NBC's Climate Clique: A Future of White Christmases (Repost)

 

CNN White Christmas Map

** A year ago , this article was posted to highlight the climate change hype that had NBC reporters concluding that the days of a White Christmas were all but over as a result of climate change. NOW, the media is bemoaning the appearance of snow as a prophecy of climate change. 

The facts have not changed nor has the science.  Snow, rain and drought are a function of human civilization. We strip the atmosphere of naturally occurring gases and wonder why it isn't raining. Then the World reverts to fossil fuels because of a War in Ukraine and we complain because now we have too much weather.  Oh and that volcano in Hawaii is likely doing its job to bring rain and snow to the mountains of Mexico and the US. 

As long as governments think politically instead of scientifically, the World will bounce back and forth between good weather and bad.  Replacing fossil fuels to punish a  country only harms the environment and the World's citizens.

Original Text Below

More like a high school clique than a knowledgeable group of writers looking to spread good news on Christmas, NBC's climate change reporters share more similarities with the popular kids' table than many would like to admit.  We have all seen it and some of us have even been a part of that highly restrictive, narrow-focused mindset that feigns superiority while being ignorant of even the basic principles of good form. Thursday's Future White Christmas coverage during the NBC Nightly News airing was not only disappointing in its timing but also wildly prejudicial in blaming the unseen and undefined evil of our time--Climate Change.  

Declining White Christmases--Truth or Hype?

Climate change coverage today is a popularity game. There are three things you must have to be considered an enlightened media source. Those three things are simple: 1) Do not offer any scientific explanation, just trends 2) Use math to make things seem awful 3) Find an expert who belongs to the same doom-n-gloom club.  NBC does that very well. It is a shame they are not interested in looking at climate change as a function of changing times rather than the end-of-the-World scenario that gets viewer attention. 

Read on if you would like to get some relevant information that explains why different locations may or may not see snow for Christmas. 

A La Nina Year

On October 14, 2021, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) announced the official presence of the La Nina phase in the Pacific Ocean. La Nina years typically mean warmer and drier weather during the winter months for at least the lower half of the country.  Regardless of climate change, these years have always meant a year with little or no snow for many locations. NBC is well aware of this phenomenon and reported on it in October.  Instead of explaining that La Nina was going to make it more difficult for snow to form, this reporter went to the blame-climate-change format and took the easy, and politically correct, way out. 

Math Misused

To be expected, the reporter and expert compared trends by referring to mathematical differences between now and the 1980s.  Acknowledging that in 1980 ( which just so happens to be one of the most erratic weather years on record), half of the country saw snow while only 40% of the country now enjoys the event, the viewer is left with the impression that the country is losing our White Christmas legacy. While technically correct, using math as factual proof of climate change without understand how those numbers were obtained, amounts to spreading misinformation no matter how accurate the computation. Interestingly, several media outlets have published similar articles based on a NOAA press release which manipulates the number even further to tug at the emotional heartstrings of readers.  (Reminder: President Biden's climate change funding is being held up at the present time and NOAA may have written the piece in support of this funding)

Snow: A Fickle Flake

If you live in the band of the country where the Jet Stream moves up and down on a regular basis, your understanding of weather and climate change is completely different than those who live in the upper Northeast, the Pacific Coast and the Gulf Coast.  You learn early on that snow only happens under the right conditions and it is temperamental a best.  Just the right combination of air movement, temperature and moisture are needed.  If that doesn't sound like a rarity, factor in the weaker upper atmosphere that is the result of Clean Air policies and mining of gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide for use in the healthcare, cryogenics and food storage industries.  You see snow only occurs in the upper atmospher and when there isn't enough movement and moisture WAY up in the atmosphere, snow simply doesn't have the chance to form.  The future of our White Christmas may have more to do with how strictly the EPA regulates the atmosphere than anything else in the environment. 

Human Interference

 Have you heard the phrase "Comparing Apples to Oranges"? It generally means that people try to treat difference situations as the same (Apples and Oranges are both fruit) when they are basically very different (applies are many different colors, Oranges are. . well. . orange. You get the drift).  This happens all the time with climate change studies which from a science perspective makes most of the findings invalid.  These interesting facts show how we, as in humans, are likely more to blame by our simple presence than any weather related reason for a reduction in snow fall. 

1. One third of the US population wasn't here in 1980. That's 100 million people who are giving off heat in an environment that has not changed that much. A simple one degree increase in ambient air temperature because of all those people would be enough to disrupt snow production. Sad but true.

2. There are 80 million more vehicles giving off heat, regardless of fuel source, than 40 years ago. That is in addition to the approximately 175 million cars, truck and other vehicles that were in use in 1980.  A bit of additional heat is the difference between beautiful snow and cold rain. 

