The Polar Vortex is Caused by Global Warming

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 30, 2019

Now, a lot of people would think that it is counterintuitive that global warming would be causing the coldest weather in recorded history.

I think this is why they changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change.” As now it can just refer to “weather that might be bad weather.”

I haven’t really heard the term “global warming” in several years. Surprisingly, it is coming up again in reference to this polar vortex.

CBS News:

A counterintuitive theory about the polar vortex is gaining ground among some in the climate science community: Regional cold air outbreaks may be getting an “assist” from global warming. While it may not seem to make sense at first glance, scientifically it’s consistent with the extremes expected from climate change.

Overall, Earth is warming due to climate change, but areas near the North Pole are warming more than 2 times faster than the rest of the globe. This “Arctic Amplification” is especially pronounced in winter.

When warm air invades the Arctic Circle, it weakens the polar vortex, displacing cold air masses southward into Europe, Asia and the United States. You might think of it as a once tight-knit circulation unraveling, slinging pieces of cold air outward.

Evidence for this was presented in a research paper published in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society. Essentially, it suggests climate change can contribute to a more extreme, wavy jet stream, hurling cold air masses farther south.

It should be noted that this theory is relatively new and there is a lot of debate in the climate science community about the extent to which such a connection exists. CBS News reached out to two leading climate scientists for comment about whether or not a portion of the recent Arctic outbreaks can be traced to climate change. Here’s what they had to say:

Dr. Judah Cohen, a climate scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), told us:

I have argued that low sea ice and extensive snow cover [in autumn] as a result of Arctic amplification have resulted in more frequent weakenings or disruptions of the polar vortex in recent decades.

When the polar vortex is weak or “perturbed,” the flow of air is weaker and meanders north and south (rather than west to east). This allows a redistribution of air masses where cold air from the Arctic spills into the mid-latitudes and warm air from the subtropics is carried into the Arctic.

Dr. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said:

These questions test the limits of both our available data (the apparent increase in frequency of these events is quite recent and so at best only just starting to emerge from the background noise) and the model simulations.

As we showed in our recent Science article, current generation climate models don’t resolve some of the key processes involved in the jet stream dynamics behind many types of weather extremes.

Honest scientists can legitimately differ based on reasonable interpretations of the evidence to date.

I have always thought that any idea, no matter how complicated, should be able to be simplified into 50 words or less. If it can’t be, than it is probably bullshit, that is just being used to try and confuse you.

To their credit, they do appear to be simplifying this idea. Apparently, they’re saying that because carbon dioxide is causing the air to become warmer, warm air is blowing up to the north pole and causing cold air to be forced downward.

Does that make sense to you? 

They are even admitting that this is controversial.

To me, it sounds like total bullshit.

But of course, if you make that claim, they will just accuse you of being stupid and not “believing in science.”

I’ll tell you: anyone who uses the term “believe in science” is lying to you. Science is not a “belief system,” it is a method of repeatable experimental testing designed to lead to working theories.

And thus far, climatology has proven to be no more of a science than say, psychology.

This global warming thing is something they can test. They put out theories about the relationship between CO2 and warming, and created a predictions model.

It has been continually, absurdly wrong.

Honestly, the conversation has become so dishonest, that it really isn’t even worth trying to discuss it. It is literally the exact same thing as arguing about religion. These true believers will point to the IPCC graphs as if they are a religious text, and if you tell them they are wrong, or show them documentation that they are wrong, they just shut down.

Probably, it makes more sense simply to argue that the plan to tax the first world as part of a deindustrialization scheme while allowing the Chinese to continue to build at least one coal plant every week.

Telling the French they have to go into austerity while China is doing this is simply insane, and even someone who believes in this global warming religion has to acknowledge that.

What About Nuclear Power?

Furthermore, the fact that we are not talking about nuclear power gives the lie at least as bad as the inconvenient truth of China’s 993 gigawatts of coal power capacity.

Lord Gaia himself, James Lovelock, supported nuclear power.

Modern coal power plants are clean, in that the only thing they release into the atmosphere is CO2. However, nuclear power doesn’t release anything into the atmosphere.

Excluding Three Mile Island – which resulted in no deaths, including no claims of cancer deaths – we haven’t had a nuclear disaster in the Western world ever. Unless you include Fukushima in Japan, a country that was warned not to build on a fault line.

Furthermore, nuclear disasters are not that big of a deal, relative to what Al Gore is claiming is going to happen as a result of coal plants.

This guy is saying cities are going to be underwater.

Despite ridiculous and unprovable 5-figure “long term exposure” death count claims at Chernobyl put out by anti-nuclear activists, the actual death toll from that incident is almost certainly no higher than 10,000.

Anything beyond the initial 4,000 would have been due to Soviet incompetence and failing to properly evacuate. Just as the meltdown itself was due to Soviet incompetence.

But I’m not personally convinced that this “long term low level exposure” stuff is real. Nuclear radiation doesn’t appear to be anywhere near as dangerous as we’ve been told.

We’ve all probably seen the video of that kooky nuclear physicist Galen Winsor eating uranium.

I don’t really know enough to talk about that, but I do know he lived to be 82 years old and died of Parkinson’s Disease. His claim was that anti-nuclear activism was a conspiracy by the energy industry, which is on the face of it at least a pretty reasonable theory. The global warming people point out that the oil companies have lobbied against global warming research, so I don’t know why they wouldn’t have also lobbied against nuclear power. The completely ruthless nature of the oil cartel is about the only thing that the global warming activists are right about.

To be accurate, the oil companies are now lobbying FOR global warming theories. The lying media made the argument that “it’s so obvious that even oil companies have to admit it.”

But of course, the actual reason oil companies support it is that it raises the price of oil. They have to drill less and make more money.

Furthermore, there is a modern city where the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

And recent more honest analysis has shown that the increase in cancer rates in these areas are nigh statistically negligible, with the average lifespan of survivors of the bombing being reduced by only a few months.

Fukushima had zero direct deaths. They make claims about theoretical deaths.

That 1600 number is “evacuation stress,” which means… I don’t even know. People dying in car crashes trying to flee the area?

And of course, along with being built on an earthquake belt, Fukushima was outdated and in need of serious upgrades. Modern plants do not have anywhere near the risk this plant had, aside from the location.

But if we go with the worst case scenario, and a couple hundred people die every few decades as a result of nuclear power, isn’t that better than a total collapse where every city gets buried under water?

In fact, is it not many, many fewer deaths than are currently caused by the various fossil fuel industries?

Yes.

Over a dozen people a year die in coal mining accidents in the US. And thousands a year die in China.

An average of 108 people a year die in oil and gas extraction in the US.

Furthermore, one could argue – I think accurately – that the 2010 BP oil spill was worse than either of the two major nuclear disasters in that industry’s history.

So the question becomes, why are we not talking about replacing so-called fossil fuels with nuclear power?

I’m not a huge believer in Tesla specifically, but we basically have a pretty good idea at this point about a future for electric cars. We could charge these with power from nuclear plants, and reduce these allegedly catostrophic carbon emissions to pretty much zero within a decade.

So whether you believe the theory or not – and I do not believe it, but as I stated above, I think at this point it is not worth arguing because it has transformed into a religious faith – it is clear that the ruling elite are not concerned about actually solving the alleged problem.

As is the case with every single “crisis” we are presented with by the government and their controlled media apparatus, there are obvious solutions which work for everyone which are simply ignored.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS