From the “War is Peace” department…
WRITTEN BY JOHN NOLTE
America enjoys a winter filled with tons of snow and frigid cold weather and out pops the Climate Hoaxsters to assure this kind of weather only further proves our planet is getting, um… warmer.
This current Climate Hoaxster freak-out is largely in reaction to President Trump’s tweet earlier this week mocking the Climate Hoaxsters.
“In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded,” he tweeted. “What the hell is going on with Global Waming? [Sic] Please come back fast, we need you!”
Naturally, this launched a million reactionary headlines from our oh-so objective, unbiased, not-at-all left-wing media.
“Look at This Embarrassing F*cking Moron,” screamed Esquire.
“Debunking the utter idiocy of Donald Trump’s global warming tweet,” pouted CNN.
“Here’s Why the Crazy Cold Temperatures Prove Global Warming is Real,” Forbes says reassuringly.
“What Trump keeps getting wrong about Global Warming,” the Washington Post helpfully reports.
But here is my personal favorite headline from, where else?, NBC News…. “Yes, it can be this cold outside in a time of global warming.”
There are three Party slogans in George Orwell’s 1984, his masterpiece about an all-controlling centralized government that runs on lies, terror, and propaganda. See if you can pick out which Party slogan I invented among the four:
- War is Peace
- Freedom is Slavery
- Ignorance is Strength
- Frigid Weather Means Our Planet is Getting Warmer
The Climate Hoaxsters say that this run of cold weather does not mean the planet will not warm over the course of years, which would sound reasonable if these were not the same Climate Hoaxters who told us Global Warming meant the “end of snow,” or that this winter would be “warmer-than-average,” or that a run of warm weather last winter proved the planet is warming.
That last example is interesting, no?
You see, last year our Climate Hucksters told us a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming, which means we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.
BUT… a run of frigid weather this year also proves the planet is warming and we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.
So no matter what happens, no matter how cold or warm or temperate it is, everything proves Global Warming is fer real.
Hey, remember when the Climate Grifters told us Global Warming would make hurricanes worse?
Remember how, when that scientific prediction was humiliated in the face of record low hurricane activity, these same Climate Grifters told us this lack of hurricane activity proved Global Warming was really fer real?
Remember in 2005 when the establishment media told us that by 2015 Global Warming would drive gas up to $9 a gallon (it’s $2.08 here today), milk up to $12 a gallon ($2.99), and New York City would be underwater?
Remember how during that crucial time between 2005 and 2015, that decade before the imminent flooding of Manhattan, the establishment media did not remove any of its personnel from a New York City that was about to be drowned?
In fact, while CNN was telling us the seas were certain to rise, CNN shifted much of its base of operations from the inland safety of Atlanta to Manhattan; while CNN’s then-parent company, Time Warner, spent billions relocating its headquarters just two blocks from the water’s edge in New York.
And, soon enough, I’ll be asking if you remember how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a sitting member of Congress — went on TV and said the world would end in 12 years because of Global Warming.
You see, no matter what happens, no matter what the weather looks like, no matter how false their predictions turn out to be, no matter often they act as though they don’t believe in Global Warming, the Climate Swindlers still scream See! See! Toldjaso! — and almost always do it from a wildly expensive base of operations on the same coast they claim will soon be underwater.
Any student of history can look back and discover that all of history’s mass-murdering socialists — from Hitler to Stalin to Mao — have manufactured audacious lies and scapegoats as a means to consolidate power into a malevolent Central Authority.
- Freedom is Slavery.
- War is Peace.
- Ignorance is Strength.
- Cooling is Warming.
Read more at Breitbart
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As a last desperate attempt to scare the pants off us, the Guardian features a question and answer article with arch-alarmist David Wallace-Wells about his book “The Uninhabitable Earth”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/03/david-wallace-wells-on-climate-people-should-be-scared-im-scared
One of the questions fed to him is:”The sense of speed comes across very strongly. It is as if people have got used to seeing the climate crisis as an old horror film with slow-lurching zombies but, in your version, the zombies are the much faster, scarier ones you see in modern horror films. You address the risks of heat death, hunger, drowning, wildfire, dying oceans, economic collapse and conflict, and suggest the climate problem driving them has super-accelerated beyond what many people think.”
Those zombies can be pretty mean dudes. Tell me when I can come out from behind the settee.
Like a possessed hammer we keep hitting the nail that climate catastrophe is a jumbled mess. Which it is. Enough of the public is or becomes skeptical enough of the boys and girls crying wolf to stop the public policy agenda from moving forward. First we limit the damage then comes the roll back. 2020 may see a resurgence of climate and energy as a meaningful issue during the campaign if we tie it closely to jobs.
An observation while watching yesterday’s somewhat boring Super Bowl. A Bud Light commercial ran touting the beer as being brewed with wind power. Won’t improve the taste of that watery swill.
I found that that commercial explained it all to me. The makers of the original Budovar real pilsener must be turning in their grave. On their own account that is, not driven by windmills.
Someone needs to call Budweiser on that very misleading attempt to market to the young gullibles.
Something along the lines of “So you can guarantee that none of the electricity your brewery consumes came from a fossil fuel plant?”
I saw a comment yesterday from a true believer who was ridiculing a skeptic of “no fossil fuel use in 10 years”; he said he knows it is possible because he goes to a University that is now run 100% on wind and solar. For society’s sake, I hope he is not a science student.
And there I was thinking that all I had to do was add yeast to the wort to get my beer to ferment. I’ve been making my home brew wrong for nigh on 40 years and now I’ll have to build a wind mill in the back yard to remedy the situation.
“You see, last year our Climate Hucksters told us a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming, which means we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.”
The problem is we don’t need a run of warm weather to “prove” the planet is warming. Every global temperature set shows the planet is warming. Almost everybody accepts the planet is warming.
I don’t know who these “Hucksters” are who told you that a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming. I’d say they were wrong to do so as it doesn’t. But it is consistent to say that as the world warms, runs of warm weather will become more frequent.
I’ve wondered though, how long we have had the precision of thermometers to get to the hundredth degree? Since the late 1800s, that they commonly refer to for tracking temperature?
I’m also confused about the reliability of the land surface data as Anthony has done extensive work demonstrating they are anything but reliable.
Where specifically bellman, do you find accuracy amidst the historical temperature data?beginning when?
With what consistency among thermometers? Have they not been historically adjusted?
With regards satellites, didn’t they begin in 1979? During a cold spell? Don’t they have issues with drift which demands adjustments?
Are you sure this data is fit for examination?
You’re right. 100 readings of one thermometer at one instant in time would theoretically reduce the measurement error, but measuring 100 different thermometers with 100 different temperatures, the measurement error would add up rather than be reduced.
This is what I keep coming back to about temperature
It seems to have warmed mildly some my parents were my age. Sure, I can agree with that. Although they talk about snow blanketing the land from October through March.
They were both born early 1950s.
Well…
I don’t ever remember that type of weather in Harrisburg PA. But when they were my age they would have lived in Windber/Sidmond PA.. An area that gets significantly more snow than Harrisburg, which is where they moved in the late 70s..
Maybe they suffer from inaccurate nostalgic memory. I think it’s early onset TDS, at least the correlation works for them.
Anyway, so the temperature has slightly increased, okay… How is this problematic. All indication suggest otherwise from strength and number of all severe weather at least in the United States.
Seriously, I’m genuinely puzzled. I don’t understand why those who hold strong to the alarmist rhetoric, and actually do the math, believe this is anything to cause worry
“I’ve wondered though, how long we have had the precision of thermometers to get to the hundredth degree?”
Nobody claims average global temperature sets are accurate to a hundredth of a degree. If they were they would all be showing the same temperature.
And yes, all temperature estimates have problems, but they are the best evidence ewe have for temperature changes, and all show temperatures going in the same direction.
If your argument is that it’s impossible to know if the globe is warming or not, then I don’t think looking at individual hot or cold snaps will help you.
The problem is we don’t need a run of warm weather to “prove” the planet is warming
Indeed, it’s been warming ever since the little ice age, long before CO2 from man’s use of fossil fuels was an issue.
And yet, every warm spell the climate hucksters come out saying “see global warming/climate change”. Every cold spell those same climate hucksters either say “it’s just weather” or try to push some ad hoc explanation of why the cold is really proof of global warming/climate change” after all. And jokers like you, Bellman, just eat it up.
You seem to be agreeing with me if you think the world has been warming since the start of the 20th century.
Hence my point that you don’t need to point to warm weather to prove the warming and cold weather cannot prove a lack of global warming because you admit that the globe is warming.
John Endicott
We hear that all the time, but as has been pointed out here previously, it’s not borne out by the global surface temperature record. HadCRUT4 starts in 1850, so contains nearly 168 full years of data (Dec 2018 not yet published).
Over the first half of the HadCRUT4 series, the 84 years from Jan 1850 – Dec 1933, the trend is dead flat. No trend at all, let alone a statistically significant one. For the second half of the series, from Jan 1934 to the present (Nov 2018), the trend is statistically significant warming at a rate of +0.09 ±0.02 °C/decade (2σ).
That rate might not sound fast, but compared to the first half of the record, the difference in trends between the two equal-lenght periods is stark: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/to:1934/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1934/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/trend
It’s clear that the warming currently seen over the HadCRUT4 as a whole is heavily dependent on higher temperatures since the mid 20th century. It is not the result of a progressive ‘recovery from the LIA’ over the course of the record as a whole.
DWR54 if I had said” Since the end of the little ice age” you’d have a point, I didn’t so you don’t. (never mind that there is no consensus on the exact dates of the start and end, just that it existed). The little ice age was colder than present. since the little ice age the trend is that of warming. Man’s activities doesn’t even factor into it.
When you claim that whatever happens proves you’re right, you’re wrong – and a control freak.
“The Climate Hoaxsters say that this run of cold weather does not mean the planet will not warm over the course of years, which would sound reasonable if these were not the same Climate Hoaxters who told us Global Warming meant the “end of snow,” or that this winter would be “warmer-than-average,” or that a run of warm weather last winter proved the planet is warming.”
Except that so far the US (48) HAS been warmer than average.
UAH V6 for Dec/Jan has seen an anomaly of +0.2 and +0.48C (1981-2010 base).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2019-0-37-deg-c/
One seasons weather is just that. Weather.
The media will make any weather sensenational. It sells copy.
However look at the last 15 years or so of NP winter temps (DMI).
I make it every year since 2005 have been above average…..
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
There seems to have been an export of cold from there this last 13 years.
And the IPCC did not tell anyone that low level snowfall would diminish due GW never mind as early as 2018/19.
If you mean Viner – he meant snow in lowland England sometime in the future while “our children” are still alive.
Not the USA.
We often get through an average winter without seeing snow anyhow.
The IPCC does talk of diminishing mountain snowpack as the average freezing levels will continue to rise.
Continental ineriors such as the US/Canada and Eurasia will see still see snow for centuries. Why? The Arctic will always fall below zero in winter and that air will always spill south at times, never mind said landmasses cooling to well below zero of their own accord.
I wonder what that would be on the 8000 years BPE to 2010 base?
Or even 1200-2010 base?
Is the Earth just returning to more normal temperatures and your ‘anomaly’ is with a cold period?
We are at the cold end of the Holocene after all and for almost all of that there was no anthropogenic production of CO2. So explain the reason for the other ‘climate’ cycles and justify why this one must be different and why returning to a level that is still not equivalent to the Holocene optimum is so dangerous .
“So explain the reason for the other ‘climate’ cycles and justify why this one must be different and why returning to a level that is still not equivalent to the Holocene optimum is so dangerous .”
How about the fact that at the height of the HCO, mankind did not have 7+ bn souls available to be disrupted in a geological blink of an eye.
The Earth will survive – as it did in previous glacial/inter-glacial cycles.
The issue here is the trouble human civilisation will have to endure/overcome by the end of the century and beyond.
It’s not US per see.
It’s the generations that will follow.
The “reason for the other ‘climate’ cycles”?
How about orbital eccentricity.
AKA: Milankovitch cycles.
It is obviously different as the natural carbon cycle cannot increase by an extra 40+% out of nothing naturally during the time of mankind’s industrial period.
It is in quasi-balance between natural sinks and sources.
In ‘normal’ circumstances CO2 comes AFTER an increase in temp (ocean out-gassing FI).
This one has come first.
CO2 is a GHG (absorbs/emits in the LWIR – yes, and outside of the WV bands).
It therefore MUST reduce Earth’s ability to lose it’s absorbed solar SW energy.
We cannot alter the Earth’s orbit but we can alter it’s atmosphere’s GHG concentration.
We are doing.
So – I guess the 97% of ‘natural’ C02 is irrelevant – as are the rest of the greenhouse gases.
Bottom line – there is no predictability to the effect of any of this – call it ‘mitigation’ or ‘regulation’ – there are no ‘facts’ in this debate except that we are – like every other species – contributing to C02, which – all else remaining the same (!!??) – and assuming we’re taking into account all natural forces – should cause a slight increase in water vapor and a possible expansion of tropical areas and associated weather.
The disaster scenarios are speculative alarmist fiction – but you’re still trying to sell the idea that we can get the results you want by micro-managing a single-species’ contribution to a single greenhouse gas. Naturally, there is no concern for cost-returns in this effort.
And of course, you appear here for damage control when the national weather seems to be contradicting the warming narrative.
Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is neither the largest GHC by concentration in the atmosphere nor does it have the broadest IR absorption range of any of the GHC. There is another GHC which is higher in concentration than CO2 in the atmosphere and has a much broader range of absorption in the IR spectrum. That gas is H2O vapor and the IPCC has excluded H2O from their list.
Look at your base. Does that matter to you in the slightest?
You start your baseline during a noted downturn in global temperatures and then claim this to be an accurate appraisal of modern climate.
How is that intellectually honest?
Have you ever considered the implication?
Yes …
The climate is changing!
The climate is changing!
The climate is changing!
And its all YOUR FAULT!!!
Say the Chicken Littles of today.
I posted some additional thoughts about today’s sad state of political climate chaos here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-climate-is-changing/
Controlling the message.
Just think how much damage this dishonest press has done.
Remember, this freezing cold weather is just due to a redistribution of warm and cold air. The planet isn’t getting colder — this is just cold air from the Arctic.
Now, regarding the cold regions where the warm air was redistributed to — THAT will be due to global warming.
The decline of agenda media is on display more than any other story here.
It’s clear that climate change predictions are not scientifically justified, as that issue belongs to chaos theory, where the atmosphere is considered a quantum object indeterministic, that is, “impossible” to predict behavior. Intriguing the apparent connection between global warming and polar vortex cooling, however, some have tried to make a connection in the past. The conclusion is the same as always, no one really knows how exactly the atmosphere works: https://www.google.com/amp/s/insideclimatenews.org/news/27092017/polar-vortex-cold-snap-arctic-ice-loss-global-warming-climate-change%3famp
The MJO is one of the main factors in stratospheric warming over the Arctic which displaces the so called “polar vortex” and this can be proven by Bastardi and Co.very nicely via their analogy years on Weatherbell. Or you can believe those that say CO2 is causing it but have no scientific evidence to prove it. In a court of law there would be no contest but in in the media and glorified ignorance of the public, CO2 is the culprit, period. This will never change until the media is prosecuted for its role in propagating the fallacy.
Money can only be made out of CO2 as the culprit. There’s no profit in being truthful about the MJO even if the politicians could understand what you were explaining.
“Or you can believe those that say CO2 is causing it but have no scientific evidence to prove it. ”
No one is saying that…. at least with any clear evidence.
SSW’s are entirely natural events.
And yes, the MJO, but also the QBO state and the ENSO state come into it re global wind momentum and mountain/frictional torques leading to Rossby wave formation and wave breaking into the stratosphere.
Where there MAY be a connection is the more open late autumn Arctic waters leading to more WV transport to build the Eurasian snowfield during October.
This is apparently correlated with a stronger early winter Siberian High … which in turn aids Rossby wave lift after passage over the Himalayas (cold, dense air aiding a ‘push’ upwards).
To many casual relationships to disentangle.
Here is one of the most factual, using documented verifiable, science to debunk NASA, and the HUCKSTERS of the global warming HOAX. URGE spread his work around!! Some of his miscellaneous videos and photos may be entertaining, or ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos
The left media are champions at projection; projection of the aspersions they cast. Those exhibiting this mental disease are predominately located in the urban heat islands that they themselves created. lol
I’m sure that under all the snow there must be some “Green Jobs”.
Snow shoveling?
Climate Scientists are not Hoaxters — and Climate Science is not an Hoax. The IPCC Climate consensus may be wrong — it may be a misunderstanding — it may even be intentionally exaggerated for political purposes. But one thing it is not is a Hoax.
Giving screen time to those saying that it is (a hoax) makes this non-concensus site look like a looney bin — which it isn’t.
John Nolte probably doesn’t think it is a hoax either — he’s just playing to the crowd, for laughs and applause — taking cheap shots devoid of scientific understanding — the print version of Late Night TV. Effective but basically worthless.
(I have strong opinions about what passes for climate science too.)
“Climate Scientists are not Hoaxters — and Climate Science is not an Hoax.”
Kip, prior to the CRU emails I might have agreed with you.
Now I seriously wonder just what a “Climate Scientist” is.
Something akin to a Political Scientist I suspect.
But the UN IPCC is definitely a group of Hoaxters.
2500 of the worlds experts ring any bells?
They make no secret of their desire to create evidence supporting their predetermined policies.
Donna Laframboise does a fine job of demonstrating what the IPCC is.
What gets me is the complete ignoring that a warming climate is such a positive thing for over 75% of the USA ans all of Canada. More growing days for agriculture and more land in Canada for agriculture. Today only the 1st 100 miles of Canada on the prairie provinces can manage a crop. That leaves a tremendous amount of land probably double or triple to produce crops. At – 48*C right now with wind chill in Winnipeg , please bring on warmer weather. The braying of climate change dangers about a 3.2 mm rise in the last century , and the fact that 20,000 years ago water level was 120 meters lower, and 125,000 years ago water level was 4-6 meters higher, tells me to just stop wasting resources on these scientists and spend the money on better infrastructure, housing, safe water, affordable health care, education and the list goes on.
Indeed. Historically, periods of warmer climate have always been prosperous times for humanity and life on earth in general and periods of cooler climate have not been. A warmer climate is a *good* thing, do anyone really want to go back to the frigid depths of the little ice age (or colder)?
John Endicott:
In the book El Nino in History” by Cesar N. Caviedes, it is pointed out that the higher temperatures associated with El Ninos can have multiple adverse climatic effects, such as excessive rain (floods, storms), drought, severe winters (cold waves, heavy snowfalls), and evidence of the effects of these can be used to identify historical El Nino occurrences.
These would be “blips” on the eras of warmer temperatures, resulting in periods of climatic havoc, as noted above.
The current problem is that the normal temperatures of today exceed those of the El Ninos of the past, so that we are now living in a” permanent” El Nino situation, and, as a result, are experiencing multiple examples of severe weather, a direct result of man-made climate change.
However, warming that has occurred has NOTHING to do with CO2. Instead, it is being caused by the reduction in the amount of dimming SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere due to global clean air efforts.
Thus, Climate Change is being CAUSED by the environmentalists.
Burl, you are buying in to some non-science there buddy.
First, when you look at the actual scientific data, severe weather is not getting more frequent (it’s frequency is actually trending down) or more severe. It only appears that way because
1) every weather event gets hyped to no end by the mainstream media. Events that you’d never hear about 30 or more years ago get headline coverage today.
2) man has built up areas prone to such weather events. where in the past such events would strike unpopulated wilderness (and thus do little economic damage) they now strike over built (and sometimes poorly built) areas doing damage with a larger price tag.
2) modern temperatures have not yet reached the heights of the medieval or roman warm periods (both of those “permanent el nino times”, as you describe such periods of higher temps, were times of great prosperity and great advancement for humanity). Colder periods were times of much hardship for humanity. A warmer world, in general, is much better than a colder one.
This^^^^^, Being the crux of the argument/belief. People are happier when they’re warm.
It is really sad that a large portion of people will never overcome the training which causes them to “believe their betters rather than trust their lying eyes.”