Remember When We Used to Just Call It “Winter”?

by Steve MacDonald

The public just doesn't seem to be afraid of the Global Warming scare tactics

From May 4th, 2009, Jeanne Shaheen for New Hampshire.

“In New Hampshire, we are already seeing the effects of climate change. Winters are warmer; snowfall is declining (although I know it doesn’t seem that way after this winter); and spring is arriving on average a week earlier than at the turn of the 20th century. As a result, our forests are changing and our wildlife habitats have been affected.

We could toss a few more “it doesn’t seem that way” winters since 2009, including this one. Which, according to Michael Mann the godfather of Mann-made global warming is “exactly what we should expect.”

Related: Polar Vortex Could Be A Sign Of Global Cooling -Leading Scientist Predicts Equivalent of Maunder Minimum

It’s actually bitter cold and below normal cold in much of the US. But this isn’t the first time nor will it be the last. We’ll also have warmer winters, cooler summers, hotter summers, and all the things in between. And in every instance, it will be what “they” expect.

That’s the beauty of a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It can’t be disproven, as evidenced by scores of posts on our humble blog pointing to decades of straight-faced flip-flops, one-eighties, and contradictions like the one above.

Our own cuddly commenter Timmy Horrigan once wrote on these pages, as seriously as any true believer might, that Global Warming indicates increased snowfall after years of Democrats saying climate deniers were dooming New Hampshire to the opposite.

Now, before you accuse me of claiming legitimacy for my opposition to the theory of Global Warming because of the bitter cold, let me clarify. I am not saying global warming is a scam because it is cold. I am saying global warming is a scam because its advocates, rent-seekers, and cult followers keep chaning their story.

I’m saying it’s a scam because there are hundreds (if not thousands) of documented examples of these experts being hyperbolic about warming, cooling, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, glaciers, ice-caps, snowfall, and anything else we can associate with either weather or climate, and then being equally hyperbolic about it’s opposite in support of the same “theory.”

They then get all pissy when you point out it can’t be both or that their non-falsifiable hypothesis is more like a faith-based cult looking to keep the donors emptying their pockets than it is a serious scientific endeavor. An endeavor where regardless of the cause-effect contradictions the tithing is mandatory through force of law, intimidation, threats, blacklisting, or (some are hoping) prison.

As if that’s not contradictory enough these mostly (adamant separation of church and state) secular humanists want to use government force to make you “donate” to their weird little cult.

Or put another way, Green Mafia demands environmental “protection money.” The government will be in charge of “collections.”

And they have the nerve to go after dissenters under RICO statutes? The hypocrisy never ends.

Which bring us back to Michael Mann (ala Al Gore), who say “exactly what we expect” which is whatever will keep the green-sheep bleating and the fraud train rolling baked up by Democrat Senators from New Hampshire happily humming along to whatever tune the “experts” happening to be playing.

And that’s why we have President Trump.

H/T Twitchy

Leave a Comment

  • I wonder what the wind chill is on top of Mt. Washington?
    Or is “weather” now anecdotal again?
    In fairness, the top of Mt. Washington DOES tend to be “simply off the charts”.

    • Bryan W

      Wasn’t it -100 deg F today?

      • Well, sure, but it was a dry -100!

  • sb

    It’s a scam because 1) Mother Nature, Earth, Sun, and Moon are a lot more powerful than we humans are, 2) climate and weather change has been going on since Earth was formed, and 3) when all these gloom and doom climate change preachers actually walk the walk, I might listen. But I don’t see them giving up anything or doing anything other than hopping on private jets gallivanting all over the planet to their umpteen mansions running on fossil fuels. Talk about a carbon footprint!

    And imagine my chuckling when I come back north to discover “they” are trying to make naming snowfalls a thing now. Yes it’s cold, yes it’s snowing, yes the wind is blowing. And yes, absolutely, I do recall back in my distant childhood past calling that…winter!

    • Liberal Conservative

      Indeed…and all these climateers buying beach front property. Go figure.

  • Bruce Currie

    In related news, the weather in Nuk, Greenland, today…https://www.wunderground.com/weather/gl/nuuk

    • Bryan W
      • Bruce Currie

        You’re right. It disproves the false narrative GG wants to promote.

        • Bryan W

          Please explain how NOT proving something is the same as DISPROVING something. There is a flaw in your logic here.

          • Bruce Currie

            No, the flaw is in Grokland. Groklanders seem to think that this stretch of unusually cold weather proves that global warming is not real. They repeatedly confuse climate and weather, when it suits. So showing that other places–like parts of Greenland–are experiencing warmer weather than we are, would ordinarily serve as a reality check on those claims. Except for the fact this is Grokland, after all. BTW: the high temperature in Moscow today was 36 degrees. F.https://www.wunderground.com/weather/ru/moscow

          • Bryan W

            And yet you still keep missing the point. THE point.

            Climate on this planet has been changing for millions of years. It will continue to change, no matter what we do. Go look through the geologic eras, and see how many of them have something to the effect of “this era is a period of great climatic change” in them.

            At one time, the earth was almost completely covered by glacier. Since we are not covered by glaciers now, you could argue that we are warmer than we were back then.

            At another time, Alaska was sub-tropical. You could also argue that we were warmer then than we are now.

            So pardon me if I don’t believe you when you try to make me believe that man has much, if any, control or influence over the climate. Or that this spot temperature in Greenland or that anecdotal storm, or year, proves anything. It doesn’t. It is all a big lie to a) get taxpayer money to continue to “study” the issue and b) try to convince us that we need to lower our standard of living (i.e. pay more in taxes) in order to prevent this phony catastrophe.

            When you have some long term, repeatable, verifiable, and undoctored evidence that shows that man, and specifically us in the US, has a direct measurable, repeatable and verifiable impact on the long term climate trends, then I might begin to believe you.

            Right now, you’re just the boy who calls “Wolf.”

            Your Prophet of Doom made these claims just about 12 years ago:

            1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered purchasing a beachfront mansion!

            2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

            3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

            4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

            5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

            6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

            7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

            8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.

            9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

            10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

          • Bruce Currie

            No. That’s the pat answer the deniers want you to parrot. But it isn’t that simple. The switch from ice age to warming, and back again, has always before been under the control of the Milankovitch Cycles–long term changes in Earth’s tilt, wobble, and orbital path. We are in an interglacial period, one that would lead, via gradual cooling, to an eventual new glacial era, some centuries hence. But we are over-riding that trend by adding greenhouse gases–the main one being CO2–into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.

            Much of the physics of how greenhouse gases work to warm the planet has been known since the 19th century. The data on increasing CO2 levels has been accurately kept since the late 1950’s. The physics, the chemistry, the data collected by satellite, land, and sea, and the computer models and their projections all show a warming trend. The warming has been seen in the oceans, on land, in the air, and in boreholes. It’s been matched by phenological changes–earlier spring thaws, later fall freezes, later ice-overs and earlier ice-outs, etc. Possible explanations like increased solar insolation (there’s been little to no change over decades), cosmic rays, or the Pacific Decadal Current have all been ruled out. increasing greenhouse gas levels, from the burning of fossil fuels, is the ONLY explanation that fits all the facts to explain the planet-wide warming.

          • Bryan W

            This all sounds like a good thing. I’m not a fan of living on an ice planet.

          • Bruce Currie

            As for your laundry list of events that “didn’t happen”, suffice to say your claims are all distortions of the facts. If you’re claiming these are all predictions Al Gore made, then they most certainly came with qualifications. Or they’re intentional distortions of what he said, in the same way that another recent Grokland post distorted James Hansen’s statements about NYC and sea levels.

            Sea levels are not rising? Ask Norfolk, Virginia and the US Navy. Arctic ice not in long-term decline? The facts tell us the ice is both less thick, and diminishing in extent. The planet’s temperature not increasing in 18 years? Not true. The planet continues to warm, despite the cherry-picked claims of climate deniers.

          • Ed Naile

            Once again you claim anyone who does not believe in your carbon religion is a “denier” when in fact the correct term is “nonbeliever.”
            non·be·liev·er
            [?nänb??l?v?r]
            NOUN
            a person who does not believe in something, especially one who has no religious faith.
            synonyms: unbeliever · disbeliever · skeptic · doubter · doubting Thomas · cynic · nihilist · atheist · agnostic · freethinker · infidel · pagan · heathen
            How can Groksters adopt your carbon religion if you try and deceive us by using the wrong words?
            Obviously you are a “deceiver.”

            de·ceive
            [d??s?v]
            VERB
            deceives (third person present) · deceived (past tense) · deceived (past participle) · deceiving (present participle)
            (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage:
            “I didn’t intend to deceive people into thinking it was French champagne”
            synonyms: swindle · defraud · cheat · trick · hoodwink · hoax · dupe · take in · mislead · delude · fool · outwit · lead on · inveigle · beguile · double-cross · gull · con · bamboozle · do · gyp · diddle · rip off · shaft · pull a fast one on · take for a ride · pull the wool over someone’s eyes · sucker · snooker · stiff
            (of a thing) give a mistaken impression:
            “the area may seem to offer nothing of interest, but don’t be deceived” · “everything about him was intended to deceive”
            (deceive oneself)
            fail to admit to oneself that something is true:
            “enabling the rulers to deceive themselves about the nature of their own rule”

          • granitegrok

            But denier is a pejorative akin to “bitter clingers” – and proves that much of what Progressive WISH to do is to totally cast aside any beliefs that do not coincide with their own.

            Beliefs – yes, that is the right word. It is akin to a religion to them, else why do so many of them in high places wish to legally punish and silence those that do not believe in the same manner (e.g., Michael Mann, Al Gore, Bill Nye to name a quick three). Denier pretty much stems back to the Middle Ages as far as being a believer or not – they have outed themselves.

          • Ed Naile

            This is a simple explanation of the simpleminded belief in an extraordinary carbon god.
            A symptom of this misguided belief in the carbon god is the never-ending pronouncement of truth found in mystical facts.
            Commonly, this activity is expressed in a troll-like fashion in the comment section of highbrow conservative blogs.

          • Bryan W

            Suffice to say? You mean I have to take your *word* for it? No, sorry, that isn’t how the scientific method works. Remember that method you alarmists keep conveniently keep ignoring when asked for – data & methodology so we can repeat your experiments?

            If the climate alarmists weren’t so blatantly dishonest about the facts, you might be able to convince more people.

    • Liberal Conservative

      But wait…..I thought a snapshot of “weather” didn’t mean “climate change”. Damn, this is confusing.

      • sb

        It’s actually very simple! If they think an event can be used to push global warming/global cooling/climate anything, it means something. If that same event can’t be used to suit them, it means nothing.

      • Bruce Currie

        It’s really hard to make someone understand something when they’re either paid not to understand it, or it contradicts deeply-held beliefs, whether religious or secular, about how the world works (or how they think it works). Or both.

  • Jim Johnson

    Most annoying is the nauseating minute by minute coverage of this unprecedented storm. Wednesday there was a full moon which obviously affected coastal flooding, so what exactly makes this storm so remarkable? As for climatologists, it is their failed forecasts that have resulted in growing public skepticism, inability or the belief they don’t need to offer clarifications to previous legitimate inquires. Polar Bears were on their way to extinction WRONG, sea levels would rise to dangerous levels WRONG, we went from global cooling in the 70’s to global warming and now we have climate change. Confused or just damn tired of obvious scare tactics & demonization of anyone who questions the legitimacy of what we are being sold. TRUST IN CLIMATE SCIENCE IS ERODING RAPIDLY.

Previous post:

Next post: