- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
Climate theology and its exponents
Question of the Day
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” begins the April 28, 1975, Newsweek article reprinted today on the opposite page. But this wasn’t a prediction of global warming. A new Ice Age worried Newsweek and its reporter, Peter Gwynne.
Future scenarios of widespread devastation, famine and starvation loomed because the Earth was getting cooler. “[T]he present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average,” Mr. Gwynne wrote. The scientific community was abuzz with fear. Melting the ice caps or diverting Arctic rivers to warm the globe were proposed.
It never amounted to anything. Temperatures began rising again in 1975, reversing the cooling trend that began in 1940. As for the food scarcity which was “destined” to impact “the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North,” plus the tropics, the opposite has happened. We’ve seen an explosion in agricultural productivity to sustain the world’s burgeoning population.
We reprint this false alarm not to suggest that the current arguments about global warming are wrong. We don’t know them to be right or wrong; there is too much scientific uncertainty clouding the issue. Rather, we simply wish to point out that scientists and the journalists and government agencies who cite them have been wrong on the subject of climate change before, quite recently in fact.
The judgment of the scientific community — much less the judgment of international political entities or scribblers who cite them as authorities — should not control this debate. “The science is settled,” say the proponents; the consensus exists. But too often the disclaimers and scientific qualifiers get edited out of those press releases. And science is not about consensus in any event. It is about testing hypotheses and building evidence through experimentation.
In 1975, Newsweek’s correspondent was convinced that politicians would fail to prevent the coming Ice Age. “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality,” Mr. Gwynne intoned darkly. Thankfully, they did not take the global-cooling bait.
The global-warming enthusiasts who now control this debate may or may not turn out to be this generation’s Peter Gwynnes. But clearly they have been far too quick in their rush to judgment. Time and scientific evidence will tell the true story behind climate change. The policy solutions, if any are needed, will follow.
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- Washington Times strikes content and marketing partnership with Redskins
- D.C. seeks stay in order striking down ban on handguns in public
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- CURL: Obama, staffers not even pretending any more
- DCCC raising money on suggestion Obama impeachment is imminent
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Federal judge rules D.C. ban on handguns in public is unconstitutional
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq