Provoked by yours truly on Twitter, Washington Post weather guy Matthew Cappucci tried to explain away 1930s US temperatures which are much hotter than current US temperatures. Unfortunately for Cappucci, he relied on Texas A&M climate bedwetter Andrew Dessler.
Here’s Cappucci’s article (Web | PDF).
So here’s where Cappucci name-checks me.
Now comes Dessler:
That’s right, Dessler writes off an entire decade of temperatures that are far hotter than today’s as “random climate variability.”
They can’t explain there 1930s. They don’t want to explain the decade. They just want to write it off too keep the climate hoax going.
Last January when I annoyed the Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang, of which Cappucci is a member, the WaPo tried to have me kicked off Twitter and Facebook. Both rejected the request.
Sorry, my dudes. You lose again.
So here is the main point: Global climate data has been collected since roughly 1880 (141 years), according to most reports. The accuracy of this data can be debated, such as collection methodology, data handling, interpretation, etc. This is irrelevant to my point, but can be found to be explained very well here. The “data,” if it is even accurately assessed in the first place, represents far less than 1% of the earth’s history if you embrace the long-age view of 4.5 billion years, resulting in .000000031% of earth’s history. In the case of a 6,000-year-old planet, 141 years is just 2.35%. So, since most who embrace global warming as a major issue for mankind are evolutionists, or embrace billions of years of earth history, why is it considered irrational to predict an election or make serious medical decisions based upon less than 1% of the necessary information, but somehow climate “science,” is rational?
See full article here: https://www.wnd.com/2021/11/climate-can-predictions-made-using-less-1-data/
I understand that it is counter productive for the MSP to leave this out but absolutely nowhere does this appear, even here!
The high in London the day after the anomaly was 83 with some rain!
In making his argument, Cappucci makes an application of the Equivocation Fallacy under which he calls an “atmospheric pseudoscientist” an “atmospheric scientist.”
cherry picking the data again, a mainstay of Climate Clowns like Dressler and Cappucci. They are so emotionally invested in this idea of human caused oncoming catastrophe that they will not do honest science. Lysenko would be proud of them.
Wow, Steve. Their “explanation” wouldn’t pass muster at a middle school science fair. Shameless. But, then, if a man can now get pregnant…