Like I said…

TIME magazine sounds like the fat guy at the dinner buffet trying to justify the bag of marshmallows he ate in the car on the way over. “I’ll definitely live longer if I get stuck in the elevator on the way up.” They’re all missing the point. You can find “some evidence” to retroactively prove any possible weather outcome. It’s pretty clear the snowstorms have caught many in the “scientific community” by surprise.

Here’s the only sense to come out of the liberal hand wringing that Mother Nature has just inadvertently created on the left:

“Ultimately, however, it’s a mistake to use any one storm – or even a season’s worth of storms – to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this month, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate. Of course, that doesn’t help you much when you’re trying to locate your car under a foot of powder.”

Uncertainty. This is the entire point of opposition to the absurd increase in government authority that these alarmists want to put in place – and cap and trade definitely falls under the ridiculous alarmist category. They don’t know what’s going to happen. They’re just running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off trying to convince us that we have to adopt all sorts of ludicrous “solutions” we know for sure will damage the economy and empower bureaucrats. We’re less sure about the actual environmental impact but never mind. It’s windy out. Jump off this bridge and worry about the consequences after we’re falling.

Of course Republicans are going to exploit the snow storms, just like the left exploited the heavy hurricane seasons not so long ago. The alarmists are constantly adjusting their numbers and predictions to keep up with the unpredictability of Mother Nature. It’s hard to find anyone serious on the right or left who will outright dispute warming trends. That’s where the agreement ends and the spinning starts. Will it continue, is man responsible for it, can man do anything about it even if we are responsible, what is the real coming impact, can we modify that impact, what will the impact from various alternative energy solutions be, etc.

The uncertainty about those questions comes through crystal clear in this article, intentionally or not. The left and the “scientific community” are tone deaf to this. I use quotes because science is about the search for the true nature of our environment, not the quest for policy initiatives. That’s where the science ends and the politics begins. Few in the media or the government ever bother to draw that line. Just because one is against cap and trade for example does not automatically put them in the global warming denier category. Unfortunately, so many “in the know” refuse to have a sensible discussion about this. They’d rather spotlight the extremes and burn all opposition at the stake in their quest for a command economy driven not by consumer demand but by government fiat.