Regardless of the study’s motives, the data on which it is based seem limited and the analysis of the numbers tends toward the usual warming alarmists’ predictions of doom. The warmer, wetter weather will mean more flooding and the loss of income from New Hampshire’s snow and ice-related recreational industries, the study says.
MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has endured scathing criticism from his fellow climate researchers for being what they call a “denier.” Lindzen acknowledges that average global temperatures have been rising since 1800 but the increase is slight, just 1.6 degrees — and that’s after 150 years of heavy use of fossil fuels so the human factor in that temperature rise is minimal.
Lindzen and the few others willing to challenge the climate change “believers” demonstrate that the science is far from “settled.” There should always be room in scientific inquiry for new ways of thinking, for challenges to existing orthodoxy.
Indeed, “orthodoxy” seems a good term for the state of climate studies today, which have more characteristics of religion than science. There are fundamental commandments which must be observed and those who question or raise doubts are labeled outcasts and heretics.
The major tenets of the climate change religion are these:
Earth’s average temperature is rising.
n These rising temperatures are primarily the result of human activity.
n Rising global temperatures will have consequences, which are uniformly negative.
n Altering human activity can slow global climate change.
The enormous cost of these changes in human lifestyles is worth the comparatively small benefit of reducing the rate of temperature increase.
There is little question that Earth’s climate is changing. But our home planet’s climate has never been stable. Change is its fundamental nature. Had humanity never evolved from the ape-like creatures that once wandered the African savanna, Earth’s climate would still be changing without us.
But who then would the warming alarmists have to blame?