The new Obama administration promises to put climate change front and center in policy making over the next four years. His chief rivals in the Presidential campaign, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, wholeheartedly endorse this view. They saw the polar bears!
But what if when no one was watching, 50 or 100 years ago - polar bears were facing the same predicaments they are today? Does anyone know for sure they weren't?
It's December, and Winter is upon us. In the Upper Midwest, record snowfalls and cold temperatures have descended upon the region. For the fifth consecutive year, there are no signs, absolutely none, on the first day of Winter, that global warming is changing our climate.
This week, no less of a wintry wonderland than Las Vegas, that's right, Las Vegas, received 3.6" of snow. Perhaps the polar bears should find their way to Nevada for protection.
Meanwhile in Washington, whose inhabitants always know what is better for us than we do ourselves, new laws will come into effect very soon to protect us from the coming disaster of an overheating globe. Will we remember to thank them with cash contributions this Christmas?
Seriously, however, these proponents of using science to protect the earth, have forgotten something very important - the scientific method is incomplete and, worthless, without injecting the null hypothesis and disproving it.
Al Gore has spent many years telling the world that we should accept his theory as scientific fact, by rejecting science itself. He denies there is any null hypothesis - or at least that it is even worthy of our consideration.
And the world listens, and adopts Al Gore's views without ever considering what science he is basing his agenda upon, what science he actually knows, or even how he fared on the SATs.
So what happens if Al is wrong? Rather than hastily constructing new ways of saving the world from a coming disaster, perhaps we should be considering the consequences of making a very serious error.
Comments