The Hill recently posted an article about climate change, “There is no ‘new normal’: absent drastic action, the climate will only get worse,” claiming that without “drastic action,” weather extremes will continue to escalate because of the use of fossil fuels. This is false. Many of the examples the author, Andrew Pershing, uses in the post are erroneous at best. Weather is not getting more extreme, not even in the form of flooding or heat waves.
Pershing writes:
First, the extremes we are witnessing are not normal. Not normal in the sense that they are not natural. This summer’s heat domes and smoke waves are much more likely on a planet where people have been burning coal, oil, and natural gas for 150 years. Some of the events we’ve witnessed are so far beyond historical norms that they truly could not exist without climate change. This is especially true for the recent global temperature record, which isn’t likely to last long.
Pershing, vice president for science at Climate Central, a climate advocacy group, made a serious error when he references the recent “global temperature record” which comes from the University of Maine’s climate reanalyzer “visualization” site. As an apparent science expert, he should know better.
Climate Realism has debunked the claim that the July 4th week saw the highest temperatures on record, here, here, and here, but there is no need to take it from us.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) quickly put out a notice as the erroneous claim was going viral, stating that the reanalyzer is “not suitable” for the purpose of cataloguing real-world temperature. It is not an official NOAA product, and the University of Maine’s reanalyzer website itself put up a notice saying that it should not be considered an official observational record.
Pershing also references the recent heat in Texas, and flooding in Vermont, as examples of events that couldn’t happen without climate change, calling the conditions that led to these events “new.” This is also false.
Heat waves have not been increasing in intensity or frequency in the United States, according to the best and most accurate available data from NOAA– as shown through maximum temperature anomaly data from the Climate Reference Network. (See Figure below)

Texas is included in this estimate, and data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that most of Texas has been seeing a decrease in the number of unusually hot days since 1948. Very few locations show a positive trend.
For Vermont’s flooding, Climate Realism recently posted an in-depth analysis, “The Dishonest Climate Fear-Mongering Headline of the Week Goes to @USATODAY,” which explains that according to Vermont historical records, “one of the most pervasive hazards that impinges upon and marks the Vermont landscape is flooding.”
It’s not, as Pershing says, the atmosphere’s water-holding capacity that makes Vermont more susceptible to extreme flooding. The state’s topography makes it so. Past storms, like the Great Flood of 1927, were similarly devastating.
After all, despite the increased precipitation in mid-latitude regions as discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – there have been no detectible changes in the frequency or intensity of flooding events. It is equally as likely that flooding has been decreasing worldwide, as increasing.
Next in the post, Pershing makes the puzzling claim that weather averages “guide planning for things like roads, buildings or storm drains,” but that this technique no longer works for infrastructure planning because local climates are just so unpredictable.
This is simply nonsense. Roads have been washed out by floods, buildings destroyed, and entire towns submerged under ocean waves for as long as human civilization has built them. In regards to storm drains in particular, as cities are expanded, and more impermeable surfaces like concrete are laid down, water handling has to change. It has long been known that new development changes flood zones very rapidly, especially in areas that are already low-lying in flood plains, like Louisiana.
Pershing ends his article with a call to action, to stop burning fossil fuels, and to “bet on the trend” that weather must be getting worse and will continue to do so, telling readers to assume that “if something in the weather is changing or weird, then it’s probably related to climate change and probably going to occur more often.”
Weather data simply does not back this fearmongering claim up. As Climate Realism has pointed out numerous times (here, here, and here, for just a few!) weather like extreme rainfall, hurricanes, and tornadoes are not getting more frequent or severe. In some cases, like for strong tornadoes, data indicate there are fewer now than in the past, not more.
In a roundabout way, Pershing is right. There is no “normal”—climate change exists, as he admitted that it always has. Weather is difficult to predict with accuracy, and extreme weather can be dangerous. Where he’s wrong is his assertion that modern times are seeing unprecedented extreme weather, and that it has been getting worse with the modest warming of the past hundred or so years.
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I like how the ‘heat waves’ in the maximum temperature anomaly graph typically occur in the fall and winter.
If this is climate change, as a Canadian, I’m all for it.
You might also enjoy that most of the warming is always in the Arctic or Antarctic.
The “heat” in these “heat waves” do not mean warm temperatures allowing people to wear lighter clothing. Nor are the heating bills likely to be any lower. And that is before wind turbines and solar arrays increase electricity cost.
