The Global Warming Game

Few matters of supposed “science” have been as politicized as global warming has been in recent years. True to form, the “true believer” zealots of the political left consider global warming an unassailable “fact” of science. Heck, I’ve even been chastized (and labeled a “conservative”) by a left-wing academic — a philosophy professor (go figure) — for questioning this dogma.

If it were really a matter of scientific fact (and not a political agenda), one would not expect large numbers of practitioners of the applied sciences to question the claims of the church of global warming.

But they do.

The Heartland Institute cites several dozen webbed articles from just such sources, as does CO2 Science. Even Richard Muller, physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley has written an article on the topic.

These voices would be enough to persuade many folks that the “fact” of global warming (and its associated catechism) is not necessarily as scientifically established as advertised. But another anomaly recently emerged on the landscape of global warming “science” as the 2006 hurricane season drew to a close.

In April of 2006, “experts” at Colorado State University, and in May, “experts” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted a season at least as bad as the previous year’s (2005) — both suggesting that the “science” of global warming made their predictions all-the-more reliable.

Now, the soothsayers of weather have been neither particularly credible nor “scientific” from where I've sat most of my adult life. But when they suggest that their predictions are more credible and “scientific” because they are based in part on the “fact” of global warming — and then for those predictions to turn out to be utterly wrong — goes a long way in revealing just how truly “scientific” and meaningful the global warming agenda truly is in the real world.

As if that weren’t enough, the post-season re-spinning of global warming's “scientific” role in “causing” a milder season further indicts the whole thing as more of a political agenda than a “fact” of science.

To recap, prior to the 2006 hurricane season, we were told by the “experts” that because of global warming, we should expect a heavy season not unlike that of 2005, and after the (remarkably mild) 2006 hurricane season, we were told by more “experts” that it was because of global warming that we had such a mild season.

Genuine science doesn’t allow double-standards. Genuine politics does. You do the math.