Sorry, Alarmists, Climate Chaos Is Not Here

From The Federalist

Despite Democrats’ cataclysmal framing of every weather event, Americans are safer than ever.

David Harsanyi

By David Harsanyi

May 30, 2019

Climate isn’t the same as weather—unless, of course, weather happens to be politically useful. In that case, weather portends climate apocalypse.

So warns Elizabeth Warren as she surveyed Iowan rainstorms, which she claims, like tornadoes and floods, are more frequent and severe. “Different parts of the country deal with different climate issues,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–Malthusia) cautioned as she too warned of extreme tornadoes. “But ALL of these threats will be increasing in intensity as climate crisis grows and we fail to act appropriately.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.) recently sent a fundraising email warning Democrats that climate change was causing “growing mega-fires, extremely destructive hurricanes, and horrific flooding” in which “American lives are at stake.”

Even if we pretend that passing a bazillion-dollar authoritarian Green New Deal would do anything to change the climate, there is no real-world evidence that today’s weather is increasingly threatening to human lives. By every quantifiable measure, in fact, we’re much safer despite the cataclysmal framing of every weather-related event.

How many of those taken in by alarmism realize that deaths from extreme weather have dropped somewhere around 99.9 percent since the 1920s? Heat and cold can still be killers, but thanks to increasingly reliable and affordable heating and cooling systems, and other luxuries of the age, the vast majority of Americans will never have to fear the climate in any genuine way.

Since 1980, death caused by all natural disasters and heat and cold is somewhere under 0.5 percent.

It’s true that 2019 has seen a spike in tornadoes, but mostly because 2018 was the first year recorded without a single violent tornado in the United States. Tornadoes killed 10 Americans in 2018, the fewest since we started keeping track of these things in 1875, only four years after the nefarious combustion engine was invented.

There has also been a long-term decline in the cost of tornado damage. In 2018, we experienced near-lows in this regard. The only better years were 2017, 2016, and 2015.

After a few devastating hurricanes around a decade ago, we were similarly warned that it was a prelude to endless storms and ecological disaster. This was followed by nine years without a single major hurricane in the United States. Or, in other words, six fewer hurricanes than we experienced in 1908 alone.

According to the U.S. Natural Hazard Statistics, in fact, 2018 saw below the 30-year average in deaths not only by tornadoes and hurricanes (way under average) but also from heat, flooding, and lighting. We did experience a slight rise in deaths due to cold.

Pointing out these sort of things usually elicits the same reaction: Why do you knuckle-dragging troglodytes hate science? Well, because science’s predictive abilities on most things, but especially climate, have been atrocious. But mostly because science is being used as a cudgel to push leftist policy prescriptions without considering economic tradeoffs, societal reality, or morality.

There are two things in this debate that we can predict with near certitude: First, that modern technology will continue to allow human beings to adapt to organic and anthropogenic changes in the environment. Second, that human beings will never surrender the wealth and safety that technology has afforded and continues to afford them.

People who deny these realities are as clueless as any “denier” of science. That brings me back to Democrats.

There have been a number of stories predicting that 2020 will finally be the year politicians start making climate change an important issue. One can only imagine these reporters started their jobs last week.

It’s true that a number of Democrat presidential hopefuls have taken “no fossil fuel money” pledges—as if they were going to get any of that cash anyway—as they spew carbon into the atmosphere searching for another bad-weather photo-op. Kevin Curtis, the executive director of NRDC Action Fund, told BuzzFeed News that all of this was “really wicked cool.”

The 2018 midterm elections, adds Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, are when “climate change was beginning, for the first time, to play a significant role in a few races across the country.”

Read the full article here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 1, 2019 2:07 am

I don’t think they actually know what chaos is. I’ve seen lots of propaganda using that word, some mean pure randomness (chaos could actually exist in a purely classically deterministic Universe), some mean all sorts of idiocies.

Climate chaos is here since a climate exists.

Martin Cropp
Reply to  Adrian
June 1, 2019 4:43 pm

In your referenced article you use the term equilibrium. Earth has never been nor will it ever be in equilibrium. The term and your misuse of it is comparable to your comments on chaos.

Reply to  Martin Cropp
June 1, 2019 9:20 pm

I think he says the same thing.

June 1, 2019 2:34 am

It’s true that 2019 has seen a spike in tornadoes, but mostly because 2018 was the first year recorded without a single violent tornado in the United States. Tornadoes killed 10 Americans in 2018, the fewest since we started keeping track of these things in 1875, only four years after the nefarious combustion engine was invented.

umm? typo??
should that be 1918?

R Shearer
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 1, 2019 5:16 am

It should be clarified that “Violent” tornadoes are defined as EF4 and EF5 (>200 mph winds). Lesser scale storms are nonetheless damaging and can be deadly.

You’re right that a high level of occurrence following a low level of occurrence appears as a spike. Statistically, this doesn’t have to be the case.

Reply to  R Shearer
June 1, 2019 12:28 pm

Deaths from bad weather is a poor statistic for climate science.

It should not have been used in the article.

The good news is from early warnings and evacuations and better medical care, unrelated to climate science.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 1, 2019 4:13 pm

Actually, it is even more important than you think. Humans have expanded into more land than previous decades which provides opportunity for extreme weather to result in death. The icing is that we’ve been able to build stronger, better infrastructure with quicker and more effective warning systems that save lives. If anything, using deaths illustrates how monumental or advancement because of oil and gas

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 1, 2019 9:08 am

Patents for gasoline-powered ICE engines go back to the 1700s. So no, not a typo.

R Shearer
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 1, 2019 10:36 am

1700’s? Really? Otto wasn’t even born then and the first production of gasoline was after the 1850’s.

June 1, 2019 2:48 am

“So Greta”, asked the reporter, “how much carbon dioxide is up there?”
“A lot” replies Greta.
“How much is a lot” the reporter continues.
“Most of the sky”
“And how much of it is man-made?”
“Nearly all of it”
“Thank you. Well there you have it, all the more reason to act on this climate change emergency now. Back to the studio.”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  GeeJam
June 1, 2019 3:05 am

Well, we have to believe her, after all, her mother says she can actually see CO2 molecules.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 1, 2019 4:38 am

Is it certain she sees CO2 and not the Virgin Mary?

Reply to  GeeJam
June 1, 2019 4:51 am

Greta sees floaters, not CO2 molecules. She needs to see an ophthalmologist, and stop talking to reporters.

I despise people who do this kind of thing to their own children, and we see a lot of it now.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
June 1, 2019 8:46 am

I see them too, as well as…

Reply to  GeeJam
June 1, 2019 5:42 am

Greta just announced to go full-time truant for a whole year.

Reply to  Hans Erren
June 2, 2019 9:35 am

Does the Miraculous Greta get a full-year pass, because she appears to be a Sel-ebb-riddy?
Like our own Dame Emma did on her gas-guzzling flights?
As, indeed, the Algorethm does for his beach-front mansion?
[Just a thought – does the Algorethm put up illegal immigrants in any of his mansions? It would be nice [for them, and for us] if he did.


June 1, 2019 3:10 am

It seems that the USA has a major election every two years . So this must
mean that electioning goes on all of the time.

One has to wonder just how the country seems to prosper despite this fact.
Maybe most Americas just “”Turn off”” politics, except when they cast a vote.


