Christopher Smith

Christian saved by Grace, Conservative, Dad of 5, Network and IT professional/consultant, #USAF Veteran (5th Combat Comm Grp) during Reagan era.

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

You know what they say @Richzeoli , "Once you go totalarianism, ya never go back" @GREGSTOCKER

[Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋 @SharylAttkisson]

Here ya go:

One winner in the Covid vaccine misinformation is Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote; "Vaccine mandates would prevent 100 percent of Covid cases in the United States."

From my book, "Follow the Science."

"..Dr. Fauci seemed to get it wrong on most every critical point involving Covid-19. He shamelessly promoted the experimental and unproven vaccines without reservation and, as I mentioned earlier, joined vaccine makers in furthering the false narrative that Covid vaccines would prevent infection. For example, on December 12, 2020, he claimed the vaccines had "been found to be up to 95 percent effective in preventing the COVID-19 illness."
...
Many propagandists have attempted to revise history and claim these things were never said. These specific examples prove otherwise.

On November 9, 2020, media reports claimed one of the Covid vaccines “was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants.”

On November 18, 2020, CNN reported that “Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 infections, even in older adults, and caused no serious safety concerns.”

In December of 2020, vaccine makers crowed about their products’ supposed ability to prevent infection: “Moderna’s initial Phase 3 clinical data in December 2020 was similar to Pfizer-BioNTech’s—both vaccines showed about 95% efficacy for prevention of COVID.”

On December 12, 2020, Dr. Fauci claimed the vaccines have “been found to be up to 95 percent effective in preventing the COVID-19 illness.”

On February 12, 2021, an article in USA Today claimed Covid vaccines “were all 100% effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalizations and death.”

On March 16, 2021, Pfizer announced that “its COVID-19 vaccine is extremely effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases of the disease.”

On March 29, 2021, CDC claimed the vaccines were 90 percent effective at preventing infection.

On March 31, 2021, Becker’s Hospital Review reported that “Pfizer says its vaccine is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 in adolescents.”

On April 1, 2021, Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla tweeted, “Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%!”

Also on April 1, 2021:

A study in the British Medical Journal claimed the vaccines prevent infection, as well as symptoms.

Fortune, New York magazine, The Intelligencer, MSNBC, and many others claimed Pfizer and Moderna shots are highly effective at preventing infection and illness.

CDC Director Dr. Walensky claimed, “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus—they don’t get sick.”

On June 7, 2021, a CDC study claimed “the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines . . . reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people.”

On June 14, 2021, an article in Science claimed that Novavax, Pfizer, and Moderna vaccines were “essentially 100% protective against disease.”

On July 6, 2021, a Stanford study claimed vaccines prevented Covid infection in nearly 100 percent of people.

On August 27, 2021, the CDC claimed, “The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were approximately 90% effective in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection” of Delta variant.

On September 23, 2021, The Atlantic claimed vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid.

On October 3, 2021, Dr. Fauci stated, “we do have interventions, in the form of a vaccine to prevent infection.”

On October 7, 2021, President Biden claimed people who are vaccinated “cannot spread it.”

On October 11, 2021, a study by a group of Indian scientists claimed four out of five vaccinated people won’t get Covid.

On November 22, 2021, Pfizer issued a press release claiming its vaccine demonstrated “100% efficacy against COVID-19 in longer-term analysis, with no serious safety concerns identified” in children ages twelve to fifteen.

On December 14, 2021, President Biden claimed that vaccinated people “do not spread the disease to anyone else” and “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

In January of 2022, justices on the Supreme Court displayed shocking ignorance of facts and played a remarkable role in furthering disinformation—even basing decisions on it. At the time, the court was hearing opposition to the Biden administration’s sweeping and unprecedented Covid vaccine mandates. Here is some of the incorrect information repeated by the justices.

From Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

Omicron was as deadly or deadlier than Delta

100,000 children were in critical care, many on ventilators, due to Covid

Covid deaths were at an all-time high at the time

From Justice Elena Kagan:

It’s “beyond settled” science that vaccines stop Covid transmission

It’s proven that masks are highly effective at stopping the spread

From Justice Stephen Breyer:

Vaccine mandates would prevent 100 percent of Covid cases in the United States

750 million people tested positive for Covid-19 on one day that week. (The US population is roughly 330 million people.)

