pixabay-frozen-climate

The claim that “global warming” is causing record cold in the Midwest is “just another pseudoscientific scam, a subset of the general climate change and environmentalist scams,” charged a former Harvard physicist.

“The actual main purpose of this term, ‘polar vortex,’ is for the journalists to sound credible and convey a thesis about the climate that is absolutely idiotic,” wrote theoretical physicist Lubos Motl, an assistant professor at Harvard from 2004 to 2007.

The New American commented that “climate alarmists are well-schooled in making the absurd seem reasonable,” citing climate scientist Jennifer Francis of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Francis acknowledged that “this symptom of global warming is counterintuitive for those in the cross-hairs of these extreme cold spells.”

“But these events provide an excellent opportunity to help the public understand some of the ‘interesting’ ways that climate change will unfold,” she insisted.

However, the New American pointed out that while the current weather conditions are unusual, they are “hardly unprecedented.”

In 1974, climate scientists were warning of the effects of the polar vortex, calling it the circumpolar vortex.

But in the 1970s, “they told us that the expansion of that vortex was evidence of global cooling.”

A Time magazine article in 1974 explained the coming global cooling:

Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth loving creature like armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

The New American pointed out that climate scientists say they are using the same historical temperature data that they used in the 1970s.

“How can that data show a large drop from the 1940s to the 1970s when we’ve been told the opposite? Were they lying to us in the ’70s or are they lying to us now?”

The New American noted that it reported last February claims that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, was altering historical temperature data to fit the global warming hypothesis.

“One thing that climate scientist Jennifer Francis said about the polar vortex and the role that climate change plays in it, rings true,” the New American said.

Francis acknowledged: “It’s a complicated story that involves a hefty dose of chaos and an interplay among multiple influences, so extracting a clear signal of the Arctic’s role is challenging.”

On Monday, President Trump weighed in on Twitter to troll climate alarmists.

“In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded,” he wrote. “In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with global warming? Please come back fast, we need you!”

Time to rethink ‘climate realities’

On Tuesday, Tim Ball, who has a PhD in Geography with a focus on historical climatology from Queen Mary University of London, wrote in a column for PJ Media along with Tim Harris that “when viewed in a wider context, there is nothing unusual about current weather patterns.”

They called for a re-examination of “climate realities.”

Ball and Harris noted that “global warming” became “climate change” around 2004 when scientists realized “the warming predicted by the computer models on which the scare is based was not actually happening.”

“Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continued to increase, but the temperature stopped increasing,” they said. “So, the evidence no longer fit the theory.”

If there is anything to worry about, Ball and Harris said, it’s the fact that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing more than 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.

“The current cold weather across much of the world should prompt us to re-examine climate realities — not the false, deceptive, and biased views created and promoted by deep state bureaucrats through their respective governments,” they said.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.