In a major victory for Newspeak, the propaganda language in George Orwell’s novel “1984,” Forbes.com published an article yesterday blaming global warming for the record cold pummeling much of the nation.
Google News, moreover, promoted the Forbes article by placing it at the top of search results for “climate change.”
The title of the Forbes article is “Blackouts In Texas and California Teach A Hard Lesson: Climate Change Is Costly.”
The author writes, “These grid failures are wake-up calls and provide further proof that the impacts of climate change are not geographically constrained, nor do they take aim at one political party. One way or another, the cost of climate change on each of us will make itself known: in this, both California and Texas can now agree.”
The author does not, however, explain how or why global warming causes record cold temperatures.
Climate activists have occasionally, and when politically convenient, claimed climate change causes more polar-vortex extreme cold events.
However, the scientific data strongly contradict Forbes’ assertion that global warming is to blame for the cold outbreak in Texas.
Indeed, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data show the number of days each year with below-freezing temperatures in Texas is neither unusually high nor unusually low so far this century.
Similarly, NOAA data for neighboring Oklahoma – which is also getting walloped right now by cold weather – show a decline in the frequency of very cold weather events in recent decades.
So, there clearly is no recent increase in the frequency of severe cold events in Texas and Oklahoma.
So, by what logic does Forbes blame the current very cold conditions on global warming? Well, the author of the Forbes article is Chief Science Officer and Chief Commercial Officer at New Energy Risk, which is comprised of “climate-conscience venture capitalists” seeking to make money promoting “green” energy.
Forbes clearly has no conflict-of-interest standards for its authors and articles, nor does it attempt to investigate what the scientific data show regarding its articles’ claims.
At Climate Realism, however, the truth will always be told.
Read more at Climate Realism
It is easy to mistake weather cycles with true climate change which is part of the current climate. The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is very small and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So all of these efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. But even is we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated so there is no real benefit to be realized..We do not even know what the optimum global climate really is let alone how to achieve it.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
The central pacific dropped into cool La Nina conditions despite forecasts with 90% certainty that ENSO would remain neutral until at least spring. If you want to follow along I’ll show you what’s going on. First open the link above to see below avg sea surface temperature (SST) from South America to around Indonesia. Those cool conditions extended to 150 meters. Most of the time during La Nina cool water only extends down about 10 meters. We need heat rising off the central pacific to drive the Hadley circulation which transports air from the equator to the poles. Without air coming in there’s nothing to push arctic air south and so nothing to push away the present cold air mass sitting over us.
If it is warmer than usual somewhere, it’s probably cooler than usual somewhere else. Cherry-picking alarmists only concentrate on the latter if they feel they can spin some propaganda narrative out of it.
it used to be global warming, until it cooled. Now it is climate change. But the war is against CO2 because it is a green house gas (as is water, btw). So if it is climate change (warming/cooling, who knows), why the war against CO2?
Forbes is no different then the rest of the liberal news rags like the NYT’s Washington Compost,Time,Newsweek,Rolling Stone Etc spreading their lies and leftists Propaganda
Well, from this quote given they said “climate change” caused the cold, which one cannot dispute: climate changes! Interestingly a new research by Danish scientists states that in the 1940s, Greenland was warmer, i.e. the polar regions. This came after the warm 1930s, droughts, dust bowl, hot summers etc. The 1940s started a period up to about 1980 of very cold winters and much snow and ice, with warnings that satellites showed a fast approaching little ice age. No real surprises: a warmer arctic pushes the cold air south, well shown by the current situation and complex stratospheric warming events. Anxious to blame humanity for every climate shift, this new idea is no surprise: “Climate change” is a handy cover-all, hotter or colder, we must be to blame.
as an elementary student in the 70’s the scientific community thought the earth was heading toward another glacier age. Ice glaciers do not support life very effectively. Warming does.
One can dispute the claim because this is weather not climate.
The “climate change” that the GND is supposed to address is global warming (not cooling) and more specifically AGW.
The policy means take should have the opposite effect on cooling… ie., if we reduce cooling, we could increase cooling. It’s kind of a matter of the meaning of words. (I know. Post modernism claims not only is there no truth, but there is no meaning as well. But of course that claim is neither true nor meaningful. Bwahaha).
The “climate change” that the GND is supposed to address is global warming (not cooling) and more specifically AGW.
The policy means taken to reduce warming should have the opposite effect on cooling… ie., if we reduce warming, we could increase cooling. It’s kind of a matter of the meaning of words. (I know. Post modernism claims not only is there no truth, but there is no meaning as well. But of course that claim is neither true nor meaningful. Bwahaha).