QUORA: ‘Is it normal for 75% of the U.S. to be below freezing in November, or is that another sign of climate change?’

 QUORA: ‘Is it normal for 75% of the U.S. to be below freezing in November, or is that another sign of climate change?’

In November 2019, The Lower 48 in the U.S. was swept by an intense cold wave that was very unusual for so early in the season. The question above apparently refers to that extreme weather event. At least, that’s what I’m assuming.  

Below is an edited and expanded version of the answer I posted:

No, it is not normal, if by “normal” you mean average. Far from it. In fact, the November 2019 cold snap is the strongest November cold wave since 1911, and in many cities stronger. Here are articles from the Washington Post and AccuWeather documenting just how unusual this cold wave was. 

But it is not some unprecedented event. The atmospheric conditions that unleashed this arctic air mass and sent it South, bringing with it well below average temperatures in the Lower 48, happen from time to time. Yes, records were broken. But remember that systematic weather records have only been around for about 100 to 200 years, depending on location. In the history of meteorology, that’s a pin prick in time.

As to climate change, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the notion that a single weather event signals anything about climate. Climate is an average of weather conditions measured over a long period of years spanning decades or longer. What the cold wave signals to me is that the hysteria over a so-called “climate crisis” is hogwash. Unfortunately, “climate change” has been so politicized that most of the “debate” about it is geared toward political ambitions rather than oriented around rationality and facts. Attributing an extreme weather event to climate change is a political “explanation.” Weather deviates from “normal” all the time. That’s not climate change. That's the weather. 

Climate change is defined as the long term shifts in weather patterns. Is our climate changing? Probably. Human activity likely contributes to those changes, especially in recent centuries. But so do natural forces. According to political “wisdom,” we face a climate crisis, and humans are to blame. But the steady stream of Chicken Little hysteria is best ignored. There are plenty of calmer, rational experts telling a different story. One I recommend is Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven Koonan. And if you read Brian Fagan’s The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850, you get a picture of just how wild weather and climate swings have been historically. It puts into perspective how comparatively mild today’s alleged “climate crisis” is historically.

Related Reading:

Sierra Club's Jeff Tittel Smears Star-Ledger Article and its Contributors for Excluding Climate Religion from Hurricane Analysis

The Atlantic: Exploiting Hurricane Disasters to Talk Climate is OK—Eric Worrall for WUWT

A Carbon Tax Won't Stop Hurricanes—James Agresti for FEE

QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

Stop ‘Denying’ the View From Outside the Climate Catastrophist Government Establishment

WeatherNation is Right to Stick to Actual Weather Reporting vs. Climate Change Propaganda

The climate propaganda cartel infects virtually everything in media, including weather reporting. So what happens when one weather reporting network resists the cartel, and sticks to actual weather reporting? It comes up against the cartel’s rage. Scott Dance, writing in A weather network, tied to one of Steve Bannon’s platforms, comes under fire for The Washington Post, reports on the cartel’s attack on WeatherNation, which he refers to as “critics”:

These critics also argue that in its own coverage, WeatherNation fosters climate change skepticism by shunning any mention of the established links between human-driven climate warming and the disasters the channel covers, thus discouraging viewers from considering the consequences of climate change.

The emphasized portion is political propaganda. There are no such “established links.” There are established links between weather events and various atmospheric conditions. Climate is not real. It is a statistical abstraction—a compilation of weather data for specific regions averaged out over a period of decades (usually 30 years, for weather reporting purposes). In other words, weather, which is real, determines climate averages. Climate change refers to long term changes in atmospheric patterns, the cause of which can be caused by human or natural activities. These long term changes can affect the climate statistics, altering what we call climate. The same changes in atmospheric patterns can ultimately affect weather. But how is never directly provable. It can only be speculated upon. What can be observed is how the patterns themselves affect weather. That’s what weather reporting is about.

Climate change considerations are irrelevant to weather reporting. I have been a weather buff since early childhood. Born in 1949, I lived through decades of slight global cooling (roughly 1940 - 1980) followed by the current warming period since (roughly 1980 to the present. It’s interesting to speculate about these mild climate changes. But that is irrelevant to weather reporting. When I watch weather stations, I want weather info, not unverifiable climate claims of “established links” to weather events. I want to know about jet streams and highs and lows and atmospheric rivers and ocean temperatures and polar vortexes and La Niñas and the myriad other phenomena that affect weather.

Ten current and former WeatherNation employees who spoke with The Washington Post described a discomfort with the programming produced next door — as well as with an understanding that they should refrain from on-air references to climate change, despite the scientific consensus on how it influences on global weather extremes (sic).

On-air references to climate change is exactly the kind of  irrelevant speculative trivia that muddles most weather reporting these days. It’s political propaganda, as indicated by the inclusion of the phrase “scientific consensus.” Together with “climate change skepticism,” it’s obvious what the critics are up to: They seek to stifle rational dissent and debate. But weather reporting should not be on either side, or any side, of the controversial topic of how, or if, a shifting climate plays in to weather events. Weather reporting networks should stick to what their name demands—weather.

Such propaganda is why I rarely watch The Weather Channel any longer. It is an unnecessary injection of useless info. Nothing happening in weather is anything that hasn’t happened before. There is simply no way to provably link any weather event to climate change, as any self-respecting meteorologist will tell you. I don’t need to be lectured to by political hacks.

I never heard of WeatherNation before coming across this article. But it’s refreshing to know that there still exists a weather outlet that actually sticks to verifiable facts. Climate is a legitimate topic. But it has no place in weather reporting. 

WeatherNation president Michael Norton said in an interview that although WeatherNation’s success helped to shape strategy in the launch of Real America’s Voice [Bannon’s parent network], the two entities operate independently. He stressed that WeatherNation is strictly focused on giving viewers constant weather updates, especially during events such as hurricanes and tornado outbreaks.

“A lot of people tune into our service during those events to watch live coverage,” Norton said. “They know we’ve become a trusted brand during these live events.”

An experienced forecaster, Douglas — whose legal name is Douglas Kruhoeffer — founded WeatherNation in 2008. He taped forecast segments for syndication, emailing them to stations that could not or did not want to produce weather forecasts in-house.

In an apparent reference to The Weather Channel, Kruhoeffer explains:

“No documentaries, specials or movies, just cutting edge graphics, a heavy emphasis on social media, and a staff of degreed meteorologists,” Douglas told The Washington Post in 2011.

WeatherNation has never strayed from that road map.

Thankfully!

WeatherNation has about 700,000 followers on Facebook, some 100,000 more than Real America’s Voice.

“It reminds me of what the Weather Channel looked like 20 years ago [the Weather Channel I loved]—very basic experience with elementary graphics, elevator music played behind local updates, et cetera,” said Michael Greeson, the principal analyst for Aluma Insights, a research firm focused on streaming video. “To put it another way, it appears made for older viewers who just want the basics [like me].”

On its Facebook page, WeatherNation explains:

As numerous sources predict increases in severe weather episodes throughout the US in the coming years, WeatherNation is ready to offer viewers timely, accurate and compelling information around the clock to keep you current with national, regional, and local conditions.

My emphasis. 

Of what value are such years-ahead “predictions” to viewers concerned about tomorrow’s actual weather? Predictions of more severe weather have been going on for decades, with little to show for their accuracy. To WeatherNation’s Facebook statement I can only say, keep up the good, honest reporting, and leave the speculation to the political mouthpieces..

Related Reading:

Samantha Tassillo’s Irresponsible Call to Turn Weather Reporting into Political Propaganda

The Associated Press’s Biased ‘Reporting’

The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change, 2nd Edition, by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice—Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters

It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the first half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half.

QUORA: ‘With the current worldwide heat crisis (July 2022), how can anyone doubt the reality of climate change?’

 QUORA: ‘With the current worldwide heat crisis (July 2022), how can anyone doubt the reality of climate change?’

I posted this answer, slightly edited:

Those who “see” climate change in this year’s summertime heat waves affecting some areas simply don’t know what they’re talking about. Heat waves no more prove the reality of climate change than religionists who “see” God in the heat waves (or any other weather events) proves the existence of God.

Of course, the Earth’s average global temperature is slowly warming. The warming, in turn, alters weather patterns in some areas, causing gradual, long-term shifts in some climates. But the mental linking of every news-worthy weather event to climate change is an indoctrination tactic geared toward a political agenda. An example of this tactic is Big Media’s coordinated world-wide, one-sided propaganda campaign, called the Covering Climate Now initiative. The purpose of this media cartel, dishonestly parading under the honorable label of “journalism,” is “a project . . . aimed at strengthening the media’s focus on the climate crisis.” It’s a virtual given these days that any news report on extreme weather events will include “climate change” or “climate crisis” in the report, without any causal fact that links climate change to the event. Such a one-sided campaign ignores the genuine human catastrophe that would follow from the efforts to “fight climate change” by stifling economic growth and the reliable energy needed to power it.

As this question demonstrates, climate change has taken on faith-based, quasi-religious overtones. 

And it’s not only not helpful. It’s downright dangerous, because it leads people to support policies of energy deprivation that restricts peoples’ access to the reliable low-cost energy needed to protect themselves from heat and other weather extremes. Although some of these extremes may be marginally more intense, nothing currently happening in weather is unprecedented or anything resembling a “climate crisis.” In truth, what is not being recognized is the enormous human progress on commanding climate dangers that fossil fuels and freedom have enabled, and the danger the crusade against fossil fuels means to continuing progress, especially in light of the equally vociferous campaign against nuclear power. The issue is not “the reality of climate change,” which no one disputes. The question I would ask is “In light of this summer’s heat waves, how can anyone doubt the vital human necessity of reliable cost-effective energy, such as fossil fuels and nuclear power?”

I’ve posted other answers on this subject:

QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

QUORA: ‘Why, even if the evidence is overwhelming, do many deny the risks our planet is running with climate change?’

QUORA: ‘What is, in your opinion, the best solution to climate change without destroying the economy?’

Related Reading:

Ida, the Catastrophist’s Latest Stopped-Clock ‘Prediction’

QUORA: ‘What is, in your opinion, the best solution to climate change without destroying the economy?’

The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign

Our Alleged 'Climate Crisis' is No Longer, Thanks to Fossil Fuels

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century--Ronald Bailey

Samantha Tassillo’s Irresponsible Call to Turn Weather Reporting into Political Propaganda

Fresh out of the indoctrination camps we call "higher education," Samantha Tassillo comes out full of fire for the noble ideological ideal of Climate Supremacy. And she wants to kill weather reporting to advance her agenda. In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, Tassillo demands, Listen, weather reporters, don’t say it’s hot if you won’t say why. Citing reports on heat waves this summer, she writes

From reading these news stories I wouldn’t have known that the sweltering weather and global warming were connected.

Of course, you wouldn’t have known, because they’re not. The sweltering weather is connected to known atmospheric conditions that have historically caused sweltering weather.

In combing through recent articles on nj.com, I did find one single letter to the editor that mentioned greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of the summer heat waves, back in June of this year. Thank you, Walter Korfmacher from Westfield. I appreciate you.

Well, the only problem is, Kormacner is wrong. True, a degree or two difference on a hot day may be attributable to the increase in CO2, which is likely at least partially responsible for the mild warming of the past 150 years or so. But they are not a cause of the heat waves. That amounts to the claim that this summer’s heat waves would not have happened if not for human greenhouse gas emissions. That’s absurd. It doesn’t even rise to the level of plausible speculation. It’s pure fantasy. What is a fact is that without air conditioning, these heat waves would be as unbearable as they have been throughout most of human history, a degree or two cooler notwithstanding.

Otherwise, in the eight articles published about the heat wave in recent days, not one of them mentioned climate change, global warming or greenhouse gas emissions. 

Of course they wouldn’t.* They’re reporters, not climate theorists. Mentioning “climate change, global warming or greenhouse gas emissions” would be irrelevant to specific weather event reports.

If reporters aren’t going to mention that carbon emissions are causing the heat waves, then there’s no sense in mentioning the heat at all. [?] A denial of one is a denial of the other. [??] We might as well live as if wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit don’t exist. [???]

