Good News: Antarctica’s Coldest Weather On Record Doesn’t Disprove Hotcoldwetdry

In fairness, it doesn’t disprove the notion that the climate always changes. What it does say is that the notion that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind is mule fritters

From the climate cult approved article

We’ve all heard it before.

The weather gets cold, and the jokes come out. “Whatever happened to global warming?”

Sometimes, though, it’s not a joke. Sometimes, it’s a sign that the person asking the question doesn’t fully grasp the science behind the climate change. They may not realize that one data point – Antarctica’s coldest winter on record, for example – isn’t enough to invalidate a wider trend.

How do you respond to someone like that? CTV News Science and Technology Spcialist Dan Riskin gives it a try in this week’s Riskin Report.

According to cult doctrine, things should be getting warmer, not colder. Just last year they were all bleating about Doom in Antarctica. And further back. Remember when The Goreacle said the poles would be ice free?

The rest is a video trying to provide Cult Doctrine. Dinesh D’Souza tweets

It would be interesting to know what would. We are repeatedly assured that nothing ever counts against global warming. Events can confirm it, but events cannot refute it. Can a theory that is not open to empirical refutation be called scientific?

That’s because this is, in fact, a cult based on pseudoscience

Especially 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11. I had meant originally to post the graphic on cults, maybe I’ll put that below the fold, where we learn about Kamala

Harris to discuss drought, climate change at Lake Mead

Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday will highlight the problems caused by Western drought as she visits Lake Mead in Nevada and makes the case for the Biden administration’s infrastructure and climate change proposals that have stalled in Congress. (snip)

Against this backdrop, the vice president is expected to promote the administration’s “build back better” agenda — originally billed at $3.5 trillion — for which Democrats are struggling to win moderates’ support.

That agenda includes climate provisions the Biden administration has said would make the U.S. more resilient against the effects of climate change. Key elements include imposing new emissions restrictions through a federal clean energy requirement and providing tax breaks for the electrical vehicles industry.

Harris will also emphasize that climate change is poised to make extreme weather events such as droughts and heatwaves more frequent, expensive and harmful, White House officials said.

Yet, still not doing a damned thing about the border, hasn’t even actually visited the actual border. And, she’s taking a long fossil fueled trip to push legislation that would do away with fossil fueled vehicles for the plebes.

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

18 Responses to “Good News: Antarctica’s Coldest Weather On Record Doesn’t Disprove Hotcoldwetdry”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Porter typed: it doesn’t disprove the notion that the climate always changes. What it does say is that the notion that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind is mule fritters

    Non sequitur… No, Antarctic cold does not mean the theory of global warming is mule fritters. It does not follow.

    • david7134 says:

      No. Your cult has claimed that the earth is in desperate straits due to melting of the ice caps. If this is not happening then your cult is wrong about everything.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:


        Is it your scientific opinion that a one year drop in local temperature disproves global warming? LOL. Good one.

    • alanstorm says:

      You might have a point – except that every warm summer is called out as PROOF!!! that AGW is a real thing.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Scientific theories are not proven, but only supported by evidence to an extent that a scientific consensus is reached.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Scientific theories are not proven, but only supported by evidence to an extent that a scientific consensus is reached.

          Wow, Rimjob, never read anything like that before.
          Did you just make that up?

          Bwaha! Lolgf

        • alanstorm says:

          Scientific theories are not proven, but only supported by evidence to an extent that a scientific consensus is reached.

          Incorrect. Backwards, in fact.

          The preponderance of evidence produces “proof”, at least for a while. The consensus is a by-product. Einstein’s universe didn’t disprove Newton’s, it just added more detail.

          AGW makes predictions that don’t come true – and yet the warmists fail to adjust their beliefs.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

            You’ve heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You’ve also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

            Except that’s a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren’t proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

            When people ask for proof, they generally just mean “evidence”. Scientists may have lots of “evidence”, but will never claim to have “proof,” because proof does not exist in science.

            Proof has a technical meaning that only applies in mathematics.

