(Quietly) Changing the Terms of Reference

We seem to be at the tail end of one of the most brutal winters of recent memory. Coincidentally, have you noticed that lately there is no mention of the phrase ‘global warming’, even from amongst the most ardently environmentally-alarmed?

It’s a tactical necessity, of course. The alarm du jour is now climate unpredicabilityWhere this leaves the IPCC on the accuracy of its projections and predictions, is anyone’s guess. But, they appear undeterred. Here’s what has, though:

Britain’s prestigious Met Office, formerly one of the chief scientific bulwarks of scary weather predictions conceded recently that there has been no measurable increase in global mean temperatures for about 16 years. So, the IPCC’s latest update (report) no longer stresses “warming”, preferring the infinitely more malleable concept of unpredictable weather changes.

This tidies up the problematic fact that essentially none of their fancy weather models and scenarios have (or apparently, are) coming to pass. With just a dollop of logic larceny, it ‘reverses field’ on the previous position that man was causing the earth to unduly warm, in favour of the notion that he’s making weather variable and unpredictable.

Hmmm. Is (or was) this ever “news”? I’m no climate scientist, as most of us aren’t, but I doubt it. How does this development impact the “scientific consensus” we heard so much about? Did that change? Apparently not, if you’re truly a dedicated declinist (and largely anti-empirical, for good measure); we still need drastic measures, even if we’re not exactly sure what we’re trying to prevent.

Seems kind of weird to me, though; when the climate debate gained it’s original footing, it was the ‘deniers’ who were obstructing discourse with the notion that weather was infinitely ever-changing and unpredictable.

This entry was posted in Thinking out loud. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.