- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Moscow Sees Its Coldest Christmas in 120 Years

With all the talk about Fake News, little is mentioned about No-News.

Moscow has had a record-busting winter, including the coldest Christmas in 120 years according to Russian reports [1]. Yet there is nothing on CNN. Poland and much of Eastern Europe [2] also are having a record cold winter. It is not reported. Also in the Southern Hemisphere were record cold winters in 2016 and cool following summers in Perth, Australia [3] and New Zealand, which had the coldest winter in a hundred years [4]. Similarly, in 2016 Brazil had the coldest winter in 22 years [5].

Although everyone can agree that there is “climate change,” the measures most visible for modifying it are all those promoted by the partisans of global warming—namely cutting back carbon dioxide emissions, particularly burning fossil fuels. But should we copy Germany with measures that raised electricity bills to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly three times what it costs in America? Is it really proven that we should stop building pipelines so as to purposely increase the price of gasoline or home heating gas for millions of Americans? New York State is even trying to prohibit a hundred-mile gas pipeline [6] that would bring cheap Pennsylvania gas to compete with some of the highest-priced gas in America.

These policies to hold back “climate change” became the mantra of Obama’s EPA [7]. But the ideas also pervade elite America. A poll at Harvard University’s alumni gathering in 2016 about the ten greatest threats to America put global warming as No. 1 and nuclear war at No. 10, results that truly terrify any contrarian such as myself. When so many Americans believe in it, some experience their faith in it as a virtual religion. It’s understandable that most of media don’t question it.

Almost every week the Washington Post and New York Times report some more frightening news or government report as evidence of “climate change.” After 2005, with Hurricane Katrina and many others, they told us that global warming was responsible and would bring forth continuing future record hurricanes. Instead there have been very few hurricanes at all. Still any reports or questioning of the so-called “theory” is kept out of their “news.” Isn’t record cold in other parts of the planet also reportable “news,” when Washington spends billions and adds inestimable billions more of costs to our industries because of this theory?

Is climate change really all the fault of humans? Maybe it is partly our arrogance and pride, believing that the world revolves around us. The world is so big and so many places don’t have much human activity. (The BBC series Planet Earth gives some idea of how immense the earth is.) And there is so much false or distorted information. Prof. Larry Bell debunks the myth that “97 percent of scientists” [8] say humans are responsible. The actual survey used to make this claim was a two-minute online questionnaire that mixed the answers of those claiming primary responsibility with those who answered that human influence was marginal.

Another little-reported fact is the growing ice quantities in the Antarctic [9]. After a year the Washington Post finally reported it, but combined with a story about how growing amounts of ice might break off and fall in the Antarctic Ocean and so cause seas to rise.

Why assume that climate change is the same threat as global warming when nearly all of Al Gore’s forecasts of ten years ago were wrong [10]? Climate alarmists’ fears [11] have existed through history. They’ve usually been wrong; there are simply too many variables.

Now we learn that the recent Paris Climate Accords [12] were also based on false information. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [13] rushed through, just in time for the conference, an unvetted report rebutting one of the warmers’ big problems, that temperatures on earth had not increased during the last ten years. One of their top scientists explained it [14]. So there are more cover-ups of questionable information. One should also remember that Third World nations were promised some hundred billion dollars, mainly from America, to compensate for economic losses in return for cutting back their industrialization and coal-power generation.

It’s all so preposterous when one thinks that we are talking about increases of maybe a few degrees Fahrenheit every century. Shouldn’t there at least be some discussion and debate on the subject?

Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative.

61 Comments (Open | Close)

61 Comments To "Moscow Sees Its Coldest Christmas in 120 Years"

#1 Comment By Jon Basil Utley On February 12, 2017 @ 2:11 pm

[Editor’s note: This is a response from the author of the piece posted at noon February 14. The timestamp has been changed so that it appears at the top of the comments section.]

There are so many negative and very passionate comments about my article that they deserve an answer and defense from myself.

1. The vast consensus?   All my life I have been fighting the “vast consensus”— in my early teens it was the overwhelming consensus favoring communism in the major media and by the United States Government; then, later, both wanting the wars on Iraq.  And then opposing the Israel/Likud Lobby control of U.S. foreign policy.  Then I wrote and spoke against the [15] Washington destroyed their irrigation, electric and sanitation systems and blockaded reconstruction supplies. Why do so many of our readers recognize government lies about foreign wars but then believe it about global warming?

2. No comment answered my main point about the “warmers” changing their threat to climate change, which nobody doubts, but proposing the same “solutions” as they did before for “warming.”  What warming there is could be coming from many other factors than  CO2, possible sun spot cycles, water vapor, etc. etc.  CO2 not a poison; actually it is the staff of life.  We now believe that some of the accumulated “extra” CO2 has been accumulating in the oceans.  Maybe that’s the way nature balances it.  Remember that all we are talking about is a rise from some 350 parts per million to 400 parts per million over 10 or 15 years!!  This is what we are spending billion and shutting down industries to pretend to deal with!!

Of nearly 20+ negative comments there were only 5 links to sources.  Those who criticized my sources supplied hardly any links for specific rebuttals.

3. Australia is a large nation like us.  Their North can be warm while their South is cold.  It up to the “warmers” to explain the anomalies, not just claim that any global cooling is just part of their theory.

4. The Daily Mail link and my other links could easily be verified from other sources, just search Google using the same search terms.  [14] “Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found “a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years.”  Think how damaging it is for the warmers to learn that more CO2 in the air was not causing increased global temperatures. Deny that there have been 10 years of fairly stable temperatures.  The revised final version of the NOAA report will show both lower temperatures and a lower warming trend since 2000.”  That’s why, some ten years ago, the Warmers changed their threat from “warming” to “climate change.”

5. It’s still mainly a tempest in a teapot which barely covers the probable statistical margin of error, but it is vital for the warmers, even if they could “prove” a total of 2 or 3 degrees Fahrenheit over 10 years..  National Review has a new article showing up [16]

6.Most of all, thanks for the [17].  He was always wonderful, and great in opposing Washington’s wars too.

#2 Comment By Anonymous On February 12, 2017 @ 4:18 pm

Three words: multiple testing problem.

Unfortunately these South American cold weather records didn’t reach my native Rio, which hit a murderous all-time high of 49oC late last year.

#3 Comment By Anonymous On February 12, 2017 @ 4:24 pm

@Johann Nope, what you are describing is thermal capacity. Stefan-Boltzmann’s law describes radiation from a black body. Its derivation is a thing of beauty, but it cannot protect against global warming as you described.

#4 Comment By John Fargo On February 13, 2017 @ 2:05 am

“Prof. Larry Bell debunks the myth…” His degree is in architecture so I’m not sure how his viewpoint is relevant to discussions of anthropogenic climate disruption except as smoke and mirrors for deniers. I’ll choose the opinion of Dr. Michael Mann, a climatologist, on this matter.

#5 Comment By Jonathan On February 13, 2017 @ 9:42 am

Climate science does not need to be anywhere near settled in order for us to take action. Here is the question: At what level of risk should we buy planetary insurance? Follow this questionnaire closely:

1. Is the greenhouse effect a plausible explanation (though perhaps lacking sufficient data as of yet) for observed warming trends? And is increased CO2 a plausible explanation for ocean acidification (Y/N)? (Hint: yes–these phenomena can easily be measured in controlled laboratory experiments).

2. Scaling laboratory experiments to an entire planet is obviously difficult, and there will naturally be debate and controversy. As scientists, we need to be able to put a statistical value on how certain we are about our predictions. Everyone will come up with a different number, and that’s OK. What’s your number? 80%? 50-50 chance? 20%? If you’re not willing to put a number on your critique you shouldn’t be talking about this issue.

3. Let’s move forward with say, 20% probability. Even the most ardent climate change skeptics (and skepticism is a good thing!) should grant that number. The economic impact of a decision can be estimated by multiplying the probability of a scenario by the damage resulting if that scenario comes to fruition (EI = p*D). So take the 80% probability climate change is a Chinese hoax and multiply it by the damage we do to our economy by switching to renewable sources of energy. We lose some jobs in oil and gas, gain some jobs in renewables, reduce pollution overall, but in the end, the net effect might still be negative. OK. Now compare that to a 20% chance of catastrophic damage from positive-feedback loop climate change (once the permafrost begins melting). There’s no comparison.

If you want to claim lower than 20% probability, you’re REALLY going to have to do a lot of studying, and a lot of reading through very technical literature. It’s true–some scientists question the consensus on climate change, but NO SCIENTISTS QUESTION THE PLAUSIBILITY. EVEN AT 10% PROBABILITY, WE SHOULD START SHOPPING FOR A PLANETARY INSURANCE SYSTEM.

#6 Comment By Johann On February 13, 2017 @ 5:07 pm

Argon, my bad. You are correct about the air heating. But, i believe it is true that a layer of air being raised in temp from -20F to -10F will result in much less of an increase in heat radiating from that layer than the same 10F increase from 70F to 80F. I don’t know what the emissivity of a layer of air is, but regardless, the power output is not even close to linear with temperature. So averaging global temperatures may not be the most meaningful measure of global warming. Perhaps the total increase in outgoing longwave radiation would be a better measure.

#7 Comment By Johann On February 13, 2017 @ 5:12 pm

Anonymous, I never said there wasn’t any global warming. I do think the warministas are disingenuous with their “everybody’s gonna die sky is falling message” though. A lot of it is hype by activists that take shreds of science and run with it. See my comment above. Argon and you are correct. I realize my mistake.

#8 Comment By John Fargo On February 14, 2017 @ 9:12 pm

#1 Why do so many of our readers recognize government lies about foreign wars but then believe it about global warming?

I do not believe the government but rely on scientist for my information on anthropogenic climate disruption. The government, or more precisely the Republicans in Congress, are either in denial of climate data or being paid to lie to the American public by the fossil fuel lobbies. Your past examples of going against the consensus on the Iraq War or Israel policy has nothing to do with the topic of climate change. Being skeptical does not make you correct nor always admirable. There are people who deny evolution and even whether the earth is round.

#2 No comment answered my main point about the “warmers” changing their threat to climate change…

Scientist use global warming and climate change to describe two separate processes. Global warming is the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Climate change is a long-term change in the Earth’s climate or of a region on Earth. Until the 70’s, the term “inadvertent climate modification” was used as scientist still lacked sufficient data to tell whether anthropogenic atmospheric changes due to industrialization would cause global warming or cooling. Scientists change their terminology and ideas based on new data.

We now believe that some of the accumulated “extra” CO2 has been accumulating in the oceans.

Actually, everyone believes that the extra CO2 is accumulating in the oceans but this is NOT a good thing. That extra CO2 is leading to ocean acidification which is leading to the death of coral worldwide and coral is the nursery of life in the ocean. Coral bleaching is now so bad that it can be seen from space.

This is what we are spending billion and shutting down industries to pretend to deal with!!

Where are your sources showing that anyone is “shutting down industries”? The coal industry is dying due to cheap natural gas and the declining price for renewables. This is natural market forces at work not some concerted effort to shut the industry down. Many of your examples, such as acting to stop pipelines, are from other environmental factors beyond just climate change such as water pollution.

Of nearly 20+ negative comments there were only 5 links to sources.  Those who criticized my sources supplied hardly any links for specific rebuttals.

We are not professional writers merely people taking time out from our busy days to respond. In looking at the comments, I do not see anything that was not factual or simply expressing personal opinions. If you doubt something someone has expressed then rebut it. I’m an engineer at a potato chip factory whose last writing class was a 101 version my freshman year.

#3 The temperature anomalies you describe are weather not climate; totally different things. A warming ocean, changes to the jet stream and a melting ice cap are driving polar winds further south (the polar vortex).

No scientist would ever call anthropogenic climate change a “theory” as there is not enough data. By the time scientists are certain enough and have enough observations to declare it a theory the planet will be dead. I think you are conflating a scientific “theory” with what is actually an hypothesis.

#4 Which UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report are you using? There have been six of them so they are usually given a designation number when used as a reference. I believe you may be using report #5 as your source and it was widely debunk by scientists within days of its release. The IPCC is a panel consisting mainly of politicians and industry representatives and viewed with much skepticism by the scientific community. [19]

That’s why, some ten years ago, the Warmers changed their threat from “warming” to “climate change.”

Again, scientists did NOT change from global warming to global climate change; they are two different fields of study. See #2 above.

#5 As far as I know, Al Gore does not have any degree in climate science so definitely should not be viewed as an authority in the subject. What he does have is name recognition and a desire to bring focus to a problem he felt was being ignore. No doubt, his documentary was full of hyperbole but it did help get the discussion started.

#6 I miss Jon Stewart also (sorry Trevor Noah). Again, this is a comedy skit and sarcasm about whether not climate. I’m surprised you included the link as it is making fun of climate change deniers who confuse the two. Global Darkening is true.

#9 Comment By Russell On February 17, 2017 @ 3:03 pm

As it transpires , TAC has run pieces by a Reagan administration S &T policy analyst who happens to be a published climate scientist as well.

In the bad old days, the problem of climate science dezinformatsia was indeed on the left- the hyping of Nuclear Winter being the locus classicus of the problem.

Now the tables are turned, and K Street wights are grinding out a scientifically hillarious counter -narrative tuned to the taste of the oil patch, witness the gaggle of PR flacks and cherry-picking scientific bindlestiffs Utley is trying to pass of as disinterested parties .

Weather anecdotes are obviously not the stuff of anthropogenic climate trends , but this is an especially silly article given [20]


#10 Comment By Philip Brown B.Sc. On February 17, 2017 @ 11:12 pm

There is some degree of error in the piece. Australia did not have an especially cold winter rather a prolonged one. The average monthly low temperatures were actually slightly above the ‘thirty year moving average’. At least some of the prolonged cold related to unusually clear skies that allowed loss of heat.
I notice that the author makes no mention of the fact that some parts of Australia have just experienced unprecedented hot weather, resulting from unusually intense high pressure condition over the centre of the continent.
The ice conditions in Antarctica are a response to the increase in water vapour in the atmosphere, resulting from increased evaporation due to higher temperatures.
The reason this is not discussed by US media is that the concepts are too nuanced and complicated for the reporters to grasp, let alone the audience.

#11 Comment By john norquist On February 20, 2017 @ 4:25 pm

Does it hurt the economy to reduce CO2 emissions? Not necessarily. Energy efficiency = energy productivity. It can be measured just as labor productivity is measured. If more value is created per unit of labor the economy grows. If more value is created per unit of energy the economy also benefits. Can’t conservatives support the efficient and productive use of energy? Oppose proposals requiring sacrifice if you must, but improving the efficiency of the economy should be a core conservative principle.