Breaking The Rules Of Science: Potsdam Researchers Concoct, Blame Extreme Cold On Global Warming!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

The non-falsifiable climate catastrophe: No matter if it’s hot or cold – it always has got to be global warming

By Die kalte Sonne
(Text translated by P Gosselin)

The Central European heat summer of 2018 was a feeding frenzy for the followers of the climate disaster. The media turned it into sensational news and clearly saw climate change at work.

And then came the winter. In the US, this year (2018) saw one of the coldest Thanksgiving holidays of the past 100 years. That did not suit the PIK at all. Quickly there was a press release (22/11/2018) that blamed the cold spell on global warming:

Winter weather extremes in the US and Europe: messing with giant airstreams in the stratosphere
Over Thanksgiving, arctic air masses are predicted to bring record-cold temperatures and frigid winds to the Northeast of the United States. Driver for such winter weather extremes is often the stratospheric polar vortex, a band of fast moving winds 30 kilometers above the ground. In winter, when the polar vortex is disturbed by upward-blowing air masses, this can bring cold spells over Northeastern America or Eurasia, a new study now shows. And paradox as it might seem, climate change might further disrupt the complex dynamics in the atmosphere – bringing us not only more hot extremes in summer but potentially also cold spells in winter.”

Read more here.

No matter if it’s hot or cold, it always has to be global warming. The crazy world of climate alarm. If one follows this logic, there is no single weather condition that could refute the concept. The climate catastrophe model can not be falsified, no matter what the weather. This indeed breaks an important principle of science.

But to ensure the well-being of mankind, scientific sacrifices must be made. With autocratic climate rule breaking all the laws of science is standard procedure.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

13 responses to “Breaking The Rules Of Science: Potsdam Researchers Concoct, Blame Extreme Cold On Global Warming!”

  1. Curious George

    The PIK press release must have been put together in a hurry. They did not invoke the Golden Rule of Modern Climatology: Cold is only weather. Hot is always climate.

    1. Newminster

      Except when you can link the two.

      It’s a high-risk strategy; if a hypothesis isn’t falsifiable it isn’t science with all that follows from that. But if you can make a plausible case that heat can cause disruption that can cause cold you’ve got it made.

      Among the faithful at least.

  2. Ric Werme

    More on the cold and wet November in Massachusetts, USA

    http://bluehill.org/observatory/2018/12/november-2018-summary-wettest-on-record/

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    How weird that the last time we had these jet stream patterns was in 2010. Which was the bottom of the solar cycle. It is an amazing coincidence we are reaching the bottom of the latest solar cycle. How coincidentally amazing it is that CO2 causes jet stream issues every 11 years? But then we know, of course, that CO2 can do everything.

  4. Ulric Lyons

    The negative AO/NAO from just after mid November was on my long range solar based forecast. You can see the decline in solar coronal hole activity from then. Such variability would not exist without short term changes in the solar wind.

  5. Bitter&twisted

    As I have already said Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave.

  6. dennisambler

    This has been a long running strategy and first saw the light of day in a 2004 UK Tyndall Centre working document:

    “The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change” Dennis Bray and Simon Shackley, September 2004. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

    “In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception.

    To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.

    Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

    Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.

    We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”

    More here: “Global Warming – The Social Construction Of A Quasi-Reality”
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/reprint/social-construction

    1. Yonason

      In other words, a science of how to lie more convincingly.

      1. rah

        Exactly! The alarmists spend a tremendous amount of time and effort discussing how to hone their message to convince more people of it’s validity.

  7. Sean

    To someone with a technical background this sounds like rationalization after the fact. To a non-technical person, there is a lot of jargon if they read through the whole thing. But many people won’t get past the headlines. These same folks have been paying high rates for power and fuel for years and the yellow vests in France just said enough is enough. PIK has a reputation for promoting alarm which support high priced energy. Someone struggling to pay their bills might be a lot more inclined to anger as they “connect the dots” to the rhetoric and their utility rates.

  8. Jeremy

    Hilarious!

    As noted in Salby’s recent lecture in Hamburg:

    “More snow… Less snow!”,

    followed by a relevant clip from Richard Feynman:

    “If the process of computing a consequence is indefinite,
    then with a little skill any experimental result
    can be made to look like an expected consequence.”

    The best science taxpayer money can buy.

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #340 | Watts Up With That?
  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #340 – Cyberhomesblog.com

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close