Cold weather

The bitter-cold weather that the U.S. has been experiencing says nothing about the reality of global warming, let alone the possibility of man-made global warming. But I have to admit to finding myself stunned when a Washington Post weather column cited a left-wing advocacy group in discussing it:

So what, then, should the press be doing differently today? In my view, journalists should make an effort to include the broader climate context whenever it is scientifically justified. That means that it might be unnecessary to mention climate change in a story about a short-term cold snap, but could be integral to a story on heavy snowfall.

For perspective on how this might be done, I turned to Joe Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, who has been pushing for more coverage of the links between extreme weather and climate events and global climate change.

I have to admit, I love people who refuse to let logic or scientific integrity stand in the way of a good story. In this case, discuss global warming theory when it's consistent with the weather event and ignore it when it's inconsistent.

Science has survived worse blunders, of course -- although most of those, like the current rush toward man-made global warming theory, were both politically and religiously motivated. The only good point that the global warmists make, and one which cannot be denied, is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has to have an impact. No one can deny that. We can dispute whether it would produce global warming (I happen to doubt it), but it has to have an impact, just like any other chamical shift would. This is why we should be trying to reduce our CO2 output, not the overblown panic bleats from Luddites whose real objective is to return us to a secular version of the 19th Century.

More nukes!