The Global Warming Catch-22

Eric Boehlert is so smart. The Lotion Czar of Media Matters points out that conservatives are a bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes because we don’t know the difference between “climate” and “weather.” In fact, if you subscribe to his Twitter feed, you’ll be treated to all sorts of enlightenment, such as this Tweet:

“Rain washes away much needed fresh snow in Vancouver.” Welcome to ‘Global Warming Olympics.

Alas, so much for the difference between weather and climate.

Whether or not “climate change” is happening and whether or not it is the result of human activity, the best thing that can happen is for a rigorous debate about it to occur. But any time someone suggests that the “settled science” isn’t really all that settled, they are called an “idiot” by geniuses like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and compared to Holocaust deniers by Al Gore. What are the warm-mongers so afraid of that they result to preposterous ad hominem attacks whenever someone disputes their incredibly shaky “settled science”?

Looking back at recent scandals that have rocked the Climate Change Industry, it should be obvious that skeptics of global warming theories have had a point for a long time. And while global warming remains an open question for scientists, those who poke holes in conventional wisdom should not be silenced. If no one speaks up against a theory, that leads to dangerous groupthink. Look at the Bay of Pigs, the run-up to the Iraq Warm, and the Challenger disaster if you need proof of the disastrous results that can occur if no one speaks up and challenges the conventional wisdom of the time.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a “Cap and Trade” bill that would cost a ton of money, impose new regulations on businesses, and increase energy prices. There are arguments for and against this proposal, but should we really pass this thing without anyone questioning the science behind the theory of global warming? Especially when the world’s foremost climate science center, the CRU, has been rocked by such scandals as ClimateGate? If the science is really settled, then what harm could a little bit of back-and-forth between sides do, especially when all that money is on the line?

Maybe guys like Eric Boehlert really are ahead of the curve and climate change skeptics are unenlightened dolts. But if so, why can’t the “Settled Science” guys debate the issue and prove how foolish we are? But if the skeptics are right, and the “settled” climate science is just a hothouse flower that will wilt and dry up under scrutiny, then maybe we should think twice before imposing new regulations on businesses and new costs on consumers.