort of event would the global warming advocates recognize as contradicting the theory of global warming?
2) If the earth is, indeed, getting warmer and that is a crisis, what would be the “normal” temperature of the earth? What is this magic “stable point” where everything will be just fine and dandy?
Until I hear some answers to those questions, I’ll stand by Glenn Reynolds: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”