By David French
Friday, October 07, 2016
America’s long hurricane drought is over. The drought was
so long that just this summer, the Washington
Post’s weather editor, Jason Samenow, felt compelled to write a piece
making the case that the absence of
hurricanes was “terrifying.” No, I’m not making this up. A major hurricane had
not hit the east coast in more than a decade, and he was concerned that
Americans might grow complacent, and that increasing wealth and higher
populations on the coast would make the next hurricane that much more
destructive.
But he also wrote to assure liberal Americans that the
hurricane drought absolutely, positively did not mean that climate change
wasn’t real:
Adam Sobel, a climate scientist at
Columbia University, cautions that the drought in no way invalidates global
warming predictions or the expectation that storms will grow more intense in
future decades. The “notion that the hurricane drought in the Atlantic has
somehow disproved the consensus projections of climate science is wrong,
because the drought is still a relatively short-term fluctuation in a single
basin, while the projections are for long-term global trends,” he writes on his
blog.
Okay, sure, everyone knows that short-term weather
fluctuations have little to do with long-term climate trends, but someone needs
to tell the climate-change alarmists. Because weather, in the form of Hurricane
Matthew, is suddenly proof of climate change again. The Huffington Post pointed to Matthew’s “unusual” strength as a
climate-change indicator. A Slate
piece made the same point, arguing that “October hurricanes aren’t supposed to
be this scary.” Newsweek claimed that
Matthew “signals the devastation that lies ahead.”
The problem for alarmists, as always, is that the true
devastation is always just over the horizon. The present reality never
justifies the language of crisis, and as time marches on, more and more of the
most hysterical predictions fail. Who can forget this
incredible gem from Good Morning
America in 2008?
(You’ll note that GMA was predicting the nightmare world
of . . . 2015.)
Global-warming activists have always faced a three-fold
challenge in coaxing Americans into taking drastic action to “save the
climate.” First, they need to prove that man-made activity has a material
impact on global climate. Second, they need to prove that this impact is
harmful to human life. And third, they need to prove that the cure isn’t worse
than the disease — that the economic sacrifices will be worth it.
Unfortunately, the debate focuses almost entirely on the
first point, while environmentalists actively and energetically undermine their
own case for the other two.
For the sake of argument, let’s presume the truth of the
first assertion, that mankind has a material effect on global climate. Let’s
presume that fossil-fuel use and other forms of human activity can raise the
planet’s temperature by the few degrees that many climate scientists predict.
After that, the prediction game gets truly dicey.
For example, the very same Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change document that found that the world had “likely” entered the
warmest decades of the last 1,400 years also found “no significant observed
trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.” Indeed,
regarding the droughts-storms-floods model of climate alarmism, the document
frequently stated that data are lacking or that previous dire assertions are
“no longer supported.” As one commentator noted, “the IPCC puts to rest general
yet popular claims that climate change already results in increasing floods,
droughts or hurricanes, and invalidates claims that climate change already
risks the above listed catastrophic scenarios, as such claims are both
scientifically unsupportable and outside the scientific consensus.”
But rest assured, disaster is coming, and so Americans are asked to make economic sacrifices
that will make . . . no difference in global climate.
Wait. What? Is the environmentalist Left really asking
Americans to lose their jobs for no meaningful reason? Well, yes. For example,
the White House delayed and then ultimately stopped the Keystone XL pipeline
despite the fact that the State Department declared that it would have
“negligible impact” on the environment. In other cases, the administration has
pushed through costly regulations that would reduce emissions by a total amount
equal to less than two weeks of Chinese output over the next 15 years.
The bottom line is that no American wants to lose his job
or sacrifice his family’s prosperity if it won’t forestall an emergency that’s
always in the future — an emergency that’s never quite dire enough to get a
single celebrity, activist, or government official to scale back his own
extraordinarily high-carbon lifestyle. As the University of Tennessee’s Glenn
Reynolds is fond of saying, he’ll believe that a crisis exists when the
alarmists start acting like a crisis
exists.
We always knew the Atlantic hurricane drought would end.
Hurricanes have been hitting the American coast since before there were
Americans. But as we pray for the victims and prepare to help the survivors,
let’s remember that there is still no reason to sacrifice American prosperity
and American jobs for the sake of sheer speculation and elite virtue-signaling.
No one wants to go broke for “solutions” that won’t stop climate change.
No comments:
Post a Comment