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 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.
Steve Forbes is right, and James Taylor is wrong.
The you are a science denier
Obama’s science advisor, the “genius” John Holdren, tried the same fraudulent logic … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/3fEZDK4
In February 1987, I and another young auditor flew into Tulsa to do a joint venture audit. When we left Calgary we were having a Chinook and it was about +10c (50f), but we were looking forward to 3 weeks in Tulsa in what we would consider spring like weather. It was night time and as we were landing we could hardy believe our eye’s, it looked like a blizzard. Well it was and as we deplaned we asked if they could take us back to Calgary. They didn’t.
As it turned out, Tulsa was having it’s worst snow storm in about 26 years. After a couple of days it did turn nice and I suspect Calgary went back to being cold. Only goes to show, these things have happened, always have and always will. I wish I had taken more pictures.
It’s been demonstrated around these parts that the 1899 Arctic express was worse (colder). Needless to say, that was long prior to any potential for man-made global warming – at least a half-Century.
PS – was the Forbes bs piece speaking of naturally occurring climate change, or of the view that a bit of the man-made version, AGW, is altering CC more than they expect, ACC.
Regardless, scientists and writers (James Taylor, for example) should be specific about what they are speaking of, as CC and ACC, and GW and AGW should be considered as different critters.
In this case, one would first need to show that GW was the cause of the event. Only then can one begin to consider if any perceived additional warming (% of GW) caused by man is contributing to an increased chance for such extreme weather events.
global warming still problem thought. just because one event not caused by climate change, other events still can be caused by climate change.
Should have included a chart or graph. Other websites have verified the findings of Heartland.