Our friend Steve Hayward over at Powerline Blog gave me permission to reprint this. It’s weather deja vu all over again. These familiar headlines could just as well be happening today, excpet back then it was reported as weather, not climate. – Anthony
WHITHER THE WEATHER?
The scenes out of Lahaina on Maui are horrific, but naturally the climate cult is rushing to say the inferno that engulfed the town is yet more proof of climate change, and hand over your car keys and gas stoves now. “Yes, I Blame the Climate Crisis for the Horrors on Maui,” says a writer in that premier science journal Esquire. Never mind that Hawaiian officials have been warning for years that overgrowth of non-native grasses on the dry side of Maui and other Hawaiian islands was creating a severe wildfire risk. (For an antidote to the madness, see “Stop claiming that fires in Canada, Greece, and now Maui are due to climate change.”)
Much of the summer’s news has been about heat waves, which are also said to be proof of climate change, even though very few record high temperatures were broken this summer. Heat waves have always been big news for the media, but decades ago no one thought to blame them on human sin.
It is worth following a fellow named Don Penim on Twitter. Mr. Penim appears to have sufficient leisure time on his hands to scour old newspaper archives for articles on heat waves and extreme weather events, and he also turned up headlines from a few decades ago to remind us that wildfires are not unusual for Hawaii:
Let’s note a few others from Mr. Penim’s archive while we’re here—note the dates of most of these stories:
And never forget these 1970s-era gems of climate prediction:
I could go on. Mr. Penim has lots more. What about recent high temps? Here are some of the official temperature records for places suffering from extreme climate change in recent weeks:
Chaser—The Babylon Bee, reporting the real news as usual:
Nice post. Alinsky radical rule 5–Ridicule is the best weapon. And skeptics are climate radicals.
I agree that ridicule, backed with fact, un-manipulated data and true science, is to alarmists what garlic is to vampires
The problem is that ridicule only works if the target actually knows about it.
How do you make sure that the correct targets in this case even know that they are targets, never mind how do you get them to accept the criticism?
I do a lot of personalization to targets who don’t/can’t hide. Of course, they then block. Which just means you hit the target once. Reload with a different upi or a vpi (easy these days) and hit them again.
Ridicule may rarely work on the “target” but those seeing the ridicule may take pause and reconsider what the “target” has said.
Good point, Gunga
Ridicule also only works if the target cares, or is capable of any semblance of shame.
Many on this forum and elsewhere understand how they are gaslighting the populace about AGW. Classic Marxists propaganda. But you can only do that for so long before the wolf eats Peter and we keep gaining more skeptics by the day. People say “so what, the Marxists are winning and there’s nothing we can do” but just take a look at what a couple of boycotts have done for other social issues … and AGW is definitely a social issue when it comes to proving it.
Budweiser and its local North Dakota distributor are official sponsors of the famous annual Sturgis motorcycle rally happening now. They set up a big area with lots of tents/tables for food and beer. Elsewhere posted, a Sturgis rider rode by on two separate days and there was NOBODY there except the two distributor employees. Bud Light’s Dylan Mulvaney sponsorship definitely not a good marketing move.
Maybe the Bud drinkers couldn’t find Sturgis as it is in South Dakota and not North Dakota….
Annheuser-Busch have sold off about 8 of their beer/beverage brands since that debacle to Tilray. I guess they needed the money and, no, Bud Light wasn’t one of the brands they sold.
Well Bud Light as brand probably has no value now anyway. They sold 10 craft brewery brands to a cannabis company for $85m. In the UK years back we had the Gerald Ratner moment when the boss of the Ratner jewellery chain said in a speech that the reason he could sell jewellery so cheap was because it was complete crap. Now it appears that Dylan Mulvaney marketing is to be included in courses, presumably to demonstrate what not to do but in those woke times you can’t be certain.
Tilray Brands is that cannabis company.
