Cold Weather Doesn’t Mean ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t Fake Or Something

Realistically, cold weather and cold winters do not mean that climate change, whether you believe it is natural or mankind, is fake. The summer of 1778 was reported to be unusually hot, and resulted in more men dying from the heat than from wounds during the Battle Of Monmouth in June of that year. This was during the Little Ice Age.

But, as we’ve seen, the Cult of Climastrology keeps trotting out reasons why you’re use of a fossil fueled vehicle is making it hotter which also makes it colder. And here’s National Geographic

Why cold weather doesn’t mean climate change is fake
Weather and climate aren’t the same thing, meaning you can expect harsher winters in a warming world.

A record-breaking cold snap is relentlessly descending on parts of the U.S. this month. It spawned from a split polar vortex that sent cold, Arctic air across the continent.

In a time when climate change is discussed in the context of record highs, droughts, and wildfires, cold weather and blizzards can seem out of place. For those who deny that climate change is happening, it’s an opportunity to undermine scientific consensus.

Once you mention consensus, you’ve left science.

How do you explain a cold winter in a world that scientists say is getting hotter?

First, it’s important to understand the difference between climate and weather. Climate is defined as the average weather patterns in a region over a long period of time. It’s the difference between Europe’s temperate and Mediterranean zones versus the harsh cold conditions of the Arctic tundra. Each of these climate regions experiences day-to-day fluctuations in temperature, precipitation, air pressure, and so on—daily variations known as weather.

Yet, Warmists do this daily, blaming/linking every weather event on anthropogenic climate change, and even blaming/linking volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis on mankind’s output of carbon pollution.

When the term global warming was popularized a few decades ago, it referred to the phenomenon of greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere and warming the average temperature of the planet. Though record high temperatures in many places have been one impact of this decades-long shift, scientists now understand that an atmosphere changed by rising levels of gases like carbon and methane leads to more climate changes than just warming.

Scientists believe Earth will experience more extreme, disastrous weather as the effects of climate change play out.

In other words, the actual data for warming wasn’t working out for them, so they changed the language to encompass everything. Totally scientific, eh?

In response to President Trump’s January 20 tweet about cold temperatures, Potsdam University physicist Stefan Rahmstorf noted on Twitter that, while North America was experiencing cold Arctic air, the rest of the world was abnormally hot. And, the polar vortex bringing that cold air to the U.S. may actually become increasingly unstable, Rahmstorf noted.

As more Arctic air flows into southern regions, North America can expect to see harsher winters. That was the conclusion of a study published in 2017 in the journal Nature Geoscience. It found a link between warmer Arctic temperatures and colder North American winters. A separate study published in March of last year in the journal Nature Communications found the same link but predicted the northeastern portion of the U.S. would be particularly hard hit.

Same old same old way of blaming mankind for creating a warmer world that will have winter weather. Cult.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

20 Responses to “Cold Weather Doesn’t Mean ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t Fake Or Something”

  1. Jacobus Noir says:

    Once you mention consensus, you’ve left science.

    That statement is not accurate. Since scientific theories are never proven, but can be falsified by experimentation, scientists reach a consensus when the evidence makes it unreasonable to doubt the theory.

    Is the theory of man-made global warming proven? No. But few scientists question it. Sorry, but that’s how it is. The uncertainty of science makes it tough on policymakers.

    • formwiz says:

      scientific theories are never proven??????

      I don’t know where Jeffery went to school, if he went to school, but proofs are the lifeblood of science.

      Wotta maroon.

      • dachs_dude says:

        What would falsify the AGW theory?

        Well since temperatures didn’t rise as predicted, that would certainly indicate that the AGW may be false. But they changed it to Global Climate Change, (GCC). This way if temperatures didn’t rise as predicted or even fell, the GCC theory would stand.

        OK, then, what would falsify Man-made Global Climate Change theory?

        Again, the answer would appear to be: “Nothing.”

    • Jl says:

      The “we have more guys on our side so we must be right!” argument. Very scientific…

  2. gitarcarver says:

    That statement is not accurate.

    It is accurate. As you say, science is proven, not a campfire meeting of people saying “we agree.”

    Since scientific theories are never proven, but can be falsified by experimentation, scientists reach a consensus when the evidence makes it unreasonable to doubt the theory.

    Yet that has not happened with AGW. The experimentation, data and history has shown AGW to be false at least to the extent that members of the warmist cult believe, but yet they are not pulling back from the theory at all.

    But few scientists question it.

    False. Many scientists question it.

    The uncertainty of science makes it tough on policymakers.

    So do the lies of the cult.

    • Jacobus Noir says:

      Sorry, but you are wrong on every count.

      What is the best piece of data/evidence to falsify the theory of man-made climate change? (In the past you’ve claimed that you’ve revealed it many times, just have it ignored). Just one piece, please.

