If it's in the News, it's in our Polls. Public opinion polling since 2003.

POLITICAL COMMENTARY

Climate Change Alarmism Takes Another Big Hit

A Commentary By Stephen Moore

Throughout the midsection of the United States in February, record frigid temperatures were inconvenient for those politicians who call global warming an "existential threat."

Global warming is already here, we are told. However, it didn't feel like it if you lived in Bismarck, North Dakota, where temperatures fell to decades-low numbers, or in Chicago, Oklahoma City, Dallas or Houston. San Antonio had snow for the first time in recent memory.

The environmental apocalyptics say this doesn't prove anything about what is happening with the planet's climate. And you know what? They are 100% correct.

But last summer, when hundreds of thousands of acres burned in California, that event was prima-facie evidence of global warming, and if you challenged that premise, you faced ridicule as a "denier."

About 10 years ago, when Barack Obama was president, his scientists put out a silly report on climate change, showing that the Great Lakes' ice coverage had fallen to its lowest level in several decades. It was evidence of a warming planet. But the year after the report came out, we had a frigid winter in the Midwest, and the ice cover was abnormally high. This year, we are again experiencing high ice levels on the Great Lakes with the polar vortex.

Whoops. Again, this proves nothing, but the environmentalists made the point in the first place. OK, what's the following argument?

One of the climate change movement's ironies is that it talks obsessively about science and the "scientific consensus." Still, collectively, the adherents suffer from one of the most common scientific reasoning flaws: confirmation bias. This happens when you point to anything supporting a hypothesis as evidence and discount anything contradicting the theory as an outlier. Ice melting means global warming. Ice forming is a natural, expected winter occurrence.

Here is a classic example from The New York Times, which tries to ridicule anyone who would point to the cold weather as a contradiction to the global apocalypse narrative: "Those who deny climate science love to declare that there's no such thing as climate change whenever the weather turns cold."

Wrong. The left declares that there is climate change anytime the weather turns warm or there are forest fires such as those last summer.

Here's another non sequitur from the big green movement, also reported by The New York Times: "In the United States, we're seeing longer wildfire seasons because of hotter, drier conditions, and our hurricanes are becoming more destructive in several ways, including flooding and storm surge. ... We've always had floods, fires and storms, but climate change adds oomph to many weather events."

Is there more "oomph" from severe weather events now than in the past? Generally, no. The historical evidence shows 1) there are no more severe events than there were 50 years ago or 100 years ago (the period for which we have reliable data) and 2) the percentage of people in the world who die from extreme weather events, such as monsoons, forest fires, high temperatures, frigid winters, hurricanes and tornadoes, has been consistently falling for at least a century and is lower today than any time in human history.

There are many reasons for this. First, we have better warning systems for severe weather events. Second, we are better prepared with superior building codes and more weather-resistant materials. And third, technology and human know-how make us better prepared to deal with the "fires next time." We learn and we adapt from the vicissitudes of Mother Nature.

It explains why, even though storms may be getting more destructive and we hear constant warnings of rising sea levels, people are paying higher prices than ever before for beachfront properties in states such as Florida, South Carolina, Virginia and California.

It may sound, to borrow a word from The New York Times, "counterintuitive," but these are the rock-solid facts.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He is the co-author of "Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive the American Economy." To find out more about Stephen Moore and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

See Other Political Commentaries.

See Other Commentaries by Patrick J. Buchanan.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.