The Political Inquirer

The Nation, a conservative, Canadian newspaper ran an article on Monday entitled, “Forget Global Warming: Welcome to the New Ice Age”.  The author, Lorne Gunter, argues that new data from the US National Climactic Data Center is evidence for global cooling, something we haven’t talked about since the 70’s.

Gunter cites various bits of evidence for his theory, and from these stories, we are supposed to conclude that the effects global warming alarmists have been predicting are overstated if not completely wrong.  However, Gunter’s evidence, while emotionally persuasive, is anecdotal–something even he admits is a weakness:

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

Nevertheless, he continues:

if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

So this is the crucial point we must consider.  Gunter is arguing that because alarmists use anecdotal evidence to support their disaster scenarios, it is perfectly reasonable to respond with statistics about low temperatures, thickening ice, and lots of snowfall.  Moreover–this is where Gunter makes his jump–because the alarmists’ evidence is neutralized by our own, global warming may turn out to be far more benign than environmentalists will admit.

What evidence does he have, and how strong is his argument?  Well, let’s look at a couple of those instances Gunter brought up and then consider his final conclusion.

1)  “The average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”

A cold January, while annoying, is just another data point to add to a graph that incorporates millions of other data points and compiles them into an average.  It is not sufficient evidence of a coming Ice Age, nor is it enough to debunk the alarmist’s theories.  It is just a number, like so many other numbers, and despite the fact that it bucks the trend, it does not disprove that trend.  And let me be very clear about what I mean by ‘the trend’.  I mean the multi-decade rise in  temperatures around the globe that has resulted in  .7ºC  warming in the past 150 years.  Does that mean we should expect a storm surge to submerge Manhattan?  No.  But a bad January doesn’t mean New Yorkers should be expecting glaciers either.

2)   Gunter also calimed the Artic Sea Ice, which was said to be disappearing in the summer, is “actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.”

Remember that Gunter used this to debunk the worries environmentalists were circulating about summer arctic ice.  The fact that there is a lot of arctic sea ice now makes sense.  There should be.  Not even the craziest alarmist was claiming winter sea ice would disappear.   The fact that it is thicker “in parts” is practically negligible.  What parts? How much total area do those parts cover?  How much of the ice is thinner than it once was?  These necessary questions are never answered by Gunter or any sources he quotes.

3)  Lastly, he says “Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966…In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950. ”

In case you didn’t know it, snow can fall at a wide range of temperatures.  It does not need to be colder for there to be more snow.   Chicago gets about 2 ft of snow a winter, but averages temperatures in the single digits.  Buffalo is not as cold, but Buffalonians regularly snowshoe to work.  If they drive, they drive the plows.  Snow cover is a question of precipitation, and analysts have predicted global warming would bring about fluctuations in precipitation rates.  I know we’re talking about snow, but global warming effects that too.

So do these conditions refute the global warming thesis?  The answer is most definitely no.   And while Gunter correctly criticizes global warming alarmists for using every slight oscillation in animal behavior as evidence for an immident disaster, he forgets there is real science behind the environmentalists’ claims.  The world has warmed. CO2 has something to do with it.  And .7ºC of warming will change how this planet functions.   Scientists don’t need recordings of early blooming flowers or sightings of robins farther north than usual to prove that.

When dealing with crises, especially ones of unknown magnitude (i.e. global warming), the coolest heads most often prevail.  I am in no way claiming weather disasters of biblical scale are on our doorstep, but I am asking those who deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming to take a second and check out a scientific journal from time to time.   And no, Townhall.com does not count.

That’s Gunter’s real problem.  He correctly sees weakness in the alarmists’ case but counters with his own weak efforts.  What is worse, he could be interpreted to be say that his own evidence is sufficient for debunking the mountains of evidence supporting global warming and the effects of C02.   Few scientists are saying Al Gore is completely right on all fronts, and yet there is good reason to believe life on this planet will be effected by pollution and natural climatic cycles.  We may not know to what extent this will change how we behave, but it’s safe to say global warming is not a hoax made up by the New York Times.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289