Mark Steyn properly roasts global warming chicken littles
Posted on February 4, 2007
The master at work: What’s so hot about fickle science?
From the “Environmental News Network”: “Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told.” “The science is solid,” says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.
“The science is solid,” says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.“The science is really solid,” says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. “The science is very solid.”
And at that point, on “Larry King Live” last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: “Heidi says the science is solid and I can’t criticize her because she never says what science she’s talking about.”
Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed’s heart at an Al Gore lecture.
Alas, the science isn’t so solid. In the ’70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers “climate change.” If it’s hot, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s cold, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because “climate change” is accelerating out of control.
The silliest argument is the anecdotal one: “You only have to look outside your window to see that climate change is happening.” Outside my window in northern New England last week, it was minus 20 Fahrenheit. Very cold. Must be the old climate change kicking in, right? After all, December was very mild. Which was itself a sign of climate change. A few years ago, the little old lady who served as my town’s historian for many decades combed over the farmers’ diaries from two centuries ago that various neighbors had donated to her: From the daily records of 15 Januarys, she concluded that three were what we’d now regard as classic New Hampshire winters, ideal for lumbering or winter sports; eight had January thaws, and four had no snow at all. This was in the pre-industrial 18th century.
Today, faced with eight thaws and four entirely snowless Januarys, we’d all be running around shrieking that the great Gaia is displeased. Wake up and smell the CO2, people! We need to toss another virgin into the volcano. A virgin SUV, that is. Brand-new model, straight off the assembly line, cupholders never been used. And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole’s classic recording: ”Unsustainable, that’s what you are.”
As we say in the north country, if you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes. And if you don’t like the global weather, wait three decades. For the last century or so, the planet has gone through very teensy-weensy warming trends followed by very teensy-weensy cooling trends followed by very teensy-weensy warming trends, every 30 years or so. And, even when we’re in a pattern of “global warming” or “global cooling,” the phenomenon is not universally observed — i.e., it’s not “global,” or even very local. In the Antarctic, the small Palmer peninsula has got a little warmer but the main continent is colder. Up north, the western Arctic’s a little warmer but the eastern Arctic’s colder. So, if you’re an eastern polar bear, you’re in clover — metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you’re a western polar bear, you’ll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to Al Gore.
And, if you really don’t like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, “Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?” So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about “unsustainable development”: If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards’ new house must be wreaking.
The question is whether what’s happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town’s early settlers understood it. Or whether it’s something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that’s a no-brainer.
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Mark Steyn properly roasts global warming chicken littles”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Global warming. Yeah, we need more global warming. It’s -15 F where I live right now and I demand more global warming. So get out there and buy those SUVs, people!
Glib, your sarcasm doesn’t succeed in masking just how uninformed
about the actual science you are. In 50 years, when rising ocean
levels have wiped out half of Florida, and the American heartland
has undergone complete desertification, the anti-science deniers
out there will still be crying “no proof! no proof!”
Thing is, there can be no proof against people who refuse to
accept facts which contradict what they believe.
“Alas, the science isn’t so solid. In the ’70s, it was predicting a new ice age.”
No, actually it wasn’t. One article in Newsweek does not come close to the nearly 1,000 published science papers on the subject.
Nor does one article in Newsweek cover how much more information has been collected, nor the improved computer modeling capabilites, not the fact that we keep setting records with hotter years.
“The question is whether what’s happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town’s early settlers understood it. ”
What’s happening now is outside the boundaries of anything has happened in the known history of the planet.
“Wake up and smell the CO2, people! ”
This author does know that waking up and smelling the CO2 would kill him, right?
–
Exposure to 10% for 1.5 minutes has caused eye flickering, excitation and increased muscle activity and twitching. Concentrations greater than 10% have caused difficulty in breathing, impaired hearing, nausea, vomiting, a strangling sensation, sweating, stupor within several minutes and loss of consciousness within 15 minutes. Exposure to 30% has quickly resulted in unconsciousness and convulsions. Several deaths have been attributed to exposure to concentrations greater than 20%.
–
to set the record straight Greenland didn’t earn the name by being green. Iceland was nicer so early settlers changed the names, luring the suckers of to Greenland to freeze their you know whats off while the icelanders enjoys a considerable warmer Iceland. while I respect Steyn alot, it would be nice if he could get his facts straight if his going to base part of his argument on them.
“Glib, your sarcasm doesn’t succeed in masking just how uninformed
about the actual science you are.”
And Gary, I suppose you REALLY KNOW the science? BS. You know nothing. No more than I do. Only difference is that I can smell Popular Delusion and the Madness of Crowds. You’ve been sucked into the nonsensical hysteria.
“In 50 years, when rising ocean
levels have wiped out half of Florida, and the American heartland
has undergone complete desertification, the anti-science deniers
out there will still be crying “no proof! no proof!â€
Care to put a wager on this ridiculous, baseless prediction? After reading this rubbish, I’m inclined to think that this is a parody…let me know if you were going for satire. If so, good job.
“Thing is, there can be no proof against people who refuse to
accept facts which contradict what they believe.”
Oh, and what you wrote above is “proof?” Of what? That you’ve been duped by fearmongers who make millions on their little invention?
For all the talk from the Left about how conservatives deal in “fear” as a political tool, I say that the “progressives” have the market cornered. At least the Right is concerned about real dangers — you know, like people that love to chop the heads off Christian schoolgirls for the hell of it — while the Left invents spectres of doom that they remain wholly unaccountable to when their stupid screaming is proven…Survey Says!…XXX.
Hmmm. After reading the various comments on Steyn’s piece, a wave of nostalgia swept over me as I recalled the Lilliputian war against Blefuscu, a lengthy conflict that has arisen between the big-enders and little-enders depending upon which side of a boiled egg one must crack in order to eat it. Also the wars between Catholics and Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries.
Ted Slack
“to set the record straight Greenland didn’t earn the name by being green. Iceland was nicer so early settlers changed the names, luring the suckers of to Greenland to freeze their you know whats off while the icelanders enjoys a considerable warmer Iceland.”
Actually, neither account is true. But your point still stands that it’s wrong to use a factually incorrect story as support for a position.
Brian, then what is the correct reason? I put down what I know about that topic, if I’m wrong then I would really like to know what the correct reason was.