Here’s some gaslighting from Brandon,
Also fluffing, mumbling, answering the wrong question, flat-out lying, avoiding the issue – and I only made it half way through before I came over ‘all queasy like‘
Enjoy it while you can before it vanishes, although, it’s probably up somewhere else
https://www.wunderground.com/video/top-stories/4-moments-from-twcs-interview-with-president-biden
“gaslighting“
waiting patiently for the term “gaslighting” to fade from use. Ifeel like it turns up everywhere as an excuse for another sentence.It’s usually used correctly. its just become tiresome.
That and ‘triggering’ will, eventually, fade from use. Trouble is they’re likely to be replaced by a new set of borrowed buzz-words.
“Moving forward”…
Story tip
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/08/14/smart-meter-uproar-mps-rally-against-rollout/
We need more politicians to speak out against smart meters – get the word out – stop these invasive domestic control instruments – they are not for consumers benefit
My friends in southern California have a smart meter and the power company has used them to ration electricity. There is a real potential for abuse.
The rationing can happen via Australian Standards for solar panels limit to 255V. They just supply 258V when grid is unbalanced and solar cuts out…. now the TV adds are pushing batteries to get your money back/keep your power. Go figure!
The significant story in there is:
What Took Them So F****g Long to work that out
I think to clues are ‘politicians’ and ‘MPs’…..
Metering systems that report energy use wirelessly are inherently more efficient. You have to concoct an extremely unlikely situation to make humans with pens more efficient. The downside, contol that enables fast easy centralized decision making is political and philosophical, They can ENABLE uses that are “not for consumers benefit”, They do save money, energy and manual data reentry.
The potential consumer enemy in a Smart meter is the remote disconnect switch which punishes bill nonpayment.
So called Smart meters do not save money. They are a cost that is added to your bills and you see no reduction for abandoning meter readers. My energy suppliers send an email when a reading is required and it takes minutes to supply them with an accurate reading.
“My energy suppliers send an email when a reading is required and it takes minutes to supply them with an accurate reading.”
Smart meters in USA usually report one to four times per day with no request required. Analytics, many samples per second in charts and graphs, are mostly a sales gimmic and break the look-alike interfaces for districts that combine water, gas and electric into one system – two of those meter categories ought to be (yes and they are) battery operated. Reports often use whatever local cell carrier offers an okay deal. The same mutual funds own stock in the power company and the wireless carrier.Inconceivable amounts of money are saved by not having humans drive around to collect data, especially where population density is low. Companies that make smart meters would have liked to keep using them, and aspiring meter reading van drivers wish meters could stay off networks but this is 2023, The power companies are saving money when they add the correct smart meters. Whether ordinary people benefit or lose depends on which mutual funds they own in theit 401k.
(and whether they pay their bills)
Another great post Anthony
I found it hilarious that just as the alarmists were gearing up their, this is climate change wildfire rhetoric, the people in the know in Hawaii were saying it was nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with forest, un-native grasses mis management and arsonists, coupled with strong associated winds from Hurricane Dora
You could almost hear the alarmists drop the mic and scuttle off into their emergency cult echo chambers
The claim from scientists has never been that extreme weather events are only happening because of climate change, the claim is that climate change increases the likelihood of some kinds of extreme weather. Pointing to historic extreme weather events does not disprove this.
And yet a hotter than average summer in some places is a sure sign that man-made climate change is the cause of the “Hottest July on Record.”
It was the hottest July on record. Irrespective of the cause. We can’t definitively know if this July would have been the hottest on record without global warming, but we can certainly say that global warming is going to make the likelihood of hot Julys higher.
Hottest July on record? Where?
Not my little spot on the globe.
Zero record highs for July.
(But 1936 had a brutal week.)
The globe as a whole. The universe doesn’t end at the end of your nose. Hope this helps.
And just how far do we have temperature “records” of global temperatures in July?
And time didn’t start at the LIA.
Nearly all of the last 10,000 years have been warmer than now.
I know that won’t help, because you are a CAGW cult zealot.