“absent drastic action, the climate will only get worse”
Says Andrew Pershing
Who?
“First, the extremes we are witnessing are not normal.”
We aren’t experiencing any extremes (except boredom) in North West Europe – ie the UK.
Pershing is extrapolating from local to global. Big mistake. I wish him a barbecue summer.
“Says Andrew Pershing
Who?”
Andrew Pershing is vice president for science at Climate Central. LOL!
He’s clueless.
Meanwhile, the BBC are unapologetically replacing air temperatures with ground temperatures without explanation in an attempt to instil panic. From about 23:40:
Did Mike ever succeed in growing concrete?
Maybe, unlike you, he understands that cement, the primary ingredient in concrete, is made by heating limestone which is formed over millions of years by organic processes so is indeed “grown”. Here, join in with the little kiddies and learn something of how the planet works:
https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/limestone/399527#:~:text=Limestone%20is%20a%20type%20of,layers%20slowly%20hardened%20into%20limestone.
Obviously you didn’t listen when you attended school. Clearly, your education was a complete waste of public money.
Obviously you didn’t listen when you attended school. Clearly, your education was a complete waste of public money.
A waste of our money
Well, he didn’t say “you can grow cement, ” he said “you can grow concrete”, which you can’t.
Also, though it is correct that limestone is used to make cement, it is not the only ingredient. Cement is made by a complex chemical process requiring, in addition to the calcium from limestone (or shells, or chalk or marl), shale, clay, slate, blast furnace slag, silica sand, and iron ore.
While one could technically grow oysters or clams for their shells for the lime, absolutely no one says that cement can be “grown,” much less concrete
What’s really ruining the VT landscape is:
Mammoth Mountain, the Eastern Sierra skiing destination, will extend its open season until Aug. 6 due to record-breaking snowfall, area officials announced Thursday.
The mountain’s Main Lodge received an astounding 715 inches of snow — nearly 60 feet — this season, with “much more up top,” according to a press release. It was the highest recorded snowfall in the mountain’s history, the release said.
Global warming causes mass Viner fall
But this record snow was warmer than previous record snows, right?
The only “extremes” we’re facing is extremes in hysterical reporting.
The reporting isn’t hysterical, it’s coldly calculated.
To generate clicks, and to incite hysteria in incurious / un-skeptical, naive readers.
Mission accomplished!
“The reporting isn’t hysterical, it’s coldly calculated.”
I think it is about half and half.
This guy Andrew Pershing is clearly hysterical.
College-bred journalists ride the bandwagon. Every negative event is blamed on “climate change”, as in this case, without explanation. The poverty-stricken Guatemalans of the western highlands wouldn’t know of their situation without being able to compare it to others. How climate change makes them move to other places, also experiencing climate change, isn’t explained.
They just keep getting crazier.
I didn’t spot any quantification of what this plan is going to achieve – are they expecting the city to be cooler, warmer, wetter, drier? Surely it isn’t just a massive piece of virtue signalling…
That’s quite a claim.
Proof?
Just who proved that?
That’s how propaganda works.
I wonder how a highly educated person gets so much wrong in such a short essay. To quote the governor of NY as an authority is even more ridiculous. I now realize that “piled higher and deeper” is a reasonable interpretation of Ph.D.
“To quote the governor of NY as an authority is even more ridiculous.”
Isn’t that the truth! The Governor of New York is clueless.
Speaking of what’s “Normal”, a post explaining just how “normal” is defined would be nice.
As I understand it, it’s a 30 year average. Not a running average as in the last 30 years but a 3 decade average which is reset periodically.
How many people realize that?
Might make for an interesting “Man on the street” video.
Good point.
This might start the explanation –
[from Environment Canada] –
“Climate averages”, “climate means” or “climate normals” are all interchangeable terms.
They refer to arithmetic calculations based on observed climate values for a given location over a specified time period.
Climate normals are often used to classify a region’s climate and make decisions for a wide variety of purposes involving basic habitability, agriculture and natural vegetation, energy use, transportation, tourism, and research in many environmental fields.
Normals are also used as a reference for seasonal monitoring of climate temperature and precipitation for basic public interest, and for monitoring drought or forest fires risk.
Real-time values, such as daily temperature, are often compared to a location’s “climate normal” to determine how unusual or how great the departure from “average” they are.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommends that countries prepare climate normals for the official 30-year normals periods ending in 1930, 1960 and 1990, for which the WMO World Climate Normals are published.
In addition, WMO recommends the updating of climate normals at the end of every decade as provided here for 1981 to 2010.
LimitationApart from any uncertainty due to site, instrument, or observing program changes, or general representativeness of the observing site with the surrounding region, the normals for most locations will have some uncertainty due to the fact that the observations are not complete for the 30-year period.
Climate Normals (note the CAPS) were defined in 1935 (or so) to provide a comparison to which an average newspaper reader could relate. It was not the intention to make something that would become part of an agenda. Note, this was before television, computers, and cell phones.
WMO Climate Normals | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov)
1981-2010 Climate Normals (weather.gov)
“”””Weather is Not Getting Worse
That might be the case for ‘climate‘ weather but other sorts (advertising, media, product hype) really have jumped the shark this time
It appears that we now have ‘Bio Gallup‘
Gallup being the new name (not that new, at least 10yrs old) for Roundup which we all know and love as Glyphosate ##
(Pretty naff wasn’t it – renaming Roundup to Gallup)
But and for something was originally researched as an antibiotic (Translate: Contra Life) – they are now trying to claim that a ‘Total Destruction Herbicide‘ has some sort of ‘bio’ (life) enhancing properties.
Could You Make That Up?
Yes: If you’re a Climate Scientist.
Innit just Fa_Tas_Tic
Why not ask Greta about that, it was probably Glyphosate that made her what she is – along with vast (and increasing) numbers of other kids.
Who’s to say it doesn’t also (apart from Copper, Zinc, Iron) lock up Cobalt (Vitamin B12) and so promote Brandonism
iow & aka: Flat-Out-Dementia meets Zombyism
everything is wrong. just everything.
## The renaming did actually work. As a newbie to this area and while doing my own removals, I visited one of myriad ‘farm shops’ there are around here with a view to finding some ‘Organic’ potatoes.
To take back to Newark for my young autistic friend Sarah, (and her Asperger’s mum and likewise elder sister.
Her parents, and most the local village, previously ‘gleaned’ the fields all around the village where the Mega Farming Estate grew potatoes for supermarkets, caterers and crisp makers.
Not especially proper organic, just ones that had not been grown in a field that had NOT had Roundup sprayed on it in the last 5 years.
“Oh its OK” the shop said. “They don’t use Roundup anymore, they use Gallup instead and its OK”
I nearly threw up there and then
Peta,
Better if you quote some high-quality scientific research that does not start with a personal belief. Plus the ever-present objection of “Show me the bodies.”
I majored in Chemistry. I admire chemists with the skill to produce useful chemicals. Useful includes lack of harm. It is trendy to rant about man-made chemicals, even to create the story of man-made CO2, but your words about glyphosate have the same logical deficiencies as those about other whipping-boys like radon, lead, mercury etc. Show me the bodies. OTOH, chemicals that do harm, like thalidomide, are taken from use soon after danger is found. There is no need to imagine chemists so evil that they would kill. Geoff S.
Peta, lots of very unpleasant natural toxins out there (far, far, worse than glyphosate). Gleaning wheat was never a safe thing to do ..fine for a few years and then loads of aflotoxins. Green Potatoes were at one point linked to neural tube defects (spina bifida era). When people have little money safe food selection/ preparation has to go out of the window.
Do a search for
Are there more extreme weather events now
…and you will be inundated with links saying that yes, there are now more extreme weather events and it’s all due to climate change (caused by Man).
Seldom or never will the articles present any data or evidence, just assertions by some “authority”. This is what most people see and believe, and what is being taught in schools.
It makes you wonder, does real science even live any more. It does, but it is overwhelmed by the charlatans and climate hucksters. And our government is on their side, giving them generous amounts of taxpayer money…
“Data? We ain’t got no data! We don’t need no data! I don’t have to show you any stinking data!”
— Michael Mann in The Treasure Seeking Sierra Club
Thanks Iinnea for such an informed and intelligent commentary on the ridiculous claims of Andrew Pershin who is nothing more than an alarmist fearmonger.
We need people like yourself to help us identify the falsehoods and lies they put out.
No!
Pershing makes it abundantly obvious that he neither understands climate change or that he can identify climate change when it confronts him.
Instead, Pershing runs in circles screaming and shouting that we are all doomed.