I know, I’m going to step in it. But I’ve stepped in it before — I just shuffled my boots through the dirt and I was good. So here goes.

Our billion-dollar water plan in Colorado is based very much on projections that come from the climate change discipline. I have a problem with that. The Southwest corner of the U.S. has had droughts before. Bad ones. Read “Grapes of Wrath.” The narrative was based on events that took place half a century before the climate zealots began to howl at the moon.

Is there anybody else who has some doubts about all this policy making based on “climate change?” They are around, more than you would think. But their voices are stifled. They are “not peer-reviewed.” We already are being asked (read that “forced”) to ante up our resources to pay for reducing carbon dioxide in the air. We’re told that we are saving the planet. In the next breath, the promoters of the climate change agenda have already declared the war lost, so why bother. Does it have anything to do with money?

I am kind of a point A to point B guy. I was one of four or five kids in our high school who went to the principal and negotiated a new diagonal concrete walk that was installed across our L-shaped campus that shortened our class-change walks by a hundred yards. It’s all about the hypotenuse of a triangle — another straight line. That’s important when you have five minutes to hustle to your locker and then to another class.

So, when somebody goes through a maze of math and uses just plain made-up numbers to convince me that anthropogenic climate change is causing our rivers to dry up, I get a little irritated. Last I looked, seven states and a country — 40-plus million people — are sucking on the mammary glands of the Colorado River system. There was a tenth that number when the Law of the River was written 100 years ago. I had a reader admonish me last week that climate science is solid. A certain number of the climate change disciples are even claiming now that humans are 100% to blame for all warming of the planet.

This revelation came to light sometime back when former skeptic Richard Muller released his opinion in the New York Times without it being peer-reviewed. Muller said that the planet has warmed two-point-five degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years. And it is all our fault. He even goes so far as to say that it would be hotter if we hadn’t had volcanos that cooled things. Never mind that those eruptions have spewed many times the amount of accumulated CO2 emissions by humans.

The other shocker in my reading this week was that most of the CO2 crowd are still claiming that 97% of scientists agree on global warming. BS. That number was debunked a decade ago.

When you put the search terms “climate change” into Goggle, you will get 100% pro-climate change returns in the first 10 pages. Dissenters are not allowed. I found it extremely difficult to come up with a search that got me to data I already knew was there.

Out of curiosity, I went to the charts, the Montrose temperature history charts. Are we really burning up here on the Western Slope? Well, the 1905 to 2010 average high temperature for any given year was 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual low was 33.9. That puts the mean temp at 52.6 degrees. There have been some spikes in both directions. And you could cherry pick any number of short periods and prove any point you want. But over 115 years, the numbers will not vary much.

So, is it a little warmer, by a single degree, now then it was 30, 50, 70 years ago? Yes, I would agree. But it is also cooler. Nighttime temps, as a rule, are down a bit (it is called radiational cooling) — even cherry picking will not change that. Are we in a drought period? No question. But blaming drought on global warming (oops), climate change, is like cranking up the air conditioning while your fireplace heats up the house. That one degree did not burn our forest and range.

My A-to-B straight line goes from 330 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere 30 years ago to 417 now. We are told that this ups the amount of moisture retained in the sample by as much as 10%. The normal water vapor component is about 4%. Ten percent of that is point-one percent, taking the saturation point to 4.1%. But the saturation point for water vapor still has a ceiling and the moisture will condense when that is reached. Then it will rain or snow and things will cool. (How was your weekend?) That balance has kept another ice age at bay for millennia.

Just the fact that our state government places so much dependence on warming as it makes its water management plans really points up what the whole climate thing is all about. Attach climate change to your project and you can get money. I’m trying to figure how to blame warming for my golf score.

There is a school of thought that says Muller only denied his climate change skepticism because he needed recognition (and money). They rail at his lack of peer review. But you know what peer review is? It is where all the club members read your paper and make you a member because they agree with you. It doesn’t promote critical thinking, but it will get you grants.

So, what do we do about our precious water supply? We manage it, not based on a financial, political, or emotional consideration. Or by taking up the climate change cry. No, we manage it by maintaining our share by whatever means necessary. If that means developing more storage in the mountains to keep our shares here in our state, then we ought to do it. If it means passing legislation to prohibit Wall Street investors from removing our life blood for money, then we ought to do it. Whatever we do, “we don’t let that water off the hill.”

Load comments