A global temperature average?
Completely specious.
Everyone that cites a global temperature average or anomaly is blowing fecal matter.
The temperature profile at every station is a variable with a variance. Adding hundreds or thousands of variables with different variances together without accounting for those variances makes any statistical analysis done with that data nothing but garbage. Yet that is *exactly* what climate science does – because it is easiest, not because it is the right method to use.
I don’t think you understand what “global” means. If it’s not happening globally, then it’s not global. Simple.
Not my little spot on the globe either.
No, it was not the hottest July on record.
According to the vaunted UAH satellite data series, which the folks on this website proclaim is the best temperature data available, it was.
True, since the UAH record began in 1979. Not true if one considers the MWP or the RWP. July has been around for a long time.
So a measly 45 years., SO WHAT. !
And by a fraction of a degree, in one month…
You do know the globe is only a degree or so above the coldest period in 10,00 years, don’t you.
You do know that most of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than now, don’t you ?
Try not to be such an ignorant zealot.
AlanJ… Hello… the records only go back to the advent of climate satellites, 1969! There are no global historical temperature records prior to then!
Time to repeat the title of this post?
Exactly right. We don’t have enough data to support or deny unless we throw out guidelines that make statistics (sometimes) work.
The other problem with the data is that they are measurements – and measurements have an uncertainty interval. You can’t just throw away the measurement uncertainty and use only the stated values the way climate science does in their statistics. From everything I have studied the measurement uncertainty is larger than the anomalies they are trying to determine with their statistics. Meaning they don’t actually know what the anomalies are, they just *think* they know based on their unjustifiable assumption that all measurement error is random and Gaussian and, therefore, cancels out.
Yes. The assumption that all non-guasian factors add up to be gausian depends on very important … assumptions.It is often true but once in awhile non-randomness matters.
There aren’t any global temperature records now, but there is no global temperature.
Alan,
It isn’t “global warming” anymore. That world-renowned climate scientist, the Secratary of the United Nations, has declared that it is now “global boiling”.
Did any “climate scientist” fact-check that statement?
Of course not, there was no need ‘cos everyone knows that the science is settled.
“It was the hottest July on record”
There goes that idiotic any-history BS again !!
Current global temperatures are only a small bump above the coldest in 10,000 years, and far lower than most of that period.
And if we had real unadjusted measurements from around the 1930s,40s… I doubt we would see any difference.
errata… any-history -> anti-history
“ but we can certainly say .. blah, blah”
You can certainly say that the Big Bad Wolf is coming, too.
Doesn’t mean anything. !
How is it going to make the liklihood of hot Julys higher? The anomaly from the baseline doesn’t indicate that record temps will be seen. The anomaly isn’t even large enough to register to most people. Can *you* tell the difference between 90F and 92F. How about 90F and 100F? Far larger differences than the global anomaly!
No doubt that the Julys having dust storms were totally cooler than now.
The climate doesn’t care about how we divide the year into months or weeks. You are taking an arbitrary period of 30 days and comparing it with the same period of 30 days in the recent past. Take another 30 days, or a period of 26 or 38 days, and the result may be completely different. Was the period June 25 to August 14 the hottest ever? Who knows, but its just as legitimate an indicator.
In the UK for instance, it was widely reported that part of the summer of 2022 was the hottest ever. Maybe the particular period of days cited was. But compare the whole summer with the whole summer of 1976, there was nothing special about 2022.
I am not persuaded that July 2023 really was hotter than any previous July globally – weather is a long tailed distribution and there have probably been many other long hot summers and long hot Julys in the era before satellites and before global measures. But even if it was, its of no significance.
As a comparison, suppose the period Dec 10 2022 to Jan 10 2023 had been colder or warmer than any other instance of this same period in the satellite era.
Would that mean anything? No. And its perfectly compatible with the comparison giving a different result if you took instead Jan 5 to Feb 5 2023.
