With hurricanes ravaging the U.S. and parts of the Caribbean, the politicization of Harvey and Irma has begun with environmental Cassandras claiming the storms are yet more evidence of climate change as if severe storms are something new for planet Earth.
And yet, did you notice how inexact the science was in predicting precisely where Irma was going to touchdown?
Less than a day before Irma hit Florida, the experts still weren’t certain where or when it would hit or whether it would veer south and miss it completely.
I’m not blaming meteorologists who track these storms but if climate experts can’t predict the immediate flight-paths of a hurricane, how can these same people be so sure of climate change models predicting environmental carnage to take place decades in the future?
It’s hard to be enthused by the track record considering that back in the 1970s, global cooling was the biggest future calamity for the planet but as things heated up in the years following, the term “global warming” replaced “ice age.”
Now as stats show that some parts of the planet that were heating up in the ‘80s have been cooling down, predictors of doom and switched to the the more flexible term “climate change.”
In geological time terms, a millennium is a blink of an eye so next time the climate change contingent makes a connection between weather and impending doom, let’s take such predictions with a shovelful of salt.