Climate change's failing doctrine obvious

Here's another: If a doctrine falls, will enough believers admit they were wrong and withdraw support for policies associated with it?

The “doctrine” of global warming, now called “climate change,” suffered a severe blow last week as much of Europe was buried in record amounts of snow. “Experts” who believe in global warming — uh,climate change — tried to make a distinction between weather, which they said was what happens today, and climate, which is long term. Most of it fell on deaf — and cold — ears as growing numbers rely on their own “lying eyes.”

Writing in London's Daily Mail, columnist David Rose analyzed recent scientific data amassed by eminent climate scientists: “The bitter weather afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years.” Rose cites data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, which found that “Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 percent, since 2007.” This challenges “some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as their claim that the North Pole will be free of ice by the summer of 2013.”

During the climate summit in Copenhagen, more than 150 scientists wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The letter begins, “Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery' — the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know.”

The scientists challenge 10 main claims of climate-change true believers, writing that “there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.”

That seems reasonable, but politicians in Europe and America want to rush through restrictions on how we live in order to seize more power. As new scientific evidence adds to the body of information, their power grab is in peril. The hurry-up offense is being used to rush through legislation. But the defense is on the offense, and the offense is being forced to poorly play defense.

We should decrease our reliance on petroleum — not because of “climate change” but to deprive oil-producing nations of money too many use to underwrite terrorism. This should satisfy both global warming disciples and deniers and make America and Europe less dependent on nations that wish to destroy our liberty. But threats to liberty can also be found in Parliament and Congress.

The falling doctrines make so much noise that only those without hearing fail to notice.