One of USA Today’s few contributions to high journalism is the color-coded weather map. Now found in just about every major newspaper, this innovation gives a quick and intuitive view of what temperatures to expect. Any shade of red or orange usually means you’re in for a scorcher. Yellow/green? That’s “sweater weather.” And blue, of course, means cold.

This week, my morning weather has been purple. Dark purple. Simply put, they ran out of hues of blue to keep up with the Arctic temperatures that have settled over the Northeast and Upper Midwest.

When it comes to weather, I don’t like purple.

I also don’t like it when people like Ted Turner, somewhat lacking in scientific credentials, feel the need to pontificate on global warming. Speaking at the Houston World Affairs Council, Turner opined that climate change was the “single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced.”

Adding “historian” to his already impressive résumé, Turner offered quite a sweeping statement. How about the Black Death? Hitler? Those were some pretty sizable challenges to humanity. HIV/AIDS would rank high on the current list. (Sitting through the colorized abominations on Turner Classic Movies is no picnic, either.)

To be fair, Turner has fallen prey to a common trend. Global warming is the only scientific debate where sporadic experiences of the common man can equal hard fact. Want proof of global warming? Stick your head out the window! Or so the snide canard goes.

Indeed, what used to be a simple “Indian Summer” or “early spring” is now chalked up to global warming by millions of amateur climatologists.

I doubt that such pronouncements are taking place now in Michigan, which is experiencing one of its coldest Februaries in 100 years. Ditto Anchorage, Alaska, which has received more than double its average snowfall. And schools closed in Milwaukee early this week because it was too cold to have children waiting for busses or walking to school.

Of course, such isolated examples do nothing to disprove global warming. By the same token, however, neither does a warm January in Minnesota prove the reverse to be true.

And therein lies the problem with armchair scientists taking over the debate. Even the slightest, temporary aberration from the norm is taken as de facto proof of climate change. However, when Mother Nature returns to form, in many cases with brutal ferocity, the climate change crowd goes silent.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Continuing with his dramatic flourish, Turner offered that, “The days of fossil fuels as a fuel are over. It’s just a matter of how soon everybody recognizes it.” He went on to say that he favors nuclear power over coal, but solar and wind even more so.

It’s no surprise that windbags like Turner are fond of the last power source. Who could argue with a row of quiet, emission-free turbines spinning away to provide our electrical needs?

Not so fast.

It would take a wind farm with a footprint of nearly 400 square miles to equal the power generating capability of one coal-fired plant. Since it is unlikely that such a sprawling eyesore would be located anywhere near the population center it is powering, we have to add numerous access roads and miles of extra lines to the picture. Longer lines mean more power lost during transmission. This, in turn, means more turbines to make up for the difference. And, well, you get the idea.

Wind power suddenly isn’t so efficient, certainly on any significant scale. It’s also a tad harmful for unlucky, migrating fowl. Not to mention property values.

Indeed, many of the same people who chastise the Bush administration on carbon emissions want no part of any green alternatives that might go in their backyard. Senator Ted Kennedy fought against a string of wind turbines that were planned for a site miles offshore from his family estate on Cape Cod.

Teddy just loves a nice view with his mint julep.

Such hypocrisy can be found on an international scale, too. China recently announced that it would examine its carbon emissions once the United States started to curtail its own.

Well played, China. Well played. Knowing that the U.S. would never voluntarily cripple its own economy, at least without an Al Gore presidency, the Chinese have the perfect foil. It’s like promising to try haggis, but only if the vegetarian goes first.

This is not to deny any human cause behind climate change. The point is that the rhetoric is the easy part. The required execution is at the heart of the matter, and it’s not pretty. Trillions would be needed for infrastructure changes and converting factories to new technologies. Businesses would be crushed under the weight of regulations, while the competition in places like China and India, both unfettered by Kyoto, would race ahead to fill the void. Huge swaths of land would be required for arrays of solar panels and wind turbines. Communities will fight, and likely go to court, over the “not in my backyard” concept.

It’s as close to economic suicide as you can get. And, according to Turner and Gore, the United States must take the lead and dive on the sword first. If we don’t change our ways, New York City will be the new Venice and Inuit Eskimos will be battling malaria within twenty years.

But the economic cataclysm brought by a knee-jerk reaction to these doomsday scenarios is far easier to predict, as opposed to the hypothetical cataclysms with which they try to shock us.

Which is why, when it comes to global warming, cooler heads need to prevail.