Apparently, long-range climate predictions are more about politics and wishful thinking than science. And  regardless of how the mid-term elections turn out, climate-change confusion by the general public and the potential benefits it can reap will loom large on the horizon of ruling-class opportunists.

Right now, a big concern in the atmospheric science community is the fact of a global warming “hiatus.” For more than 15 years, average global temperatures have remained rather steady, despite confident climate predictions to the contrary.  Sophisticated climate models developed and run by the most expert researchers in the field spewed forth reams of details on a future warmer world. Yet, in reality, what transpired was a statistical flat-line, nada, a no-show on a terrestrial heatwave.

Not to worry, though, we're assured that the planet will surely heat up, unless middle-class Americans in particular acquiesce to their betters in government and academia and stop using so much fossil-fuel derived energy.

But, in more reasonable times, with so many urgent issues to address like deadly disease, terrorism, and tyrannical imperialism, the powers-that-be would welcome a reprieve from what was forecast to be an imminent disaster. Perhaps, even if a disaster eventually results from our affordable, comfortable living, at least for now we have time to deal with the more pressing worries.

But why doesn’t reason prevail?  Why do calls for cuts in “carbon pollution” become more shrill, and warnings of climate doom more dire?

For the answer, look at the situation from the pompous politicians’ perspective. Here’s an issue with lots of room to stretch the truth while conducive to tremendous emotional appeal like save-the-future-for-our-children kind of appeal.  For a potential tragedy pending so far in the future, the consequences of “doing nothing” are limited only by a wild imagination. The taxpayer dollars directed to a dubious atmospheric appraisal is a lawmaker's dream for raking in the dough to maintain control, direct money to pet projects, buy votes, or just keep campaign contributors flush with cash.

On the other hand, wishful thinking is the purview of academic theoreticians. On the cloistered college campuses across the country, theory trumps reality. So, if real-world global average temperatures have departed from what ex cathedra scholars divined through climate models, guess what needs to be aligned.

Climate models, which have been largely conceived and nurtured at the universities, are impressive tools of the trade in atmospheric science. They are remarkable achievements in our understanding and practical simulation of a complex dynamic system. But, when the predictions of the models don’t match reality, it’s not the reality that needs adjusting.

Yet, many defensive tactics have prevailed from the schoolyard to maintain the authority of the academy. Perhaps the most persistent is name-calling. But, if a research scientist uses the term “climate change denier” or, even sillier, “climate denier,” to defend their territory, they are not just revealing their immaturity, they are also being dishonest. And dishonesty has no place in good scientific practice which requires integrity.

What about the claim that the debate is over and the conclusions are settled? As an atmospheric scientist working in the field since the 1970s, I know there never was a rigorous “debate” over whether humans are substantially responsible for long-term global climate change, so the debate can’t be over. Furthermore, the science is still very much in a developing stage, so it certainly can’t be “settled.”

What is needed now is a hiatus in collegiate rhetoric, and a hiatus in government effort toward the non-issue (or at best the small problem) of man-made global warming. More focused attention must be directed toward large problems, such as ever-expanding terrorism.  If not, so many more innocent people may never live to see any kind of future climate, hot or not.

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust:  A Heretic’s Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2012).