Dueling Climate Change Positions Raise Question About Accuracy

Published November 29, 2007

The Sentinel’s Nov. 4 article, “Experts warn city water supplies are vulnerable to global warming,” is a perfect illustration of how real-world data mean nothing to global warming alarmists.

The article correctly notes that Grand Junction water managers expect ample water supplies through at least 2050. Nevertheless, the article reports that a New Zealand native appeared recently at the University of Colorado and raised fears to the contrary. So whose position is supported by science?

The July 2004 issue of International Journal of Climatology reports that for most of North America global warming has caused more abundant rainfall, less arid conditions, and that “the terrestrial surface is literally becoming more like a gardener’s greenhouse.”

The May 25, 2007 Geophysical Research Letters reports that soil moisture is rising throughout most of the U.S., and that “Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.”

In July 2007, the Utah Blue Ribbon scientific panel on climate change concluded that snowpack throughout the Intermountain West has not been shrinking at all.

All of these scientific facts mean little to those who seek to raise alarm over phantom crises. Indeed, it is quicker, easier, and more newsworthy to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater than it is educate theater-goers about fire-safety mechanisms. Global warming alarmists too frequently employ similarly alarmist tactics in raising fears over non-existent crises.

James M. Taylor ( [email protected]) is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.