The whole analysis of grouping by months is just crazy. Winter temps have a different variance than summer temps. It makes no sense to average variables with different variances without accounting for the variances. It makes even less sense, as you point out, to group these months with different variances into *annual* averages. It would make more sense to group them by June-June or November-November.
And don’t even get me started on the statistical problems with averaging northern hemisphere temps with southern hemisphere temps in the same month!
Since anomalies inherit the variances of the components used to create the anomalies, even averaging anomalies makes no sense unless something is done to account for the different variances.
Averaging temperatures from different locations is scientific fraud. Intensive variables.
You can certainly say that, but so what?
It was the hottest July on record.
How long is that record?
Alan J,
Do you have data that show there is no mechanism to stop how hot the atmosphere gets?
Like, there is a mechanism involving cloud and convection that limits ocean surface temperatures to 30 deg C.
I have looked to see if heatwaves of 5 or 10 consecutive days get hotter as the ambient temperature (Tmax) is claimed to have got over 1deg C hotter in the past century. Can’t find it happening. Suggests there is a local cap.
Geoff S
What is the connection to the magic molecule (CO2)?
But the warmunists constantly, invariably blame every weather related event on climate change. So it is not a valid argument to dismiss the facts of each and every event in the context of the hysteria over “climate change” by saying “it’s just weather.” It’s also just weather when bad shit happens.
Who are “the warmunists?” Climate scientists aren’t doing that at all.
Who are your “climate scientist”?
Why aren’t they out correcting the record?
PS Here’s a link to the records for my little spot on the globe.
2023 only shows up under “Snow”.
(All the records listed tend to only show the most recent record. Past “ties” aren’t shown.)
https://www.weather.gov/iln/climate_records_cmh#
(You’ll need to click on July.)
I looked a bit beyond the “end of my nose”.
Cincinnati had 8 July daily record highs in 1936. Another 8 for 1934.
Dayton had 8 in 1936. One was 108, 2 higher than the all time high for Columbus of 106 in 1934.
(Ohio’s all time was 113 in 1934. Hot decade.)
`Agreed, cleverly worded insults and name calling don’t usually help. “Climate scientists aren’t doing that at all.” requires guesses to argue with. Which scientists are not doing what? I don’t know, I have to guess the quote is a general statement advocating the moral uprightness of the science-minded. Science-minded humans have done some unpleasant things in world history.The global eugenics movement used science to advocate certain ideas.
“Hot decade”
Indeed.
When has there been a hotter decade than the 1930’s?
Michael Moore!
Uh, the Secretary General of the UN, the POTUS, and many other warmunistas, err, climate scientists.
I coined the term in a longish footnote to the climate chapter of The Arts of Truth, and have used it here often since it published late 2012. Was inspired by former Czech president Vaclav Claus, and his 2007 book Blue Climate in Green Chains. He lived thru the Soviet occupation of his country.
And yes, consensus ‘climate scientists’ ARE doing that just as he described in 2007.
“The Arts of Truth”.
I have to ask, is that a twist on the title SG-1 DVD title “The Ark of Truth”? 😎
Wow had to Google-IMDB… SG1 was 1997.
I don’t love promulgating Google results because Google has so obviously obscured search results that should lead to wuwt.
Warmunist is a perfectly descriptive label, as they believe fully in human caused warming and most are extreme leftists demanding that governments destroy capitalism and individual freedoms in the name of their weird sect.
Splitting hairs with your rebuttal. The all knowing US EPA has stated roughly the same argument. “Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change” -https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/weather-climate. If one believes weather events will become more frequent and more intense with human-induced climate change then it implies events are only happening because of climate change. Here is my belief – it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter, sometime there is too much precipitation and sometime there is too little. We as humans have very little to do with the climate but are really good at creating UHI.
Of course no one believes this. The only people saying it are the skeptics on forums like this one.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/hurricane-harvey-august-2017/
(Do a Cntl-F and search for Mann.)
Oh rubbish. What is being said on fora like this is that the weather isn’t becoming any more extreme, and it is being backed up with data. (The plural of forum is fora.)
Forums (Anglicized) and Fora (Latin) are both acceptable. Choosing between them is a matter of preference and neither is more correct than the other.
“(The plural of forum is fora.)”
I didn’t know that. Fora what reason is that. 😎
Latin.
He worded it oddly but the quote part of PA’s comment is as logical as Leonard Nimoy ever said.
Just because someone doesn’t know they’re saying something does not mean they aren’t saying it. Lewis Carroll had much to say on that topic.
Step one was to say that a bad weather event was a ‘one in a thousand year event’ even though history showed that such events occurred every 50-100 years or so.
Step two – when these weather events inevitably occurred more than once in a thousand years, falsely claim that they are becoming more and more frequent.
I’m sorry AlanJ but it is a fairly transparant fraud – at best alarmist rubbish, at worst a deliberately perpetrated fraud to advance an agenda.
A 1000 year event is an event that has a 1 in 1000 chance of happening in a given year, no an event that occurs regularly every 1000 years. You’ve provided zero proof of any scientists falsely claiming that any extreme event is becoming more common, so I’m happy to dismiss that fabrication offhand.
In that case I suggest you take it up with the scientists from the ‘World Weather Attribution Group’ who made exactly that claim about the floods in Germany and other weather events. Handwaving and offhand dismissals are unlikely to get you very far.
You have a laughably poor understanding of statistics. The globe is so massive that these types of events can happen anywhere every year. The climate is just that variable and chaotic.
You do know the huge error margins on things like “1 in 1000” events, don’t you!
Please name one place that has 1000 years of data. Many have less than 100 years of data.
‘Claim is that climate change increases likelihood of some kinds of extreme weather.’
Except there is zero evidence that is remotely true:
As Cliff Mass covered earlier here, the proximate cause was a wetter than usual winter/spring on Maui causing more invasive grass growth so higher summer fuel load). And the anthropogenic component was a study warning of this exact thing back in 2014, when Maui implemented exactly none of the recommended prevention measures. For example, buy 4WD off road pumper firetrucks to put reach grass fires in rough former AG lands. For example, mow the invasive grasses to create large firebreaks around Lahaina. This grass fire only covered about 2500 acres. That is one Dakotas wheat farm harvested in less than a week.
Notice that you haven’t heard a peep about Australian wildfires since 2019 (where a medium amount of untended, overgrown bushland along the east coast got burnt)
Mind you, undergrowth is now high again in many areas because of high rainfall over the last few years…. and nothing is being done about it…
I suspect that in another couple of years, Australia will have another quite bad bushfire year..
… and the alarmists will crawl out from under their bridges and start howling again.
With a build up of fuel of 10 tonnes/hectare/year that is inevitable.
Where’s the data that backs up any of what you said? And no, models do not count. They are a video game that represents a human’s imagination not the real world.
“ increases the likelihood “
Where did they get that nonsense from… Talk about lack of evidence. !!!
One does not need to “disprove” a raked-up fantasy from something akin to SimCity computer games.
“SimCity computer games”
One of my all time favorite computer games, with user made campaigns, was Pacific General.
Depending on which side I was playing, we should all be speaking Japanese, German or American English. (I was not an unbiased player. there were no “cheat codes” for the game but there were ways to manipulate the outcome.) 😎
No Alan the claim is that CO2 from man is causing climate to change toward higher temperatures. As temperatures were higher during the Holocene Optimum and other periods making a big deal out of today’s temperatures is hysterical.
They are NOT happening AT ALL because of climate change. Any so called “scientist” that says it is, clearly is lying or has no clue what “climate” is and isn’t.Here is why. Climate is a human contrived perception. In reality it doesn’t exist because it is a human calculated average of various real world weather conditions/events over a defined space and period of time. While obviously weather is real, the calculate average of it is NOT, except within the human mind. So, the question becomes – can something that is “real” only in the mind change something that is external to the mind? No. For example; in baseball there are any number of human calculate averages. Sports writers love them! ERA, BA, BB/K, etc. Many of them have numerous real-world events included in the calculation just like climate, such as On Base Percentage (OBP/OPS) which refers to how frequently a batter reaches first base by a hit, a walk or getting hit by a pitch, per plate appearances. A .800 OPS is considered excellent BUT it has no effect and CANNOT change the outcome of that players NEXT plate appearance, just like the average of past global weather events CANNOT change the weather in Paducah tomorrow. If you believe a change in the average of a few past events can change a future event – – – your not living in this world.
Many people miss this vital point.
I appreciate both your attempt to raise a contrarian pointand the apparent attempt to hear what people are actually saying. Your thesis “the claim is that climate change increases the likelihood of some kinds of extreme weather” expresses hat I hear from CC advocates. However CC advocates avoid making testable claims, see claims proven incorrect too often, and treat data very unscientifically. If you are math-minded and try to do some statistics, you will be immediately confronted with the realization that al the data records are too short for what you want to learn.
It also doesn’t take long to see that many claims will involve nearly immeasurable quantities, e.g., temperature level within historical limits but it has never changed this rapidly in a [short time frame] in the last [long time frame to impress audience].
If the claim is constructed “properly”, the data used from the long time frame will not capture the high frequencies needed in order to actually falsify it.
Yes I agree with you, historical data is low pass filtered by all proxies. Data from before 1850 looks sparse and crappy to me.
A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warmingGianluca Alimonti, Luigi Mariani, Franco Prodi & Renato Angelo Ricci(my bold)
AbstractThis article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.
I was wondering when WUWT would comment on all the hysteria regarding the Maui wildfires.
We already know that the fire was started by a fault in the power transmission system, so the cause cannot be blamed on “climate change”. Anyone who is familiar at all with the Hawaiian islands knows that each of the main islands, which are mountainous, has a wet side (northeast, from which the trade winds blow) and a dry side (southwest, on the downwind side of the mountains). The burned area in Lahaina is in the dry side of Maui. The dry areas of the Hawaiian islands could pass for the deserts of Nevada. If overgrowth of brush, grass, etc. is not properly maintained, then any spark can cause a wildfire. The emergency response system in Lahaina apparently totally failed. This has zilch to do with “climate change”. It’s the climate that’s always been since the Hawaiian islands were formed via volcanic action, depending on island anywhere from 300 kya to more than 1.5 mya – relatively recent in geologic history.
“I was wondering when WUWT …”
This site has re-posted two of Cliff Mass’ posts on the topic. The first was 5 days ago.
But there is more….the CNBC series on climate change wants you to know that smoke is being created by wildfires in Canada….in Australia…in America….and the smoke is bad…really bad…..cough cough….no, really.
What? You mean I might have to put my cigarette out? Damn.
And no barbecue and fireworks.
And that smoke traps heat.
Story Tip: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html
“Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in Landmark Climate CaseThe court found that young people have a constitutional right to a healthful environment and that regulators must be allowed to consider climate impact.”
I’m rather surprised.
I’m rather surprised as well, it’s been thrown out of most courts so far. Wonder what will happen in appeal?
I wonder how Montana will separate its climate from the world’s climate.
Judge Kathy Seeley will order the Montana Air National Guard to deploy unicorns to circle it’s borders.
I just rechecked the Constitution and it conveys no such right. Gone on appeal.
I just wonder if the court can order China or India to stop “carbon” emissions?
Yes. The court can. And they won’t. Then the court can find them in contempt. Then they will RAOTFLTAO!
Did you check the Montana Constitution?
The case was resolved on case law “Montana Code Ann. 75-01-201(6)(a)(ii) being facially unconstitutional under Park County” and, additionally, “obligations under the Montana Constitution Article IX, Section 1(3)”.
Judge Seeley’s husband Rex runs a outdoor/gun shop over in Helena, I met
her there once.
As far as this ruling goes it should be overturned on appeal.
It is impossible to say what humans activities have done, if anything, in reference to climate change until the parameters of natural variation have been established. Which
for some reason the Greens don’t want to study.
The greatest threat to our children is in the classrooms.
Absolutely!
Public employees in labor unions with defined benefit retirement plans?
The judge in this case claims that it has been proven that humans are causing the climate to change.
I want to see this proof.
We all know she doesn’t have any proof. Instead she has confused speculation, assumptions and assertions with evidence.
I want to see her proof. Would love to be able to debunk it.
Overturn bait by a liberal judge
Old folks use to sit near the wood stove at the local mercantile, play checkers, and talk about the crazy weather. So, said my grandfather.
These old newspapers show the weather of those times.
Interesting.
Thanks.
Yes, if scientists really wanted to compare today with the past, all they have to do is read the newspapers of the time. The weather conditions were recorded every day, all over the world.
If one were to do that, they would see that it was just as warm in the past as it is today, and extreme weather was a feature just like it is today.
You should read about some of the terrible heat in China at the same time a Dust Bowl was occurring in the United States in the 1930’s. Some alarmists want to claim the Dust Bowl was a local phenomenon, but the newspapers tell a different story.
The newspapers back then did not have an agenda to promote human-caused climate change, the way they do today. They never heard of such a thing back then. Unbiased weather reporting. Unbiased reporting that shows we are not experiencing unprecedeted warmth or weather today, which means CO2 is not the problem the alarmists make it out to be.
The news papers did have an agenda, and that agenda was to sell papers and sensationalism did sell papers.
They all generally had political agendas and could have other agendas. Hurst and the Spanish American war and the long long history of antisemitism at the NYT are two prime examples.
Yes, thanks rah. There were humans with opinions before 1850. People somehow forget.
They didn’t have an opinion on human-caused climate change back then.
People have had opinions on politics since the beginning of time.
Human-caused climate change is a very recent phenomenon.
Montana tanked that climate lawsuit by essentially admitting the climate religion spoketh the truth. At this point, we’re just rearranging the deck chairs here – facts don’t matter anymore. We can’t have this debate at the national level because it’s all Trump 24 hours a day.
There are likely more science-literate people today who understand that Climageddon is not upon us. Doesn’t matter a bit. They’re winning the battles anyway. It’s like fighting against Christianity within the walls of the Vatican.
You really think this pope believes in God ?
Do you think Michael Mann Believes in Climageddon?
The masses like their opium. Someone has to cultivate it.
He certainly believes in propagating that belief.
Tony Heller
@TonyClimate
On August 13, 1944, twenty-two states were over 100F and every state except Montana was over 90F. There were 100 degree temperatures from coast to coast including most of California. Recent generations of Americans have not experienced heat like that. #ClimateScam
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3c-rNwaMAAXOKJ?format=jpg&name=900×900
Tony is a pioneer in studying the newspapers of the past for weather data.
He makes the climate change alarmists look silly, when he puts the newspaper facts on the table.
And it’s still just weather, not climate.
Tell that to the alarmists and the UN and all the morons spouting about boiling oceans.
Tell that to this Moron if he doesn’t have you blocked.
(8) Democracy Now! on Twitter: “Scientists warn climate change will make events like Maui’s wildfires more frequent and more intense. “We can’t tell this story without talking about the climate crisis,” says @MichaelEMann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at @Penn. https://t.co/XvLztul1jA” / X
Tony Heller
@TonyClimate
On August 13, 1936, seven states were over 110F, twenty-one states were over 100F and forty-five states were over 90F. Heat like that is far out of the experience of recent generations of Americans.
#ClimateScam
Kansas 119
California 118
Nebraska 117
Oklahoma 116
Arizona 115
Texas 114
Missouri 112
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3dOH8Fa0AABGNd?format=jpg&name=900×900