The strange life of policy issues has one replacing another as the two year presidential marathon campaign closes. Supposedly vital issues aren't resolved, just shed. Global warming, for example, was on every TV screen this time a year ago - Climate change 'Cold War' looms, Climate change a 'mega disaster', Climate outlook 'beyond grim' - but now come back of the newspaper stories of record early snows from the Alps to the Cascades (of the Pacific Northwest). The October cold snap in Florida beats a 150 year record (though I must suspiciously wonder who was keeping accurate modern records in 1858).
It's been really cold in Alaska this year. The glaciers are filling up. What does that mean? Apparently, definable global warming slowed or stopped a decade ago. Is that true? Why aren't we hearing about the reasons?
Yes, of course we shouldn't look to daily or even yearly figures for support for macro-climate theories. But, if that is so, why were they used to explain the significance of hurricanes and warming weather phenomena only a couple of years ago--until the temperatures dropped?
In general, I support many policies that also are backed by people alarmed by global warming. Plug-in hybrid cars. Experiments with algae as an alternate fuel. Government encouragement of solar. Certainly nuclear power and natural gas. (However, I also support "clean coal" and drilling off-shore, in Alaska and in shale to help us replace imported oil.) Yet the global warming analysis is a separate matter. It has been used to harass people and make them feel guilty for a lifestyle of abundance and to promote increased government control over people's lives. In other words, it has an element of liberal ideology about it. If the assumptions behind the global warming analysis are wrong, we risk losing common ground for policies that would promote greater energy conservation, developing new fuel sources and holding down costs for consumers. It would be nice therefore to see greater skepticism--and honesty--on this topic.