Tom in Florida
Reply to  Michael
June 1, 2019 5:25 am

The term for members of the House of Representatives is two years. It was designed that way because the Founding Fathers didn’t trust the average person to be knowledgeable of most political issues. The two year election cycle keeps mistakes from being able to fester too long.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 1, 2019 7:07 am

The two year cycle also encourages short term policy thinking – what to say/do to get re-elected, rather than what to do for the wisest long term good. As Churchill noted, the democratic form of governance is the worst possible one. Except for all the others.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Richard
June 1, 2019 12:46 pm

That is why there were 3 different ways to put people into office. Direct election for the House of Representatives (2 years), State legislatures appointing Senators (6 years) and the electoral college to select the President (4 years). Unfortunately the 17th Amendment, pushed by progressives, made the selection of Senators a direct election but did not change the term. So now we are stuck with mistakes that last a minimum of 6 years. It also made Senators beholding to special interests instead of the State they are supposed to represent in the federal government.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 1, 2019 9:09 am

“The two year election cycle keeps mistakes from being able to fester too long.”

That didn’t work too well.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 1, 2019 1:05 pm

That’s because we allow politicians to fester for too long.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 1, 2019 1:14 pm

Actually it works very well. That is why you see very frequent changes in the House at the mid term of a President. But keep in mind that the only opinion that counts as to whether a person who was elected is a mistake is the opinion of the voters in that district. The opinion of all others do not matter.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 1, 2019 3:03 pm

The Internet changed the timeline from 1787. 2 years is too long. 1 year or even 6 months in the House of representatives should be enough.
Or apply Limit Theory and get down and dirty, real time voting by the plebs.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 4, 2019 8:39 am

“You need to change politicians regularly, much as you would change a diaper. And for the same reasons”.
Robin Williams in ???

R Shearer
Reply to  Michael
June 1, 2019 5:40 am

Most Americans go about their humbling bumbling ways having to live with consequences with those in power. Only roughly 50% of eligible voters do vote. So when one party imports tens of millions of voters, then the normal course of things goes out of whack.

I wish we had an overall intelligent and politically invested populace, but we don’t.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  R Shearer
June 1, 2019 5:33 pm

Australia solved this by making voting compulsory.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
June 2, 2019 5:49 pm

“Australia solved this by making voting compulsory.”

Actually all one need do is register at a polling site. (I don’t think one even has to go into a voting booth—but if one does, one needn’t vote.)

a happy little debunker
June 1, 2019 3:36 am

This war is won or lost based on the propaganda.

At the moment they are winning.

Martin Cropp
Reply to  a happy little debunker
June 1, 2019 5:10 pm

They are winning because they decide the rules, have control of the media and stay away from discussing the science.

Skeptics play their game of catch-up by trying to disprove.

An example of poor skeptic response is that the average recorded earth temperature is compared with total of the computer model spread. Skeptics give them fifty odd guesses every time the comparison is made. How stupid is that.

Next time, and every other time compare only the average of the models with the actual temperature.

Roger Bournival
June 1, 2019 4:07 am

If I hear Fauxahontas or AOC saying something, I tend to believe the opposite.

June 1, 2019 4:19 am

Seems to me if you monitor 1,000 locations scattered around the globe that just about every year on average one of them will have a once in 1,000 year climate event, two will have a once in 500 year event, five will have a once in 200 year event, ten will have a once in 100 year event, and so on. These extreme events can be drought, heavy rain, heavy snow, hot temperatures, or cold temperatures for example. A proper scientific analysis must examine huge amounts of data for drawing any conclusions about climatological changes over time regarding extreme events. The linkage to “global warming” or “climate change” or “climate crisis” is pure alarmism at its worst as is all too common in the media and in politics today because it attracts attention and thus potentially improves revenue. Extreme events like this are quite normal somewhere on the earth every year and are to be expected … it’s just a matter of when, where, and how extreme.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bryan-oz4caster
June 1, 2019 9:11 am

True, Bryan. And with the advent of instant reporting from anywhere, we see/hear about weather events we never would have noticed just 60 years ago.

June 1, 2019 4:37 am

What is all this fuss about climate? Just switched the climate control bottom of any car and presto.

Reply to  eo
June 1, 2019 7:10 am

You switch bottoms? Kinky!

