Climate Change

Here we go again! The continued embarrassment of the climate and weather prognosticators at NOAA does little more than verify what we have all thought. Predicting weather is not as easy as picking nags off the green sheet at your local horse track. It is certainly more profitable. Science Daily from October 11, 2007 had an article about predictions for the upcoming winter. All of the information offered was supplied by NOAA.

As climate prediction goes, this is a very short range outlook. Unlike projections of fifty to a hundred years, this one is well within the parameters of reasonable predictive possibility. The above link will take you to the piece and reveal the 100% reversal from forecast to actuality. The ten bullet-points focus on various regions and emphasize their outlook. Just like “all politics is local,” we fully realize that the same may be said about weather. The massive snows which need to be removed from our personal driveways color our thinking on weather generally. I am far more concerned about my $400 heating bill than conditions nationwide. Speaking anecdotally, we enjoyed, according to the weather service, more rain and snow here in the Ozarks during February than any other time in recorded history. Unlike 2007, we had not one but three separate ice storms in January and February.

They also provided a graphic to depict the anticipated continental rise in temperatures for the winter which closely follow the template offered by the proponents of “global warming.” Pick your region on the map and consider how it matches the reality of your individual circumstance. I am certain that Ev, in Maine, is delighted to find the snows and cold he fought all winter were a figment of his imagination. My recently widowed sister-in-law in Chicago is now faced with problems of coping alone with declining temperatures and snow removal all contrary to predictions. With the exception of the Pacific Northwest, nearly every region was affected by these predictions.

It appears from the final paragraph of the article that these scientists are relying on complex computer modeling for their conclusions. The fallibility of this technique has been demonstrated repeatedly. In an earlier post, I asserted that these people don’t have windows in their buildings. We have signs in nature which are far more accurate in anticipating change in the weather than these guys come up with.

I had a friend in Arizona who relied upon an old Apache for his preparations for the upcoming winter season. He proved so reliable that my friend finally asked him what he used as a barometer. The aged warrior replied it was very simply a matter of observation of the world around him. “White man pile much wood on porch – winter be bad.” So much for wooly worms. (Or wooly bears for those of you in the great northeast.)

I have become convinced I would rather trust this relative of Geronimo than the multi- billion dollar funding of the expert government climatologists. Their greatest enemy today in the information age is the dreaded “archive.” One cannot throw out gratuitous predictions with any assurance they will not come back to haunt you. Various search engines pave the avenue to truth. Or, at least they allow us to verify that which has been stated but not confirmed. This emphasizes what I have encouraged you to do all along – check it for yourself. Weather, politics, church history, health, or anything else which seems acceptable may, upon cursory examination, be easily proven false.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon