Wash Times: Czech physicist Lubos Motl, who called the extreme-weather narrative a “pseudo-scientific scam” in a Tuesday post, while Climate Depot’s Marc Morano argued that record cold “does not disprove ‘global warming,’ but it certainly did not cause it.” “Predictions of less snow were ubiquitous by global warming scientists,” Mr. Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” “But once that prediction failed, the opposite of what they predicted became — what they expected. So no matter what happens, the activists can claim with confidence the event was a predicted consequence of global warming.” ...
Roger A. Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, said the polar-vortex phenomenon isn’t new. “These southward movements of part of the vortex have always occurred,” said Mr. Pielke in an email. “With respect to climate, a strong polar vortex occurs when it is particularly cold at higher latitudes. The colder the troposphere at the higher latitudes, the stronger is the polar jet stream. So if anything, these extreme Arctic outbreaks suggest global warming has little effect on them.”
A top-line claim in the latest U.S. government climate report is based on research funded by groups tied to Democratic donors.
The new National Climate Assessment claims the U.S. economy could take a 10 percent hit from global warming. However, that claim is based on research funded by groups founded by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg.
The Bloomberg-Steyer-funded study found future temperature rise could cost “roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per [additional one degree Celsius increase] on average.” At the most extreme high-end, that could add up to 10 percent of GDP by 2100.
Pielke called the use of such an extreme scenario “embarrassing” because it’s based on a future that’s 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer — in other words, twice what the United Nations’ most extreme scenario projects.