June 1, 2019 4:57 am

the increasingly alarmist propaganda is more serious, in my view, than most currently realise

we are not going to see the MSM say “gee, we were sorry about all that, back to news as normal” – no, the fear rhetoric will be ratcheted ever upwards. Increasingly we are seeing the alarmists say and do crazy things – to quote a few recently heard here on the BBC

The Americans will do nothing until they lose Florida – when challenged, she said it was going to happen “soon”
Another caller said she was not going to have children because climate
Increasing calls for meat free diets

the list goes on and on.

How long before the politicians, backed by Extinction Rebellion crowd etc. decide that us “deniers” are actually criminal? Not content with exhortations to stop driving/flying/eating etc. they start to literally enforce this.?

The lack of critical thinking in science and the MSM is leading us to a very dark place…..

R Shearer
Reply to  Hysteria
June 1, 2019 5:49 am

In a recent Guardian piece, mostly filled with propaganda, Dana Nuccitelli called Judith Curry a “contrarian” scientist. Could this be a sign of progress?

Reply to  R Shearer
June 2, 2019 5:53 pm

“Dana Nuccitelli called Judith Curry a “contrarian” scientist. Could this be a sign of progress?”

I hope so. Back in the day I made a score (20) of comments advocating that term as a good non-insulting one for warmists and journalists to use. (It’s better than what the AP recommends, “doubter.”)

Reply to  Hysteria
June 1, 2019 9:04 am

Yes.. In the last six months, in the face continuing climate apathy, CBC has doubled down on their outrageous climate claims. It seems that Big Mother has decreed that every news show and every interview must have at least one gratuitous reference to climategeddon. The better that life becomes the more strident and dire the predictions of doom. It almost makes me long for the old days when CBC was on a mission to prepare Canada for the multigenderverse. Sadly for CBC, conversations with people whose defining characteristic is a fantastical gender, tended to put their audience member to sleep.. Perhaps hysterical extinction stories will some day have the same effect?

June 1, 2019 5:02 am

I’m afraid a pandemic is spreading rapidly.
Greta can see CO2 molecules, but now the DOE is exporting freedom molecules of LNG ! (all over Twitter).

Of course the LNG molecules in Nordstream II from Russia to Germany are not free at all!

I’ll bet Schlumberger will come up with a petroleum Freedom gauge to check just how free your molecules really are.

I’ll bet Mnuchin and Lighthizer are working on a freedom tariff on everything Russian and Chinese. One look at a Huawei 5g chip is enough to tell how free it is.

Make the “free” in trade passe.

You just couldn’t make this stuff up.

ZH : Energy Department’s “Freedom Gas” Provokes Widespread Mockery

R Shearer
Reply to  bonbon
June 1, 2019 6:15 am

It’s almost as farcical as some alarmist productions and worthy of mockery. As for myself I like free things and Gibbs free energy is high on my list.

Kurt Linton
Reply to  R Shearer
June 1, 2019 7:30 am

Is the energy free or just Gibbs-free? If it’s the latter, how does one explain the success of the BeeGees?

R Shearer
Reply to  Kurt Linton
June 1, 2019 8:20 am

Stayin alive and are you jive talkin?

J Mac
Reply to  R Shearer
June 1, 2019 10:20 am

It sure wasn’t ‘Ring My Bell’ – Ugh!

Kurt Linton
Reply to  R Shearer
June 1, 2019 1:27 pm

The Bee Gees were great, though I prefer the pre-disco stuff for the most part. I was just ramping up your satirical application of G.

John VC(@jvcstone)
Reply to  bonbon
June 1, 2019 9:05 am

BonBon–in a way, it is a good name for the LNG Trump wants to export world wide. After all, those little molecules were freed from the entrapping shale formations by fracking.

Reply to  bonbon
June 1, 2019 12:23 pm

Freedom does not mean free. We just had a national holiday emphasizing that fact.

Kevin kilty
June 1, 2019 5:40 am

Second, that human beings will never surrender the wealth and safety that technology has afforded and continues to afford them.

I beg to differ. People are easily stupid enough to vote their prosperity away, and there are countless examples of civilizations vanishing despite the advances they offered. Why does this happen? Poor choices.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 1, 2019 9:16 am

Here’s a thought. Anyone who votes democrat in the US this time around is required to give up their cell phones, permanently. To save the planet. Never mind all the other stuff provided by fossil fuels, directly or indirectly, just cell phones. What do you think would happen? How many would “cheat”?

June 1, 2019 5:57 am


How come no one’s listening?

Ronald Bruce
June 1, 2019 6:17 am

The only chaos is that caused by the Socialist warmists lying to the rest of the world.

Bruce Cobb
June 1, 2019 6:31 am

Us “knuckle-dragging troglodytes” (i.e. people who actually have a brain) don’t hate science; we hate pseudo-science, and being peed on and told it’s raining.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 1, 2019 8:57 am

Climate chaos only exists in proglodytes’ scrambled minds. Long term usage of psychotropic drugs and SSRIs… years of public school deconstructionist post-modern indoctrination… no wonder they can’t tell reality from fantasy.

June 1, 2019 6:38 am

AOC (D -_Malthusia) . Does she even know what that is?

Joel O’Bryan(@joelobryan)
June 1, 2019 7:20 am

There have been a number of stories predicting that 2020 will finally be the year politicians start making climate change an important issue. One can only imagine these reporters started their jobs last week.“

I’m anxiously hoping that Democrats do make climate change policy remedies a key part of their campaigns. They can explain how they need to make electricity and gas much more expensive. They can explain why they need to force people to buy electric cars and $20K solar panel installations of their homes. They can explain why the higher electric bills will send that money to Watermelon hedge funds, underfunded public union retiremnt funds, and investors like Tom Steyer who funnel some that profit back to Democrats in a kickback scheme of campaign donations.

Yes indeed I do hope the Democrats go big on climate change with the general public, and not simply the promises they make in private to “green” special interests. It’s time for Democrats to come out of the closet and show Americans who they really work for.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 1, 2019 8:04 am

The “no fossil fuel money” pledges … may be the most significant change, but not for the reason they suggest. In the past Oil companies have poured money into “Green” things in order to “Greenwash” their operation (and because raising energy prices meant higher prices and more profit). And it’s because the Oil Companies pushed the scam that was the main reason this scam got legs.

If however, the Democrats no longer see oil money, it strongly suggests the Oil corps have realised that feeding the Climate Cult, like all Blackmail (Greenmail ) will never stop them demanding more. So perhaps the Oil Companies have finally decided it doesn’t profit them to fund the Climate Cult?

If, so then if the main pillars of the Climate Cult: Greenspin, Democrats, Eco-nutter Academics, are no longer being funded by the Oil Corps, then this could really mark the end. Because without their endless stream of funding to manufacture publicity – what have they got? They certainly haven’t got the science on their side!

Indeed, who knows? We may finally start to see the Oil Corps funding the Sceptics as (Oil Funded) Climate Cult falsely claimed all along.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 1, 2019 12:19 pm

If it is important not to take “fossil fuel money” to avoid being influenced by the money, then shouldn’t the blue states stop taking “fossil fuel money” (i.e., collecting taxes on it) for the same reason?

Why isn’t someone saying, “ If the government weren’t raking in billions of dollars from the sale of fossil fuels, it would be far easier to pass legislation banning its use?” Why isn’t someone at least challenging ‘green’ legislators with this question?

I want to see them reconfile the philosophy between a Party not accepting the money, and the state demanding it.

Tom Abbott
June 1, 2019 8:21 am

The alarmists are desperately looking for a way to sell the CAGW hoax to the American people. This article is a continuation of that effort.

The alarmists have “cried wolf” too many times, and they think they need to keep crying wolf but more effectively.

I think most people don’t see the weather as being any different now than what they remember in the past. Of course, the young ones don’t have much of a weather record to remember so may be more susceptible to the alarmist propaganda. But even the young ones can dig up the statistics on extreme weather and if they do they will see that all categories of extreme weather are no more extreme now than it was in the past.

Shoki Kaneda
June 1, 2019 9:22 am

Climate is a chaotic system. It’s just not any more chaotic than usual.

Hocus Locus
June 1, 2019 9:44 am

I have every right to croon my hysteria in yo face and spray you with spittle, don’t censor me with your calmness and skepticism.

Reply to  Hocus Locus
June 1, 2019 11:43 am

Cynicism, even…

Steven Armstrong
June 1, 2019 11:59 am

This week the news is pimping “Record Flooding” in Arkansas and Missouri but I haven’t seen anything that says there was record rainfall…anyone have the actual data of record rainfall for the areas impacted?

June 1, 2019 1:10 pm

I generally respond to warmists with something like, “I don’t deny the science, but thirty years of failed predictions and poorly performing models have convinced me that climatologists do not understand the science or the climate.”

If people are basing their beliefs on what “authority” says, the best way to oppose them is by undermining that authority, not simply arguing the science.

On sites that allow agree/disagree voting, the upvotes for that comment overwhelm the downvotes. There is still hope.

June 1, 2019 3:04 pm

I agree with the article, but not with the article’s title.

I thought the very nature of climate was chaotic, and so yes, climate chaos IS here, always has been, always will be. That’s why climate models are not all they’re cracked up to be, even conceptually, let alone performance wise, as I understand it.

June 1, 2019 9:31 pm

Pointing out these sort of things usually elicits the same reaction: Why do you knuckle-dragging troglodytes hate science?

Reminds me of something that I read recently. An English translation of a Latin translation of the original from a Islamic philosopher over 1000 years ago.

It is thus the duty of the man who studies the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.


June 2, 2019 1:45 am

Well I have detected a strong correlation between erecting wind farms and solar panels and peer reviewed climastrologists telling me the weather is getting worse and there’s a crisis so what should we do about that? Implement the precautionary principle immediately?

June 2, 2019 5:05 am

Any website that tries to turn the climate change into an ideological is poohing on the truth and supporting a corrupt political establishment. Virtually all 100 Senators and 435 House members peddled the lie of global warming whether they say it is natural or man made. They are no where to be seen when it comes to talking about the grand solar minimum and magnetic excursion. Same in other countries. You need to look at your soul in the mirror.

Pamela Gray(@pamelasuemakin)
June 3, 2019 1:20 pm

I have recently been told by someone with a Science background who should know better, that all kinds of weather events are worse due to climate change. I didn’t want to start the battle because it just didn’t seem worth it.

Which brings me to an issue I have with classical literature courses (IE Eng I – IV) at the high school level. These classes are designed to enrich the understanding of how mostly fiction literature is written. It is text analysis to the nth degree, and leaves students wholly unable to decipher journalism literature, be it investigative writing, editorials and opinions, or reporting. It sure as hell does not touch on research literature critique.

No wonder we have half the population believing NPR presenters when they say over and over again, that the addition of a tiny fraction of a fraction of CO2 ppm molecules in our air space caused a particular river to flood. Anyone worth a damn would normally say, “Come on. You are going to have to prove that one to me, and by the way, I am selling ocean front property in Wyoming.” But nope. Apparently we are teaching our young people to believe everything they hear, if said often enough, because that is the new scientific standard needed to reject the null hypothesis.


June 4, 2019 12:53 am

Climate changes , we are in a warming cycle but not an alarmist holly crap the earth has a fever change .
Enjoy the ride because the next ice age is going to be way more devastating than the one we are coming out of .
Can’t wait for the next AOC ” joke ” about the best before date for earth .j
Don’t these people get it . Every time they make a goofy prediction that never turns out they go further
into the tank . Last time i looked the Arctic still had lots of ice and now we know Antarctica temperatures are steady over decades . Funny thing happens when weather stations aren’t sitting on airport asphalt

%d bloggers like this: