Climate Science Goes Cold Turkey On Facts

With the eastern US headed for a frigid Thanksgiving, look for the usual band of criminals to start blaming cold weather on global warming.

10-Day Temperature Outlook for the Conterminous U.S.

Why Global Warming Can Mean Harsher Winter Weather – Scientific American

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Climate Science Goes Cold Turkey On Facts

  1. Steve Case says:

    Drive by shooting:
    Alaska’s summers are warm with temperatures that can reach into the 90°s. Ft. Yukon holds the all-time record with a sizzling 100°F temperature recorded in 1915.

    Fancy that, 1915 – Well what the Alaska Trekker know?

    Pond is frozen over on the pond this morning – ducks & geese are out snoozing on the ice. Photo if it shows up is from March 2016

  2. arn says:

    “Why Global Warming Can Mean
    Harsher Winter Weather”?

    …because we can define and redefine things how we want ,whenever we want.
    In fact global warming can mean anything as long it can be used for indoctrination.
    Science once used to be a thing among experts ,
    now it has become a show with Hollywood Stars,to entertain,indoctrinate and scare people 24/7 until we get what we want.
    As long as you acceppt our ‘science’ we will tell you how fantastic you are(some of you will even be given a worthless piece of plastic or metal to feel special for doing what we say((our military insudtrial complex uses the same trick(badges) for soldiers when sending them to kill,die and being crippled in foreign countries for the sake of our corporations)).
    When you refuse to acceppt our science=you nazi.

  3. Freddy Boom-Boom says:

    Some Turkeys make crap predictions about climate/weather…others have fun with what nature actually provides – HAPPY (EARLY) THANKSGIVING!

  4. Andy DC says:

    The evil Mann-Made polar vortex is going to make an appearance next weekend and last through Thanksgiving weekend. Lots of lake effect snows.

    Every idiot knows that both cold and warm weather are entirely consistent with a collapsing ecosystem. Normal weather as well.

  5. Nutation_discombobulation says:

    quote”Most scientists agree that we need to differentiate between weather and climate. The NOAA defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. So periodic aberrations—like the harsh winter storms ravaging the Southeast and other parts of the country this winter—do not call the science of human-induced global warming into question.”unquote

    Likewise “periodic aberrations—like” a number of very hot days over the past few years, especially in the Northwest does not prove “human-induced global warming” is to blame, the alternative is pharisaical at best.

    quote”If nothing else, we should all keep in mind that every time we turn up the thermostat this winter to combat the cold, we are contributing to global warming by consuming more fossil fuel power. Until we can shift our economy over to greener energy sources, global warming will be a problem, regardless of how warm or cold it is outside.”unquote

    How many elderly will reach an early grave following this propaganda?
    The past winter in South Australia was a particularly harsh one. Dozens of older folk died from cold because they couldn’t afford electricity to heat their homes. The clean-burning coal powered stations were shutdown and the primary source was changed to wind and solar, but of course in a bad winter the sun is weak and the often dense air from Antarctica leaves settled air that doesn’t blow hard enough to rotate the turbines, the result being power prices soar, much to the delight of shareholders.

    Mr Gore your ambitions have stained your hands with blood.
    But then, this is exactly what we expect a Marxist state euthanasia pogrom to look like.
    Heads up Baby-boomers.

    • gator69 says:

      If you think that is evil, you should see the genocide alarmists are perpetrating on the third world.

      These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

      The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

      And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

  6. AndyG55 says:

    OT, Talk about anthropogenic effects

    Imaging how much the cheap Chinese solar panels are going to POLLUTE the WHOLE WORLD with TOXIC CHEMICALS over the next 10-20 years

  7. Andrew says:

    The linked SciAm story was published back in Feb (25th) 2009. It’s not recent, but as it’s not dated within the story itself, you need to open its comment thread to notice a clue (the post dates of the oldest comments), or pop open the page source code and inspect the metadata.

    I say nothing about the claims for either the original SciAm story, or this site’s own post pointing back to it now in Nov 2017.

    • tonyheller says:

      Settled science, changing every year,

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Yes, it’s unscientific and unprofessional to publish any article without a date stamp. I find it irritating every time I see one but I don’t get your main point, Andrew.

      The alarmists started blaming arctic freeze spells on global warming quite a while back. They rebranded “global warming” as “climate change” in large part because of it. They will blame any unpleasant weather on global warming again.

      Is there a problem pointing to an alarmist article that does just that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *