Freakish blizzards and freezing temperatures on the East Coast are making it embarrassing to raise the question of global warming. But the New York Times assures us, in a front-page story, that the blizzards themselves might be evidence of climate change. Or possibly not. The truth is, nobody knows. And yet, after weighing the evidence and admitting that it is scanty, the Times concludes that the snow probably is evidence in favor of the global-warming hypothesis.
In other words, if the government scientists are correct, look for more snow.
Or else, if the snowstorms stop now, look for government scientists to come up with another theory. During the 2008 presidential campaign, we were told that the "anemic winters" in Virginia demonstrated the reality of climate change. Now a muscular winter allegedly demonstrates the same thing.
What does the snow-free season in Vancouver show? Global warming. What does the record heat in Rio illustrate? Global warming. Show us a climatological report that doesn't demonstrate global warming, and we'll take the hypothesis more seriously.
The Times is probably right; we should "look for more snow"-- in one form or another.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!