Did Warmism Cause the Government to Predict a Warm Winter?

animal spir

Lysenkoism helped spread hunger and misery across the USSR. Warmism or Warmunism is having toxic effects in the United States.

Aside from all the jobs lost, products priced out of reach and families living from paycheck to paycheck while waiting for the Green Jobs that never come, the Warmist dogma may be crippling our ability to predict the weather.

The NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, predicted a hot winter. They were disastrously wrong. The mistake wasn’t just a technicality. Cities didn’t properly prepare for the coming winter leading to blocked roads, lost work and even deaths.

In New York, Bill de Blasio blamed the government forecasts for his botched handling of the snow situation. He’s not the only one. While local governments still had the responsibility to do the right thing, the Warmist takeover of climate science is leading us into disasters in which dogma trumps science until the snow begins to fall.

Not one of our better forecasts,” admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director. The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better). October’s forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22. Truth be told, the September prediction for October-December was slightly worse, at -23. The main cause in both cases was the same: Underestimating the mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

Everyone makes mistakes, but erring on the side of a warm mistake isn’t an error, it’s dogma. The weather is supposed to keep getting warmer, even if it isn’t.

“Science” says the winters will be warmer and who can argue with science? Apparently not the NOAA.

The Farmer’s Almanac predicted a bitterly cold winter. Are its techniques really superior to the NOAA’s huge budget or is the NOAA crippled by Warmunism the way that Soviet agriculture was crippled by Communism and Lysenkoism?

The 197-year-old publication that hits newsstands Monday predicts a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey. It also predicts a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.

“We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” said Sandi Duncan, managing editor.

Based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles, the almanac’s secret formula is largely unchanged since founder David Young published the first almanac in 1818.

The science is settled.

  • opinionated1945

    “There is a difference between Science and scientists.”
    — Dennis Prager

  • http://ceramicainc.com Doug Light

    I love the term: Warmunism! But in light of the lack of warming over the last 15 years, of course, the climateers have re-branded their religion to climate change, and “Changeunism” doesn’t quite have the same ring, and “Climatism” sounds like a procedure used during a sex change operation.

  • CaoMoo

    Fairly soon I predict they will abandon the global warming of the 90’s and go back to saying CO2 is causing global cooling like the 70’s.

    • JDinSTL

      Only if they figure out how it should lead to a huge tax increase

      • objectivefactsmatter

        That won’t ever be a problem they have.

  • A Z

    When you develop a model and run historical data and it fits with an R2 of around 95% or higher, you do do not have a good model. It sounds counter intuitive but it is true.

    I suspect that is what the Warmists have done. They can great at physics or some other field and still mess up at modeling.

  • DogmaelJones1

    The same Harvard geniuses who predicted global cooling in the 1970s later, using the same data, predicted global warming in the 1990s. Then, when caught in the lie, they invented “man-caused climate change,” to cover their sorry, lying butts.

    • Bamaguje

      That’s right!!
      With “climate change” they can’t go wrong… warming, cooling, hurricanes, drought… just about any natural phenomena can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.

  • Infovoyeur

    What does one do about the apparent fact that 97% of professional specialist scientists, declare climate is changing toward warmth? This is a CEC, a current expert consensus, and yes I know that even science can be wrong (must be falsified), etc., and knowledge is iffy, but still…

    My question is why I have not found ANY conservative-based writer, who has voiced approbation of or attention to the global warming theory. Even the ones I admire, even Bruce Bawer usually spot-on on vital matters! Roughly I can only estimate that a “conservative” stance often wants (1) minimal govt. interference, and (2) maximal freedom to profit. That would explain much?

    Questions are of three types. Fact, Opinion, and Reasoned Judgment. As in: (1) Alaska is the coldest state. (2) Alaska is the best place for a vacation. (3) Alaska is/is not a good place to start a certain kind of business.
    Climate change would seem to be Type #1?

    • CowboyUp

      I do the same thing I’d do if 97% of professional specialist scientists encouraged me to jump off a cliff and jumped off themselves. Wave bye to them and go a different direction. If they can’t or won’t produce the raw data they used, it’s not even science.
      I don’t know about conservative writers, surely they weren’t all wise enough to see through it from the start, but plenty of conservative politicians were fooled. It also “explains much” that scientists are human too, and can desire acclaim, power, and grant money. The global warming hoax has been a boon for their budgets, lifestyles, and egos.
      The climate changes, whether we’re here or not. Type #1?

      • The March Hare

        And the list of “scientists” they use are mostly people that are scientists that are not involved in climate or weather at all, or just technical in nature, but not scientists. Somebody researching drugs are scientists, but have no expertise in climate. They are just used to pad the list. Many aren’t even aware they are being counted as one of those “scientists”. Very very few are climate scientists in reality. The list needs to be acquired and the “scientists” on it should be made to show their qualifications and state their positions publicly on whether or not they truly support those claims.

  • The March Hare

    Then, wouldn’t that be “anti-climatism”?