[Franklin Graham @Franklin_Graham]

Two years ago, Christian nurse Vanessa Sivadge @V_Sivadge was fired from her job at Texas Children’s Hospital for exposing their illegal and immoral practice of using federal funds to cover sex-change prescriptions and surgeries for minors. This week, Vanessa won a settlement that requires the hospital to open a “detranistioner clinic” providing free treatment for patients up to age 21 who need healing from physical or mental damage as a result of gender transition procedures they received. The hospital will also pay $10 million to resolve Medicaid fraud claims, fire five physicians who performed the surgeries in violation of Texas law, and enact other reforms. Vanessa posted about herself, “If I could go back in time and speak to the terrified, insecure girl who walked out of Texas Children’s Hospital with a box of her belongings, I would say this: Your whistleblower case will one day result in America’s First Detransitioner Clinic … To God be the Glory.” https://t.co/vwHxrkw26d

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@tedcruz I see whatcha did there! 😆

[Kevin Bass @kevinnbass]

A remarkable compilation of just a tiny sample of the relentless lying and prevaricating that Fauci did during the pandemic.

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@Cjpearson I hope he sends a chunk to Delaware to keep us from hitting Dem super-majority status. It’s already frightful here, but if 1-2 more knuckleheads gain seats, The First State will continue its elevator ride to the bottom

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@ChrisMartzWX In Delafornia where I live, last year’s legislation wasn’t just paper straws but you have to ask for one (drive thru usually gives u one). ‘Sometimes’ it’s OK to get a plastic bag from a business, like a restaurant to carry leftovers. We’ve gone from 1st State to 45th cuz Dems

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Here are TEN questions that I have for any climate alarmists reading, and I hope I can get some honest answers down in the comments:

1️⃣ You have asserted that the planet is dangerously overheating. So, what exactly is the correct globally averaged surface air temperature supposed to be and why? I want an exact value to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius.

2️⃣ What is the correct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) level to optimize life on Earth? Give me your answer as an exact value in mole fraction or volume percentage, then explain why in detail. A range would suffice too, but you still need to explain.

3️⃣ What makes CO₂ “air pollution”?

The pre-Trump 2.0 EPA considered CO₂ as an air pollutant under the legal framework of the Clean Air Act, and their justification was that it “contributes to greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.”

But that seems pretty ambiguous if you ask me.

By that arbitrary standard, water vapor (H₂O) should also be classified as harmful “air pollution” because it also is a GHG and is a byproduct of combustion. But we don't classify it as pollution because, well, H₂O is necessary for life on Earth. But so is CO₂. Without it, we would all die.

4️⃣ Why are global average temperatures measured in reference to the 1850–1900 baseline? While many of our modern instrumental weather records begin within that timeframe, we know that climate conditions pre-1900 were much harsher than they are today as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Winters were harsher. Summers could be harsher. Droughts, floods, and famine were just as, if not more common relative to today. So, why should the end of the Little Ice Age be seen as the ideal baseline for human welfare?

5️⃣ The estimated cost of net zero in the U.S. by the year 2050 is ~$6 trillion (though estimates I have seen widely vary). And with ~165 million taxpayers in the nation, using that $6T figure, it would cost each of us a little more than $36,000 to achieve. That's a lot of money per individual. How many of you activists are willing to shell out that kind of money just to see what happens?

6️⃣ If we spent that $6T to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will such measures reduce the global mean surface temperature by the year 2100? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math (I actually know the answer to this theoretically, but I want to see you do the math).

7️⃣ What does the perfect climate look like? Just how much extreme weather should there be? How many floods? Tornadoes? Category two hurricane landfalls in Florida? What should temperatures be? How many droughts should occur per century in Cambodia? How will we get there and how do we know when / if we get there? By what scientific measure will we know?

8️⃣ If “combating climate change” is really a global concerted effort, then why do you always give China and India a free pass to continue emitting without bound? Why are they never criticized? And don't tell me it's because they are “the world's factory.” The U.S. is the second largest industrial manufacturer in the world. Don't give me the “per capita emissions” BS either; the atmosphere does not care about that. So, why is it that the U.S. is always dunked on?

9️⃣ Why do most of (not all) you vehemently oppose nuclear power? It's the best alternative to coal and natural gas, and statistically it is the cleanest and one of the safest forms of “carbon-free” energy.

🔟 Lastly, if you truly believe climate change is an urgent problem, why do you continue to use social media? After all, it has a large carbon footprint because it is powered by those data centers you hate. Also, why do demonize fossil fuels, but use them to keep the lights on in your home or apartment? Why use running water and indoor plumbing, which often require fossil fuels? Why not give up modern luxuries and live off grid to lead by example? I really want to know why you are still here.

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

Kook kook-a-choo here, Dr Verm(in)

[JOHN BOLARIS @JohnBolaris]

What on earth is wrong with these people ?? She’s a doctor , question can biological MEN get pregnant .. she couldn’t answer it . The question was put politics aside & from a science stand point can a biological male get pregnant .? LISTEN this is insane

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

The USA and its people have certainly become soft. @united oughta increase the change fees for those people…

[Brit Hume @brithume]

In case you doubt that TDS is real.

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

Yikes!! She seems a little nutso.

[Buck Sexton @BuckSexton]

Just change her girl boss blazer into drab olive overalls and she immediately becomes the Soviet People's Commissar for Education. There's no substantive difference.

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

After tonight, it’s even clearer that the Senate should take the SAVE America Act and continue debating it until it passes

Repost if you agree

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@ChrisMartzWX @washingtonpost Darn, should’ve looked at my timeline before tagging you in my post about the ‘scary’ picture some enviro nut job posted:

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@ChrisMartzWX Uh oh, their trotting out a pic to give everybody the feels about ice melting! Also, pretty sure ‘earthly education’ on Insta is posting a pic of Antarctica and not the Arctic Ocean?

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

Share if you agree that the Senate shouldn’t take its August recess until it has passed the SAVE America Act.

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@TMacPhils Gonna be at the 7/28 Marlins game. Will John be in the booth with you that series? I’ll wear my red Kruk shirt.…of course, I’ll probably wear it whether or not he’s there!

[John Stossel @JohnStossel]

It's not the poor who want socialism.

It's a "luxury belief," says @robkhenderson.

Because socialism's biggest promoters live a life of privilege.

Stossel TV Fellow Leyla Taghiyeva of @sfliberty reports:

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@TimRunsHisMouth I only ever wrote an essay as an assignment while in school, so not sure why a normal adult would be writing one for a newspaper…unless they were pretty full of themselves; imho

[Megan Basham @megbasham]

All right Google, I’ll give this one to you. This is pretty great.

[Christopher Smith @chrislasmith]

@mkhammer Could’ve been written by several state legislators in Delaware, but don’t think they’re on X. First to come to mind is Rep Eric Morrison, who somehow has been re-elected several times. He is probs over on BlueCry in the Dem echo chamber…

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

The science is settled! ✍️🤓🫴🧪

The New York Times reports today that the ongoing eastern U.S. heatwave is “virtually impossible without climate change.”

That sounds pretty bad. I'm pretty worried. 😨

The NYT's Raymond Zhong writes,

🗨️ “𝘛𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 '𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦,' 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘎𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢.”

🔗https://t.co/ZJahy8OD31

So, right off the bat, this analysis (which is executed by, you guessed it, World Weather Attribution) is questionable. For one thing, the heatwave just began and it will continue through Independence Day weekend. Even if you believe in this so-called “attribution science” (I'll address that further down), it is irresponsible to draw robust conclusions like this prematurely. You need to wait days or even weeks to gather all of the available data, then analyze it, plot it, and finally write about it. That's how things work in REAL science, which does not include WWA's witchcraft of climastrology.

🔗https://t.co/A50o2xyWdQ

And not only is this analysis largely a modeling effort (and I ought to remind y'all that model output cannot count as evidence), but it's modeling stacked on top of more modeling because the WWA “scientists” (and I use scare quotes there) employed forecast data to arrive at their bold conclusion, completely ignoring the fact that many numerical weather prediction (NWP) models such as the Global Forecast System (GFS) and European (ECMWF) have warm biases (likely due to their lower resolution compared to, say, the NAM) and predict daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures that are too high compared to physical observations. Legendary meteorologist (and my good friend OR “crazy uncle” as he likes to be called) @BigJoeBastardi has pointed out multiple times this past week.

In other words, this WWA analysis and NYT piece that promotes it is largely junk science.