The idea that without carbon emissions heat waves wouldn’t happen may come as a surprise to the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who had to work through 1787s “unbearably hot and humid Philadelphia summer to hammer out the Constitution.” It may come as a surprise to the Europeans of 1757, which endured a heat wave more brutal than 2022. And back then, the Northern Hemisphere was smack in the middle of the climatically turbulent Little Ice Age. History is replete with myriad other examples like these. In fact, just in my informed experience, which spans 73 years, temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit are common summertime occurrences, often reaching well past 100° F here in Jersey (1966 comes to mind). Reading this guest column, I feel like we’re in Twilight Zone territory that this even has to be pointed out. 

Heat waves a sudden, brandy new occurrence, thanks to carbon emissions, climate change, global warming, and greenhouse gas emissions? 

This would be cartoonish, except that it’s passed off as journalism in NJ’s largest newspaper.

It’s apparent that the Star-Ledger doesn’t even bother with fact checking any more. If it did, it would have flagged the preposterous claim that “carbon emissions are causing the heat waves.” But then, what would you expect from a charter member of the world propaganda cartel, Covering Climate Now(CCN). CCN is a massively one-sided big media project that is underpinned by the assertion that “the climate emergency is here.” This media cartel is the last link of a climate “knowledge system” in which influential thought leaders communicate to the public the knowledge that starts with basic scientific climate research. But the media twists the conclusion into the false climate catastrophist, anti-fossil fuel, non-impact-on-nature standard to the general public, under cover of the generic, authoritative-sounding “science says.” ** 

The climate is changing in many places as the average temperature of the Earth gradually warms. And, yes, some weather extremes have probably become marginally more extreme due to the warming. And, yes, human activity is undoubtedly part of the cause. This is a valid subject to explore, and I have no problem with studying the possible correlations between weather extremes and climate change, human induced or natural. Unfortunately for climate change fire-breathers like Tassillo, current studies have not yet uncovered much in the way of evidence for increased weather extremes, as former Obama science advisor Steven E. Koonan documents in his informative book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters. One interesting fact Koonan observes is that daily record highs are in fact holding steady, with a slight downward bias. This chart hardly confirms Tassillo’s absurd claim that this year’s heat waves are a sudden, unprecedented result of climate change:

But climate theorizing, educated guessing, and speculation are beside the point when reporting on specific weather events. Weather has causes related to long-understood—and sometimes still little understood—atmospheric conditions. Cold and warm fronts, upper- and lower-level pressure systems, jet streams, and El Niños/La Niñas are a few of the causes. Geography also often plays a big role in regularly occurring weather extremes. Climate change is not one of them. Climate is not real, like weather. It is an average of weather measurements in a particular area over a long period of time, usually decades.*** So climate change can only be measured in decades, not by heat waves or any other weather events. To say climate change causes weather is like saying my bowling average causes my individual game scores. It’s reversing cause-and-effect, and it’s preposterous.

Weather reporters should not be sucked into doing the political propaganda bidding of climate catastrophists, confusing readers with erroneous claims of climate change causes. They should stick to the actual facts, or lose all credibility. Knowing the actual causes of weather phenomena is vital to predicting weather and preparing warnings of impending dangerous weather extremes. Spouting off about climate change causing extreme weather would be useless to people who need real information about weather. Scaring us into being perpetually hunkering down as if weather disasters were just around every corner is not helpful. 99.9% of the time is spent in tranquil weather, or bad weather that we are protected from due to modern technology. And if severe weather threatens, simplistic climate change/eliminating fossil fuels “causes/solutions” will not teach us how to actually prepare for the dangers. Incessant Chicken Little sky-is-falling proclamations about heat waves won’t do us any good. Only facts and knowledge can do that. Weather forecasts of impending heat waves, and why, are useful. Climate hysteria is not.

Tassillo is dead wrong. Climate change has no place in weather reporting. Her claim that climate change caused this summer’s heat waves has no scientific or historical validity. (It is, in fact, a quasi-religious view.)

Silly as her premise is, Tassillo resorts to a truly cruel tactic which I can’t let pass—comparing the failure to “report” climate change as a cause of heat waves with the failure of some to fully account for slavery in antebellum America. 

You might’ve even heard of Ellen Bresler Rockmore’s viral New York Times article from 2015 on “How Texas Teaches History”: in the passive voice. She scours Texan American History textbooks, only to find that the writers manipulated language to diminish slaveowners’ culpability for the treatment of slaves.

The authors penned sentences like “severe treatment was very common” and “[w]hippings, brandings, and even worse torture were all part of American slavery.” These statements position the act of slavery as something inherent to the age, not something that individuals were responsible for — something that they could have changed.

Whether Tassillo is correct about Texas history books is beside the point. The cruel point is to place weather reporters who exclude mention of climate change on the moral level of the writers who allegedly manipulated language to diminish slaveowners’ culpability for the treatment of slaves! It’s hard to overstate how morally abominable this is. Shame on Samantha Tassillo, and shame on the Star-Ledger for publishing this trash. 

Neglecting to mention climate change in articles about heat waves paints a passive picture of the world in a very similar way. These articles implicitly reimagine extreme weather as something that happens independently of us, which we know not to be true. Perhaps these writers have omitted it to avoid being “political,” but news about climate change doesn’t belong in the op-ed section.

Unfortunately, much of it does. Extreme weather is something that has always happened independently of us. But Tassillo is not interested in facts, and she doesn’t want reporters to be, either. She obviously hasn’t yet escaped the iron grip of climate indoctrination, and may never. But she should really start thinking for herself. And she desperately needs to check her moral premises. Equating honest weather reporters with slaveowners is cold bloodedly unjust to weather reporters, not to mention insulting to the slaves who were forced to labor in the fields during summer heat waves. (Yes, Samantha, there were heat waves during the plantation slave era.)

If Tassillo gets her way, then all weather reporting would belong on the op-ed pages—meaning, weather journalism would effectively end. That would be a shame for anyone seeking genuine news coverage of weather events, especially for a life-long weather buff like myself. Climate speculations have no place in a news article reporting on this summer’s heat waves or on any other weather events. The fact is, though, that some mention of climate change or some variation of “scientists say” or “experts say” in weather reporting is already way too common. Weather “reporting” is already moving away from real  journalism. It’s not too bad, yet. Let’s not completely destroy it. People need real facts. Weather reporting and articles covering the speculative relationship of weather to the broader, long-term phenomenon of climate change are not the same thing.

* [If true. I’ve seen plenty of articles on the heat wave that do mention climate change.]

** [A knowledge system is a multi-step process. It is the way basic expert research is communicated to the general public in consolidated, easily understood form. In terms of climate, it is devastatingly indoctrinating, denying the public the proper consolidation of the objective facts about climate, energy, economics, and liberty as they relate to climate. Alex Epstein explains this distorted “knowledge system” in his book Fossil Future.] 

*** [The National Centers for Environmental Information, a division of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, calculates U.S. climate normals over 30 year periods. The World Meteorological Organization  and National Weather Service rely on this data. The 1991–2020 U.S. Climate Normals are the latest in a series of decadal normals first produced in the 1950s.] 

Related Reading;

The Associated Press’s Biased ‘Reporting’

The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign

False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century--Ronald Bailey

Sierra Club's Jeff Tittel Smears Star-Ledger Article and its Contributors for Excluding Climate Religion from Hurricane Analysis

Related Viewing:

“Expert knowledge is crucial to life, so the solution to a bad system for expert knowledge is not throwing out expert knowledge.” -- Alex Epstein

QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

 QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

I posted this answer:

“Pushback on climate change” is unusably vague. So I’ll assume that what is meant is “pushback on government policies to “fight” climate change.” 

The reason is simple. Climate change danger has been vastly exaggerated to advance an anti-human agenda that values raw nature over human life, and that consequently aims to eliminate vital reliable energy; nuclear, hydro, and especially fossil fuels. There is no “climate crisis” (the term itself is conceptually senseless). The truth is, there would be an unprecedented human catastrophe if reliable energy were eliminated in favor of unreliable, super-expensive “renewables” like solar and wind. 

As to weather extremes, there was never a time, in the USA or worldwide, in which there was not “overwhelming proof of weather extremes.” They’ve always existed, and contrary to the perpetually failed predictions of the climate alarmists, there is as of yet little evidence that they are becoming meaningfully more extreme (although the possibility of some weather events becoming more intense in the future are plausible expectation). We’re living in a relatively tame period, in terms of swings in climate and extreme weather. If you want to see weather extremes, read Brian Fagan’s book The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850. What we are experiencing today is not only routine, it is mild compared to the rapid shifts in ocean currents, climate, and extreme weather that people endured during that period. What we have today is more akin to the comparably tranquil conditions of the Medieval Warm Period. *

What is undeniably true today is that climate livability and safety has surged. 

For example, climate related deaths from weather extremes (and natural disasters more generally) have plunged 98% to 99% over the past 100 years. Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey documents that the risk of dying from extreme weather since the 1920s has dropped by 99.75 percent. (Hurricane Ida, Climate Change, and Falling Trends in Global Deaths From Natural Disasters). If you want a really dramatic specific example of the tremendous positive trend in human climate safety and livability, consider two Indian ocean hurricanes of recent weather history, 1970’s  Bhola cyclone and 2019’s Cyclone Bulbul. The two storms struck the same area of India/Bangladesh, and were of comparable strength (tropical cyclones in this part of the world are called simply “cyclones” rather than hurricanes). Bhola killed about 500,000 people, Bulbul 24! As Aljazeera reported,

Bangladesh’s low-lying coast, home to 30 million people, and India’s east are regularly battered by cyclones that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in recent decades.

While the storms’ frequency and intensity have increased – partly due to climate change – the death tolls have come down because of faster evacuations and the building of thousands of coastal shelters.

That’s real progress in protection from extreme weather in just 5 decades, and the progress happened in the time period in which we are constantly told we are facing a “climate crisis.” And it was made possible by the adoption in that part of the world of fossil fuels, including coal, which more broadly powers the industrialization that actually makes us safer from climate dangers.

The statement “we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?” is childish. It’s akin to religionists asserting “overwhelming proof of God” in everything, without ever having to offer proof of anything. There is “such strong pushback on climate change” not because people don’t recognize that climate change is a natural feature of Earth’s weather or that human activity may be influencing climate, but because “climate change” is used to whip up unwarranted hysteria geared toward policies that would cripple industry and consumers of energy and cause, if fully implemented, unimaginable human harm. Climate change hystericists vastly exaggerate the danger while ignoring or minimizing the enormous benefits that accompany human influence on the climate.

Before we consider any political climate agenda, we should start with the age-old wisdom, “First, do no harm.” Don’t let the “climate crisis” hysteria of political and crony business interests, Environmentalist anti-industrial revolutionists, and the concerted media propaganda campaign that backs it to constrict your thinking. There’s more to this story. Broaden your mind. By all means, listen to the alarmists. I do. But be objective. Get informed about the motives behind the climate panic mongering, the vital importance of energy to our everyday lives, the actual facts about extreme weather trends today, the actual history of weather and climate, what the evidence shows about the relationship between weather-related disasters and climate, the positive state of human flourishing and the planet today that the climate fear mongering camouflages, and the continued industrial/technological progress and the enabling Capitalist freedom needed to foster both growing worldwide prosperity and the tools to deal with whatever extreme weather awaits us in the future.   

* [The 2019 edition includes an added Afterword by the author that the original 2000 edition did not have. Unfortunately, the conclusion of that Afterword gives an inexplicable nod to today’s climate catastrophism movement, complete with the usual straw man tactics. I say inexplicable because the last two pages of the Afterword contradicts the entire book. Nonetheless, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850, 2019 edition, provides invaluable context for evaluating today’s raging climate change contraversy and debate.]

Related Reading:

The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign

The Anti-human Tyrade of an Ungrateful 16-Year-old

We Owe Our Children a More Technologically Advanced Society, Not 'Preserved' Nature

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

We Are Doomed Without, Not Because of, Fossil Fuel Use

CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND THE INDISPENSABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM—Kieth H. Lockitch 

Capitalist Industrialization, Not Handouts, is “Poor” Countries' Best Protection Against Natural Disasters

Stop ‘Denying’ the View From Outside the Climate Catastrophist Government Establishment