Pirate's Cove

Apparently, the NWS is paying enough lip service to the doctrine of the climate as they put out (checks notes) short term weather forcasts

The National Weather Service Is Unwittingly Obscuring Reality of Global Warming

(lots of typical doomsaying on warming which is short on proof of anthropogenic causation)

For example, in Austin, Texas, where I live, the average high temperatures in September from 2017 to 2020 were 5.3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than between 1966 and 1969. In other words, the normal high in early September, that was 93 degrees Fahrenheit in our “previous climate” (circa 1900), is 98 degrees Fahrenheit today. One would think this kind of warming would have made the headlines in recent years, but this is not the case, and there is a good reason. The National Weather Service (NWS) has a long-standing and little-known statistical weather data procedure that inadvertently helps promote the denial of global climate disruption.

The “normal” temperatures the NWS reports are averages of the last 30 years. This is the data broadcast on the weather report on the news every night. These so-called normal temperatures are not at all the temperatures from our previous climate. They are not from a time before our climate began to unnaturally warm. What we hear as “normal” from our faithful weather professionals is actually significantly warmer for most of us, has nothing to do with what most of us think of as “normal” and has nothing to do with our previous climate where our advanced civilization evolved.

I thought weather wasn’t climate? No? Oh, right, it’s only climate when it helps the climate cult. Interesting, the climate cult also uses the last 30 years to prove their point about doom.

The idea here was to supply agricultural and industrial communities with the latest and most accurate weather data related to temperatures, heat waves, first and last freezes, hours below freezing, peak temperature per day/week/month/year, all sorts of precipitation records, etc. The justification of the NWS for this deliberate manipulation of weather data is, “a better understanding of what is happening today. Rather than assess long-term climate trends, Normals (sic) reflect the impacts of the changing climate on our day-to-day weather experience.”

Deliberate! Or, just broadcasting the weather so people know what the temps are supposed to be, whether it might rain, be windy, etc.

Our historical normal temperatures (not the NWS “normals”) are from the time when our advanced civilization evolved; they come from the climate that created humankind as we know it. This climate definitively does not include the temperature “normals” of the last 30 years presented by the NWS to broadcast to the entire United States population. Our true normal temperatures are what the temperatures were back in the late-19th century before our greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes began to substantially warm Earth.

Tell you what: let’s consider what the temperatures were during the previous Holocene warm periods, which were just as warm, if not warmer, without all the fossil fueled vehicles and such.

It is now profoundly important this policy of changing the “normals” be eliminated. The NWS is purposefully warming the normal temperature statistics as our climate warms. They are doing this because it is a habit from the past; a habit whose time must come to end.

In other words, the Cult of Climastrology is coming after the NWS, and going to make it difficult for people to understand the weather.

Read: Climate Cult Is Coming After The National Weather Service »

Of course, this is nothing that Warmists will voluntarily do. Is the NY Times giving up their own use of fossil fuels? How about hyper-Warmist Coral Davenport? For all the articles I’ve seen her write I’ve never seen her mention the changes she’s made in her own life. She’s happy to recommend the changes government can force on you

Four Ways the United States Can Still Fight Climate Change

With the largest and most powerful tools that President Biden had hoped to use to fight climate change now stripped away, the White House is assembling smaller, less potent policies that could still help the nation reduce its planet-warming pollution, though not at the levels that Mr. Biden once promised.

The evident death in the Senate of Democrats’ climate change legislation, which was to have been the centerpiece of Mr. Biden’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, comes just weeks after the Supreme Court handed down a decision that sharply limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the nation’s second-largest source of greenhouse gases.

Supreme Court decision? Let’s go to number one on her list

Regulate cars and trucks

Vehicles are the nation’s largest source of planet-warming pollution, and experts say that rapidly ending the use of gasoline-powered cars is crucial to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Mr. Biden has directed the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department to write a transformative new regulation to rein in tailpipe pollution and accelerate the nation’s transition to electric vehicles.

In its most ambitious form, the new regulation, which would most likely not be completed until 2023 or 2024, would compel automakers to double down on selling enough electric vehicles to meet Mr. Biden’s target that half of all vehicles sold in the United States would be all-electric by 2030. But after the Supreme Court decision limiting the E.P.A’s authority to regulate greenhouse emissions, the agency may scale back its ambitions out of fear that such a bold new move could also be struck down by the courts.

Yeah, they’d have to scale it back hugely, because this is exactly the kind of thing the Supreme Court was talking about. It’s nice that the Biden admin is looking to significantly increase the price of vehicles when they’re already high. Who does this hurt? The lower and middle class. If they do pass a new regulation, the next Republican president can kill it.

Then they want to regulate methane. I’d agree, but, it still needs to go through Congress, and a was, bipartisan, targeted, specific piece of legislation could work to do so without serious economic and energy pain.

And, of course, they want to go after energy plants, because Americans are not feeling enough pain right now. And, the minute they pass a regulation they’ll be sued, just like has already happened. It’s just the same in different clothes.

Absent federal action on climate change, state-level climate policies will play a more important role. Just under half the states have already enacted significant climate policies. The leader is California, which in the coming weeks is expected to finalize a first-in-the-nation regulation requiring that all new cars sold in the state must be electric or zero-emission by 2035. Seventeen other states are in line to adopt the same rule when it passes in Sacramento.

That’s where this stuff should be. The States. And, all the citizens who vote for the politicians who implement this stuff should be required to stay in those states and suck it up. Have fun when you cannot afford a vehicle or electricity, and your food and housing and everything else is unaffordable.

Read: NY Times Notes Four Ways Government Can Force You To Comply With Climate Cult »