But I digress, let's continue.

🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 [WWA] 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺’𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 0.5 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥.”

So, rather than assessing heatwave magnitude like has traditionally been done (i.e., examining the Tmax values), the WWA used a rather obscure metric that most people don't use, let alone understand, called the “wet bulb globe temperature” (WBGT), which is a composite index that combines the air temperature, humidity level, wind speed, the sun angle, and cloud cover. It was developed in the 1950s.

🔗https://t.co/3xVBhckhE6

The WWA examined WBGT over their study region, the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada, using the annual highest five-day averaged WBGT (WBGTx5x). To do this, they used the ERA5 reanalysis data, which integrates both physical observations and modeled simulations to produce a consistent, gridded, high-resolution dataset of atmospheric conditions globally going back to 1950. That's fine and all, I suppose, but it does not come without limitations.

Unlike most of the handwritten 19th century weather observations (which Dr. John Christy and I are in the process of examining and homogenizing), which contained very detailed notes about cloud cover and wind speed / direction, daily U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) observations (~October 1890 to present) don't contain any data on local cloud cover, dew points, or wind speed / direction. The NWS now has that data (often in five-minute or hourly intervals) for ASOS sites, but said data only go back to the mid-to-late-20th century, at best. 1950 wasn't that long ago.

Without an abundance of real observations to work with, I have doubts about the WWA's high levels of confidence in their conclusions. Cloud area fraction, dew points, and wind directions are mostly guessed by computer model interpolation from scattered observations (which are fewer and fewer the farther back in time you go).

The NYT finally states,

🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙧-𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡.”

And there it is. This analysis, if that's what you want to call it, has not been subject to rigorous peer review or published in an academic journal.

Now, I personally don't care about that, but alarmists always like to point out that nothing their critics say to contest climate hysteria (such as this WWA analysis) matters unless it is published in a journal. So, why are they not holding themselves to the same standards? Why should preliminary findings that haven't yet been published be newsworthy?

Other outlets have reported on this “flash study”, such as The Guardian and Reuters.

🔗https://t.co/u4GCKrlGyR

🔗https://t.co/SStyJzWEh4

Notice that these stories all use roughly the same language. “A rapidly warming world.” “Caused by fossil fuels.” “Virtually impossible.” These are copy-paste stories built from a list of talking points that these so-called “journalists” received in an email. There is ZERO investigative journalism here. They don't question these findings as real journalists should. They don't ask any follow-up questions either. They just nod in agreement because they are paid to push climate propaganda.

I should also regurgitate my point in other posts that I've made that climate change, by definition, is an outcome, not a cause or an accelerant. It describes a change in climate, the latter of which is a statistical description of the mean and variability of Earth's climate system. An increase or decrease in heatwave frequency / magnitude would be evidence of climate change, but climate change itself does not cause or worsen them. You could argue that mankind's slight enhancement of the greenhouse effect has, but that isn't the same as saying “climate change caused this event / made this event worse,” which is an outright false framing.

If we really want to examine whether or not this July heatwave is unprecedented in the northeast, well, the metric used historically to evaluate heatwaves is the afternoon Tmax.

On June 29th, 1853, Washington, D.C. reached 102°F. The following day, it reached 105°F, which is hotter than anything in forecast for D.C. this weekend. It was 106°F in Detroit that day. How did that happen in June of all months? Then, during this exact week in 1911, there was the hottest July 4th weekend on record in the U.S. On July 3rd, 1911, 13.1% of the country reached 100°F and nearly half of the nation was ≥90°F. Much of New England was also ≥100°F. During this week in 1901, much of the eastern half of the country reached 100°F (it was one of the deadliest in history).

While we don't have any dew point data to infer what humidity levels were during these events, from a pure temperature standpoint, there is nothing unprecedented about this heatwave despite the fact the planet is ~2°F (1.3°C) warmer now than it was in 1850. There is no doubt it is hotter than a hoochie coochie this weekend, but this is nothing that hasn't happened several times before. It's summertime; if it were, say, May or mid-September, there'd be a leg for alarmists to stand on here.

All of that to say that this is just another example of day-to-day and week-to-week weather, not climate.

Stay cool with your A/C, don't leave your pets outside, hydrate, and rest easy tonight knowing that your Chevy Suburban did not cause this heatwave to occur.