      Since “skeptics” demand absolute proof, what, to your “mind”, would be “proof” of man-made global warming? What’s the “proof” that tobacco smoking causes bladder cancer? What’s the “proof” that gravity is universal?

      Actually, “skeptics” are just not convinced by the evidence of man-made global warming. First, you denied it was warming. Then, you denied that CO2 was the cause. Now, you deny that CO2 is man-made/ claim the “cure” is worse than the “disease”/ cry communists!!

      • gitarcarver says:

        Sorry, but you are wrong on every count.

        No, I am not.

        But such statements are typical of those who believe as you do. “You’re wrong” is not an argument.

        Just one piece, please.

        You mean proof like climate models not matching the “consensus?”

        What’s the “proof” that gravity is universal?

        You always bring this up and it is always a failing argument. People are sure that gravity exists because of repeatable experiments. What is unclear is the mechanism behind gravity.

        That’s backwards from what warmists believe. They believe they know the mechanics of climate change, but have no experiments, and no models that prove it.

        The real issue is that people know and understand that the earth’s climate has changed over time. Warmists want to deny that reality.

        So while you rail and make false, strawman arguments against what people “believe,” the fact of the matter is that consensus is not science.

      • formwiz says:

        Jeffery, good little Lefty that he is, just throws out his lies and refuses to accept any refutation.

        This is why hwe have people like Occasional Cortex.

        • dachs_dude says:

          We have people like Occasional Cortex because too many people on the left are unwilling to do the hard work, sacrifice, and good choices that enable one to thrive in a (mostly) capitalist economy.

          They rail against Grandpa Ed, who on a laborer’s salary had a stay at home wife, put 2 kids through college with his part-time work on the side and managed to buy a house, “down-the-shore”.

          Today’s young socialists, with their thousands spent on, tattoos, concert tickets, vacations, starbucks, eating out, expensive TVs, etc. can’t understand why they have no money to save. They want the government to punish the successful, the frugal, the hard working, so that they can feel better about having nothing.

  3. Jacob Noire says:

    We will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes “science”.

    You are just wrong that climate models do not support the theory of man-made global warming. What else can we call a lie but a lie?

    • formwiz says:

      No, we don’t.

      You are wrong. Science is quite well established. What you want is what was known in the 30s as Aryan science, which was blown to Hell by all the Jews that got it right.

    • Jl says:

      Models are not proof, nor evidence, of anything. We are a long way from even understanding how natural climate change works, so there’s absolutely no way scientists would know how to properly program a model to take into account natural forcings.

  4. StillAlive says:

    But few scientists question it.

    It’s obvious that Jacobus Noir is Jethro in a new disguise after accidently revealing his true name yesterday. But I will respond.

    An extensive poll was conducted after Obama issued his infamous tweet that said climate change is caused by mankind and is real, it is dangerous and 97 percent of scientist agree.

    In reality the polling done revealed the largest percentage of those who believed mankind was responsible among the thousands upon thousands of scientists polled was 52 percent. The scientists were broken down into many different catagories of scientists such as meteorologists, physics, climate scientists, geologist, biologists and a couple other I dont remember now.

    The largest percent was 52 who believe mankind was responsible for climate change. That category was meteorologists who work publicly at stations in predominantly liberal bastions of true believers. Coming in second was Climate scientist with 48 percent.

    There is not a consensus. Margaret thatcher voiced her definition of consensus:

    “Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”

    ― Margaret Thatche

    As for proof one only has to look at the leaked Emails among the Climate science elite which talk about cooking graphs and how to do it to show warming. One only has to look at NOAA taking down their 40 years of data and when they put them back up all the figures had changed to show warming.

    One only has to look at the graphs and see the slick way in which they begin the graphs at convient points in the time line to show a rise. One only has to look at tidal gauges which have shown very little ocean rise. One only has to look at NASA which claims 3.4 MM of ocean rise per year since 1977 when in reality they ignored and CHANGED the data which only showed 1.7 mm sea level rise during this time frame.

    One only has to look at Sweeden’s tidal gauges to see that the ocean level has declined not risen during this same time frame. A rising ocean would rise everywhere. Not simply in select cities.

    One only has to look at the claims it will no longer snow by the year 2020 and yet here we sit in the middle of harsh blizzards. The Greenland ice sheet has added 550 billion tones of snow in the last year alone. The ice in Antarctica is growing not shrinking.

    One only has to look at Michal Mann’s debunked hockey stick and realize his data was cherry picked. He only used data which proved his theory rather than all the data which showed no such thing as a hockey stick graph.

    I could go on and on. You wanted proof. There you go. The Russians themselves have debunked AGW with core samples and sound research. Astrophysicists have proven with 93 percent accuracy that the 97 percent of climate change is a result of the sunspot cycles along with the earths rotational tilt and position within the Milankovich cycles. Yet the AGW crowd conviently cherry picks its data to prove its theory while ignoring other data which disproves their theory.

    Michael Mann said its a shame we have no warming in an email. Recently he said the North atlantic conveyor belt is slowing down which brings warm water from the southern oceans to the norther latitudes making it have a much more moderate temperature than it should.

    The oceans are drivers of climate. When they cover 70 percent of the surface of the earth they should be drivers. Methane only accounts for 2 molecules per 1,000,000 parts and most modelers ignore methane totally when they model. Yet the AGW crowd wants us to rid the planet of cows because they fart methane. Methane combines with oxygen to oxidize co2. It is an actually good thing to have methane in the air. Not a bad thing.

    Colorado State university professor and leading climate scientist said 5 years ago in testimony before congress that CO2 is NOT responsible for climate change. The community was aghast. To this day Roger Pelke a proponent of climate change stands by his assertions.

    In 2005 a report was distributed by the Santa Barbara School of Oceanography which said that during the time frame in which the earth was on average 12 degrees warmer and the PPm in the atmosphere of co2 was 4400 ppm the Greenland ice sheet only lost 40 percent of its ice and this was during a 20000 year time scale, not 100 years or 50 years as predicted to day that 450 ppm or 500 ppm is going to cause catastrophic flooding. The community was agast and the report has since been purged from the internet and removed from the schools research papers.

    Fascism on a grand scale among climate scientists to keep their gravy train flowing and to ensure the New world order and Fascist World Government can remove energy from the powerful nations and turn them to weak nations filled with massive influxes of immigrants to dilute their ability to push back on the UN’s taking over of the world in due course using AGW as its prime driver.

    Fear mongering. WMD’s in IRAQ we must attack. Opps sorry guys my bad, yet we are still there spending 100’s of billions of dollars per year and for WHAT? Certainly not for OIL the US is now the largest producer of oil and Natural gas in the world.

    Your stance on AGW is easy to refute.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      It’s obvious that Jacobus Noir is Jethro in a new disguise after accidently revealing his true name yesterday.

      About seven times since last October.
      At least the nignorant little fella can no longer blame others for his self-doxxing.

      • StillAlive says:

        Yeah and what appears to be sad is that he seems a highly educated man who has had a reasonable career. Perhaps working for Monsanto soured him on the world. I should think that experience would sour most people.

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          … he seems a highly educated man who has had a reasonable career. 

          He’s a nignorant angry little sociopath who has posted his nonsense here for years and been caught lying numerous times.
          Teach probably keeps him around for the clicks.

  5. david7134 says:

    Let me explain Jeff’s stupid comments on science. He is using concepts of medical care and trying and failing to adapt these principals to physical science. As there are multiple variables in biology. So when developing guidelines for care or medications, then doctors will form a conscience of opion. Now, Jeff is a pharmacist involved in assessing new drugs. He even has a claim of curing cancer which means that is a given cancer would kill you in 6 months, his medications and corporation will take the data on drug development and show that his drugs allow you to live 8 months, this a cute in their nomenclature. Jeff’s job is to make sure that doctors they pay come up with the required statistics to justify the claim.Jeff apparently writes the papers for journals and gives the best performing doctors credit for the article. Remuneration to doctors ranging as much as $10,000 or providing lavish parties often with celebrities..He really knows little of conventional science.

    • david7134 says:

      I might add that medical consensus is often wrong. I give an example of cholesterol treatment. Cholesterol is a not cause any serious disease state, but one of the companies that Jeff worked for made cholesterol the most prominent part of CV disease, it isnot. So much for consensus.

  6. StillAlive says:

    MICHAEL MANN. Let us not forget this one which has totally been buried by the MSM and the AGW crowd.

    This should be a good read for those interested in why climate science is a scam…

    The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

    All of these climate scientist of old refuse to turn over their data. Much of the data is suddenly missing or cant be found….LOLOLOLOL. Yeah and people wonder why their are AGW Deniers. They wonder why Trump calls the climate scare a hoax.

    It is fear mongering so the NEW WORLD ORDER can create a fascist government and then fill your nation with poor immigrants to dilute your intellectual pool. Thats any western nation. To reduce your ability to have power by taking away ENERGY. The most important commodity in the world. It can be used to buy food or anything. Without Carbon based fuel a country is POOR. Just look at the nations of Africa. Then look at the nations in the middle east who are not busy killing each other off over interpreations of the Koran.

  7. Jacob Noire says:

    In 2017 some blogger, John O’Sullivan, expected the 79-year-old Ball to “instruct his attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat … will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a ‘hoax.’”

    How has that turned out?

    This is your basis for declaring that the theory of man-made global warming is a scientific hoax? That and NEW WORLD ORDER?

    In related news, the Earth continues to warm… ice in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica apparently read and believed the “warmist” literature and melted in fear.

Pirate's Cove