            So long as the evidence is consistent with the theory, we consider the theory validated. But it will never be proven.

            A critic or sceptic may view a scientist’s hedging on the issue of “proof” as a sign of weakness – really it’s just a sign the scientist’s meaning of the word is different to the general public’s.

            A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon.

            Scientific consensus – just about the evidence
            Let me repeat myself. The scientific consensus is based on the consensus of experts in the field based on the evidence, usually published in peer-reviewed journals. It’s always about the evidence. It’s not about opinion. It’s not about politics.

            Moreover, it’s important to note that a consensus, or its more formal cousin, a theory, are not religious dogma. They aren’t incontrovertible. They aren’t irrefutable. They are provisional, meaning science is open to new data that might change the consensus (or the theory).

  2. Jl says:

    To add to an already long list of papers alleging clouds play a major role in warming, 3 new ones…

  3. Jl says:

    I’ll try that link again…

  4. alanstorm says:

    Antarctica’s coldest winter on record doesn’t disprove global warming

    This would be a much more forceful statement if the MSM didn’t trumpet every warm summer as proving it. Like the one just past, where the headline was “Warmest Year EVAR!!!!! Eleventy!!!!” and the actual claim was something like 2/1000th of a degree warmer.

    Sorry, kids – when your “record” is smaller than the margin of error, you lose.

  5. Hairy says:

    1st. In 2020 The continent of Antartica hit a new recorded high temp of 64F That is going to melt a lot of ice As a whole thst continent is losing ice regardless of its low winter temps also at very low winter temps snowfall in our planets largest desert decreases
    2nd absorbed solar radiation. Is increasing for many reasons one of which is that the Arctic summer ice extent is down to about 15% (yes yes the US Navy report that Gore quoted did say it COULD BE GONE by 2016 but it is only 85% gone)With the loss of that reflective ice cover it is absorbed into the water later reducing ice thickness.

  6. Jl says:

    Whoever wrote this has Al Gore beat by a mile. Interesting, apart from the fact that melting Arctic sea ice would not cause sea levels to rise

  7. Professor Hale says:

    “…that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind is mule fritters.”

    Wrong. Since there are no permanent human inhabitants, no cars, and no industries in Antarctica, it proves what the world would be like without man-made warming. Ipso Facto… Science!

  8. david7134 says:

    WRONG. You do not understand science. You still call consensus relevant, only rare is that true and not with data that is 100% correlation, which is 99.9% wrong.

    Let’s look at a few concepts that science has been wrong about:
    Cholesterol causes disease, actually cholesterol has nothing to do with causation of any disease.

    Low fat diets are healthy. Wrong they do nothing other that make food tasteless. The only diet that can help with disease is one that results in weight loss. Fats are actually good for you.

    Statins do something. They don’t other than slowly poisoning you. You worked for Pfizer when it was big into Lipitor. Are you aware of the lies they told, bet you are. Statins do modify metabolic inflammation and this results in a minor influence in CV disease, but hardly worth the toxicity of the drug.

    Tight control of diabetes reduces the likelihood of complications. Does not.

    These are just a few of the consensus conclusions that I see daily are are terribly wrong, many fostered by pharmacist like you.

    Oh, one other, Biden is president. That consensus is horribly wrong and killing our country daily. Fuck Joe Biden.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      You’re wrong.

      Serum cholesterol, especially LDL cholesterol, correlates with heart disease – higher cholesterol, greater risk of CV disease. Dietary cholesterol is not the issue.

      Diets lower in saturated fats result in lower serum cholesterol. Weight is determined by calories ingested against calories expended.

      Taking statins results in reduced serum cholesterol. Like most medications, statins have adverse effects that can limit their use.

      Control of glucose in diabetics isn’t beneficial? Do you think the eye disease, kidney disease and nerve disease aren’t helped by better glucose control?

      • david7134 says:

        Now you see, your assumptions are wrong on all points.

      • Professor Hale says:

        Perhaps you could cut and paste something from Wiki or Web MD that would be convincing. That has always worked before.

Pirate's Cove