Yahoo News Blames Cold Snap on…Global Warming

Those of us skeptical of Warmer hysteria don’t question science. We question their unfalsifiable religious claim.

You have to wonder if they feel any shame writing headlines like Yahoo News published earlier today: “Global Warming may be driving the frigid temperatures the U.S. has been experiencing this winter.” But the truth is, they don’t.

And there’s a reason that they don’t: those who push global warming/climate change/climate disruption theory are not part of a scientific movement. This is a religion, or if it seems more palatable to those who will recoil violently from being associated with something they see as scurrilous as organized religion, this is a philosophical movement and has been for some time.

It was scientific philosopher Karl Popper who popularized the term falsification as a line of demarcation separating scientific things from unscientific things. For instance, the question about the existence of God is unscientific since it is not falsifiable. The very nature of God makes Him a supernatural being, meaning He would exist outside the scope of our scientific laws and means of testing. You can’t prove God using science, but you also can’t disprove God using science. This makes the question of God one for philosophical reasoning and logic, not scientific hypothesis and experiment.

Meanwhile, a hypothesis that “it is always over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the tropics” is falsifiable. It can be tested and disproved. Thus, it is a scientific concept.

And while the question of whether or not our globe is warming would seem to be scientifically testable, those whose entire careers and reputations are predicated upon the multi-million-dollar global warming complex, have made sure it’s not.

  • Long-term cooling trends? A mere “pause” in the warming.
  • Violent hurricanes ravaging sea coasts? Global warming.
  • A prolonged absence of violent hurricanes ravaging sea coasts? Global warming.
  • Oppressive summer heat? Global warming.
  • Brutal stretches of bitter deep freezes in ordinarily temperate climate zones? Global warming.
  • Shrinking Antarctic ice sheets? Global warming.
  • Growing and thickening Antarctic ice sheets? Global warming.

This is why it’s silly to continue having public debates about the “science of global warming.” Those advocating it have rendered it scientifically unfalsifiable, which means they themselves have rendered it an unscientific philosophical theory.

And that’s fine. People can believe it, tout it, worry about it, fear it, write about it, and tell others about it all they want. But those of us who are skeptical don’t question science – we question their unfalsifiable religious claim.

@johntfs In spite of what many global warming religionists say, a worldwide rise in overall temperature is actually good for people, according to a lot of the available data. I don't think anyone disagrees that the climate changes. The truth is that climate scientist don't know which way it is going, why it is going there or why we are where we are now. The predictions have been proven wrong time and time again because the data is faulty and they simply don't know what they claim to know. Any move to spend trillions of dollars fighting a condition that will not be altered significantly from those efforts and a condition that we don't understand the cause of, much less a way to combat it, is the height of stupidity. The climate alarmist are comprised of those that know better and don't care because they want the money and power they get from regulating people's lives (think Al Gore). The second group are the people that are true religious believers. These are the people that follow climate science like a religion and take faith to cover where the science does not and cannot go. The faith is always first and foremost to this group. The third group are the people that haven't thought about it and really don't care enough to dispute whatever they are told.

Science also factors history in to the equation, especially when attempting
to extrapolate results into future likelihoods. The AGW crowd staunchly refuses to look back past 150 years when temperatures were first being recorded reliably. When science takes the tack that only what agrees with my hypothesis matters, it is no longer science. AGW warriors have gone that road.

"Any move to spend trillions of dollars fighting a condition that will not be altered significantly from those efforts and a condition that we don't understand the cause of, much less a way to combat it, is the height of stupidity." This I do agree with. I suspect that it's actually too late to do much to prevent human-caused global warming and its associated climate change. The challenge is going to be figuring out its effects and how to survive them. There's actually an interesting parallel between positions on global warming and abortion. Neither side wants to accept the other's position because it means that they'd have to greatly change their actions in ways contrary to their beliefs. If a fertilized egg really is a human being and not simply a cell or clump of cells that will eventually become a human being, then abortion is murder (or at least self-defense manslaughter in the case of a pregnancy endangering the life of the mother) even in cases of rape and incest. It will force women into a position of really having fewer rights in terms of controlling their own bodies than men. If women drink or smoke they might be put in jail for "endangering the welfare of a child." On the converse side, if human-caused global warming climate change is real, we have to do something about it. We'll probably have to raise taxes, institute all sorts of regulations and repurpose a good bit of our defense budget to deal with the only truly big threat to our national security - the weather itself.

Another great article, Peter. For anyone, including @johntfs, who wants to defend the cabal trying to foist the climate change agenda on the world, let them, but I would point to the non-scientific globalist think tanks who conjured the idea in the first place. One of many is the Club of Rome. From their 1991 edition of The First Global Revolution report, I quote, "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…" They have an agenda for world governance and this is simply one of their means of unification. That report was a follow-up to their book Limits to Growth written in the early 1970s when the scare was global cooling...

@DaveGaffney Famine, pollution and water shortages are all real things, even if the "Club of Rome" is unsavory enough to use them to push its own agenda.

Are you saying that religions are based on unfounded claims?

I'm saying that just because the "Club for Rome" (and are there clubs for Florence, Milan and Venice, too?) uses global warming to push their agenda doesn't mean it isn't real. Figure most organization use real problems. The NRA doesn't push gun rights so people can defend themselves from Orcs and Dragons, they do it for fear of street crime or a power-hungry federal government. How much property damage and how many lives were lost in the US due to terrorist attacks over the past 30 years? Now, compare that to weather events.

@johntfs - I really was going to leave the comments as they were, but you are presenting straw-man arguments. I don't think there's a rational person alive who would try to claim natural disasters, famine, water shortages, etc. don't exist. They do. The climate also varies. No argument there. What is not conclusive, despite climate hysteria, is that anthropomorphic climate change exists to any extent that their efforts to correct it will make an impact. One of the most falsely vilified gases is a necessity of life. Without carbon dioxide, humans would die because the plants that give them oxygen would die. More CO2 actually causes plants to thrive, which is good for everyone, especially people who like to eat. Comparing the globalists pushing climate change to the NRA is completely bogus. Violence against man is real, so the need for guns for self-defense is real. Any effort to promote climate change is nothing more than a ruse to find international commonality and transfer wealth, so the globalists can get the control they so desperately want. If you read their texts (CFR, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, UN, etc.), they admit it openly. And, the scientific community also admits that their efforts to thwart climate change would be minimal at best. It is beyond their control. Should we be wise stewards and conserve where possible. Absolutely! Do we need to be subject to the lopsided burden placed on us by the gatekeepers of the world? Absolutely not! If the Paris Accord parties were genuinely concerned with the climate rather than money and power, why would they allow agreements to pass that failed to hold China and India to the same standards as everyone else? They are two of the largest polluters on the planet. Have you seen the air quality in Beijing? Climate change is real because of the star we orbit. The climate change agenda is a scam.

The main difference between a medicine and a poison is dosage. Too much of anything can cause problems. Now, no we shouldn't accept an outsize burden, but neither should we deny a problem exists simply because it's inconvenient.

1934, USA
“…That summer was exceptionally hot across much of the United States, though the summer of 1936 would cruelly eclipse even this one. In the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Iowa, summertime temperatures began early. By May 9, it was 109 in Sisseton, SD. By May 30 it was 113. That same day it was 109 in Spencer, Iowa, and 108 in Pipestone, MN. And as the heat rose, the rain stopped falling. Sioux Falls, SD had only a tenth of an inch of rain that month, right in the middle of corn-growing season.

From the upper plains, the heat and aridity radiated across the country. By June more than half the United States was in the grip of severe heat and extreme drought conditions. In Saint Louis temperatures would rise above 100 for eight straight days that summer. At the airport in Chicago, it would top 100 for six straight days and hit an all-time high of 109 on July 23. In Topeka, Kansas, the mercury would pass the 100 mark forty-seven times that summer. July would be the hottest month ever recorded in Ohio.

In the Far West it was even worse. In Orofino, Idaho, it would hit 118 in July 28. The ten states with the highest average temperatures in the country that summer were all in the West. And the worst of the heat wasn’t in the Southwest, where people expected it and crops and lifestyles adapted to it. Instead the heat scorched enormous swaths of the Intermountain West and even portions of the normally green Northwest.

Nothing could grow under such conditions, and without corn, wheat, and hay livestock could not survive. Alarmed, the Roosevelt Administration’s secretary of agriculture, Henry Wallace, dispatched an expedition to the Gobi Desert to see if there were any species of grass there that might be able to survive in the deserts that the American West and Midwest were quickly becoming.

But the heat and the drought were in some ways the least of it. On May 9 a colossal dust storm had swung out of eastern Montana, rolled across the Dakotas and Minnesota, dumped 12 million tons of dirt on Chicago, and then moved on to tower over Boston and New York. As they had in November 1933, people stood in Central Park and looked skyward, aghast at the blackened sky. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 million tons of American topsoil had become airborne in that single storm. The New York Times proclaimed it “the greatest dust storm in United States history.”

But in fact the greater storms, and the greater suffering, were still months ahead….”
Excerpt from: “The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics”, by Daniel James Brown

[That was the weather, too.]