John Tierney had an excellent column in the Times yesterday. He writes:
I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction. You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change – and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet. Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather. But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).
Tierney’s larger point is that no matter what happens, global warming will be blamed. Drought? Global warming. Flood? Global warming. The problem is further illuminated by a follow-up post at his blog, where he links to this straightforward question from Roger Pielke Jr.:
What behavior of the climate system could hypothetically be observed over the next 1, 5, 10 years that would be inconsistent with the current consensus on climate change?
I suspect we are unlikely to get a consensus response to this–the risk is too high. As it is, the environmental movement has rigged the game. Any extreme weather is attributed to global warming. And when it’s cold outside, that’s when they remind you–no single event can be attributed to global warming, unless it furthers their case.