3. The increase in buildings needed to accommodate 330 million people that now call the United States home extends into places that have never been used for homes before.  Buildings, like people and cars, give off heat and can warm the air near the ground causing any snow that does form to melt before it reaches the ground.  Larger buildings such as warehouses, high rise apartments and office buildings can break the flow of air that is necessary for crystals to form.  Progress comes with a cost.  

In Conclusion

By now, you are beginning to see that what authority figures and advocates call climate change might just be unrealistic expectations.  The world of fifty years ago was fundamentally different because there was less of all the things mankind must have to survive. The additional 4 billion people of the world have done nothing wrong  There is a price that mankind has paid in poorer health, less wealth and more chaotic lives because of our dependence on every convenience. That price includes less chance for a White Christmas in many areas of the country.  All we have to do to bring it back to reduce our heat signature (not related to carbon footprint) and welcome a more simplistic lifestyle.  

Regrettably, NBC, other media outlets and most of all our government is more interested in economic growth than bringing back predictable weather.  More is the shame that like high school, the kids at the popular table, make life miserable for the rest of us. 

Climate Change Pot-Stirrers: NBC and APNews Stir Climate Change Frenzy with Kansas "Dead Cattle" Story

At best, this country's media is naive. At worse, it approaches the level of being uneducated, if not ignorant in its understanding of how our country works. This poses a level of danger that cannot be gauged as politicians make decisions based on headlines rather than fact. 

Until the media starts fact checking itself, climate change will never be remediated with reporters publishing hype over reality. 

Dead Cattle in Kansas

The recent story about about 2,000 dead cattle across Kansas was picked up from the Associated Press, a news agency that has been instrumental in getting information to smaller and more rural areas for well over a hundred years.  But, is what they printed an accurate representation of a climate change issue? Maybe not. 

Kansas is one of the largest cattle producing states in the country with a reported 24 million cattle on the hoof at any time.  Doing a little math, that means that the 2,000 dead cattle amount to less than 1/100th of a percent of all cattle in Kansas. Not such a bit number now is it?

Furthermore, the question no one seems to ask is How many cattle are lost daily in commercial operations?  Yes, cattle die every single day in farming--even the days with 70 degree temperatures and balmy breezes.  

According to Drover.com, death losses in commercially produced cattle average about 4 percent a year, with the understanding that individual operations can go as high has 10 percent if they are managed poorly.  So what is the average number of cattle that die each day in Kansas based on the 4 percent estimate?  Some where in the neighborhood of 2600 head a day.  

Doesn't that sober the idea of deadly climate change killing 2000 cattle over a four day heat wave? Not so big a number now, is it?

The Insurance Factor

Like all businesses, farming has insurance for some things but the chances of making a claim are pretty slim unless its unusual weather or accident.  By filing those 2000 dead cattle as related to heat stress, farmers have a greater chance to get a return on a dead animal. Haven't we all looked at insurance in this manner?

So now, is this about climate change or just about an industry that is doing its best to deal with Mother Nature and make a profit?  Farming is a business just like all others with losses that can sometimes be insured. 

Food Shortage Impact

As for the impact on the food shortage, this headline did nothing but encouraged meat packers and grocery stores to increase their prices. The actual impact of these deaths is well within the range of normal losses but here is a bit more information about beef availability if you need more proof.

According to the USDA Cattle report for March 2022, 3.01 million cattle were slaughtered during the month.  Even assuming that all 2000 dead cattle were slaughter weight and ready to be shipped (and that is a stretch), that amounts to only 6/100ths of one percent of all cattle slaughtered during a SINGLE month.  The impact on the yearly beef supply is to small to even consider relevant. But the publicity value of these erroneous reports are invaluable as ways to justify increasing costs as all levels of production except on the farm.

Uneducated Electorate

Not only at the mercy of an uneducated information system (social media, 24/7 news programming and commercial marketing),this country has a President who has demonstrated little understanding of market economics and food production. Add to that scary thought the knowledge that Congress, the US Cabinet, EPA, FDA and state and local governments are as clueless of this issue, the potential for disaster is far greater than a baby formula shortage. How long will other country's rescue us before they realize America is not what it claims to be.

Voting for Intelligence not Party

As we go into the 2022 mid-term elections, are we going to vote more clueless people into office because they have a D or an R beside their names? Are we going to put our future into the hands of people who are absolved by law of any wrong doing without regard to the reason? It's time Americans considered their options more carefully than their party affiliation.  

As for the Media, it appears that no agency is above fabricating stories based on political value and poll numbers.  Climate change is not killing this country.  Ignorance and poor leadership are.  That is the story reporters should be telling.