The Right Opinion

Deceit or Ignorance? You be the Judge

By Joe Bastardi · Feb. 14, 2013

The recent blizzard in the Northeast was called first by on February 3, the Sunday before the storm. I pulled out maps of the infamous Lindsay Storm of February 9-10, 1969 and then compared this storm to it – 5 days in advance. At that time, other forecasts for Friday in the blizzard impacted areas were for highs between 40-45 with a CHANCE of rain or snow.

A chance of rain or snow and a high between 40-45 does not describe what happened, just as forecasts out to sea with Hurricane Sandy as a subtropical storm 4 days before doesn't, either. Because of such things, the “unexpected” nature that the public was lead to believe in supplies fertile soil for those who drive the AWG propaganda machine and put forth misinformation about these storms.

Unlike the Lindsay Storm, where the epicenter of the 15-30 inches of snow was almost right over New York City, this was a bit further east. The point is that once again, in spite of a predictable, and similar event to what had occurred before, this is being used as a propaganda tool for global warming/climate change folks (I keep getting the terms mixed up – it's bound to change tomorrow). They're either simply lying about it, or they are relying on a negligent low-information population so they can then try to convince them that everything that happens is because they are right.

Why should anyone trust people that had no idea 5 days before what was going on, when they come out after the fact claiming it's because of global warming/climate change? (Want to make sure I have the right term covered…)

For the people who somehow believe what just happened is a sign of an AGW driven atmospheric Apocalypse, here's a list of over 80 storms of note that have hit the East. This is nowhere near unprecedented.

Now let's get to Sandy one more time.

I think I am qualified to talk on Sandy given the hurricane hit I predicted 9 days beforehand to both clients and the public for the area impacted. Here's a quote from Fox News' Sean Hannity, who received the first forecast on October 21st – before this was even a depression!

Joe Bastardi and the WeatherBELL team warned us about Hurricane Sandy nine days before landfall. They provided unwavering forecasts for a landfalling hurricane around NYC, and we were the first to know that this unprecedented event would occur.

Take a look at this track from 1967 of Dora, a Category 2 Hurricane. Had it started its westward run a bit further west, Dora would have devastated the East Coast as bad or worse than Sandy.

Again, it's a matter of a hundred miles, nothing within the realm of what the atmosphere can do.

But let's take a look at several more storms:

1.) Category 4 Hurricane Hazel in 1954, which hit in mid-October on the North Carolina Coast, and who's upper pattern I used to set up Sandy for her run. The map at landfall:

The track of this monster: (Notice the NNW path into the Carolinas, then almost due north after – in October!)

What if the track was 150 miles east of that? A Category 4 Hurricane would have hit the mid-Atlantic Coast running in from the ocean. Again, that kind of track difference is nothing in terms of the weather, a whim of the pattern at the given time.

2.) The 1938 Hurricane.

The map:

The track did not veer out to sea, instead it came north through Long Island with reports of a 30-40 ft storm surge and wind gusts to 186 mph, 5-minute sustained winds at 121 mph at Blue Hill, Massachusetts! It's hard to even comprehend that!

75 miles further west and the full weight of the storm surge is into NYC! In fact, the disaster scenario played out in the Storm Surge models have a 20 foot plus scenario in NYC, and this has been talked about for over 25 years as something that we may have to contend with one day – not because of climate change or AGW (whichever it is), but because that is what nature can, and probably one day will do!

When you look at these tracks, it's simply the whim of the weather that a storm worse than Sandy has not happened. There is nothing magical or mystical or out of nature about this.

Or how about the 1903 Hurricane in Atlantic City:

Or Agnes in 1972, with its devastating floods and snow in West Virginia – on the first day of summer!

What you don't know can hurt you, as we see people who are either ignorant to the facts, or know the facts and are trying to deceive people so they can push their agenda. It has to be one or the other. You either don't know, in which case you are not qualified to make such statements, or you do, and are trying to deceive people.

So is it deceit or ignorance, or just one honest mistake after another? You make the call!

In the meantime, here is a segment I did on this matter on the Blaze TV Real News Segment. You may find it interesting:

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.

© Copyright 2013 The Patriot Post


KC in Glasgow, UK said:

Joe, agreed that storms are not the best argument to support AGW. However, as a meteorologist (Not climatologist), can you at least comment on what most of the 90% Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals do use as evidence to support AGW? Such as Ice-Cores data. If you could comment on that, you would be at least addressing what is primarily used as evidence. Increased Storm Severity and Frequency does honsetly NOT have the general public convinced or in disbelief of AGW>

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 12:53 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

Ice-Cores data, really? Isn't that the same method that determined that the WWII aircraft found under the Arctic ice had to be thousands of years old? Yep, I'd really put a lot of faith in that. Dolt!

Friday, February 15, 2013 at 8:08 AM

rippedchef in sc replied:

I like the whole "peer reviewed" nonsense-as if some intellectual circle jerk has all the answers.Pathetic really,so many hand wringing pansies sitting around telling each other how smart they are.As to the UK guy,who gives a rats ass what some limey bastard thinks,we gave our opinion on the matter 235 years ago,and if it wasn't for us he'd be speaking german and eating schnitzel

Friday, February 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM

KC in Glasgow, UK said:

Somehow I knew God would make its way into this conversation within 3 posts rather than what shoule be about science and scientific facts. Science and Religion dont have to clash. However, completely obserd to have the mentality that "God will fix all" This planet could care less whether we obide by natural, physical do fine without us or a fraction of us as we enter a major period of contraction. You can believe in your god, just dont push it down my throat or try to replace science with it. As far as I believe, this is my only go at life, Ide like to enjoy my time here and leave the planet in at least as good condition for my son.
Just so you know, although being very well off,. I would rather have wealth distribution than the obserd wealth inequality that currently exists.

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Jayve in ABQ, NM replied:

Spoken like a true socialist lemming. Everything in life must be fair for all! So I am to be punished for working my butt off through school and finding a good job just to have people like you bemoan about my unfair advantage and something must be taken away from me and mine.
Do you honestly thing that we little peons on this earth have the capacity to save it when we cannot even save ourselves? You denounce God, so obviously you have the impression that man is god. That is the only conclusion one can make out of your statement. And before you get into your science tirade, I am a scientist and Mac has it right. Global warming is a flat out lie, but those professing how wise they are end up being the fool in the end. Happy Valentines day!

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 2:34 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

You would rather have wealth distribution? How about moving to Cuba or North Korea then you idiot. Wealth inequality can be remedied by getting off of your ass and working to better you condition. If you choose to be a slave to the state, I would rather you starve. Facts disprove climate change, unless you are just a complete buffoon and believe the liars who want only to control you.

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky. replied:

The statement "This planet could care less whether we obide(sic) by natural, physical laws........." proves that you yourself do not understand the laws of nature and the study of nature called science. Your spelling proves you need to go back to school to learn to spell or how to use spell check.

Friday, February 15, 2013 at 7:55 AM

KC in Glasgow, UK said:

You figured me out. Suddenly i see the light. You guys are all right. How could I have been so foolish for so long of a time? Praise be the lord. Ill say 10 Hail Marys and then well bring this world to 50 Billion humans all consuming at current rates........ There are no limits are there. greedy fuckers.

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 2:51 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Thanks for another expose of the deluded mind of a marxist, when your arguements fail, start having a tantrum and name calling. Die you filth, that would be fair to those who earn their own, and wish to keep what we work for.

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 2:54 PM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia replied:


I have spent a little time in Scotland, ( I note that you put U.K. rather than Scotland so I would presume that you are really an Englishman living Scotland) and it is obvious that you live in a socialized state, with a thin veneer of freedom. But in fact, you have little economic freedom, other than to leave the country. I suspect that you work for some government entity, national regional or local, such as the government milk factory, government water plant, government schools, the housing council etc. Perhaps you work in education or some other government agency which provides for the sheeple, I mean people.

Government provides essentially everything you need. They educate you, provide you with a council house, medical care, a job that they determine will be right for you based on your school scores -- life is grand, as long as you are happy with the redistributed wealth planned life that the system provides for you.

Of course there is some free enterprise churning away in the United Kingdom, generating just enough "new money" to pay for the natural loss that occurs in the socialist shell game of high taxes and full benefits to the equalized masses. It is a dead end system. Once the benefits become unaffordable, and the state raises the taxes on the very benefit that the give you ( increasing your taxes on the council house they provide you) soon you are totally dependent on a government that is broke.

Just because you are happy in your socialist comfort zone with a false sense of freedom, don't wish it on the rest of the world.

Friday, February 15, 2013 at 1:01 AM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA said:

KC from Glasgow, UK- "although being very well off,. I would rather have wealth distribution than the obserd wealth inequality that currently exists."
Wealth distribute some of your "well off" my way, I'm on a fixed income pension;- but of course, that would be obserd.

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Tapdaddy in Indiana said:

"What you don't know can hurt you, as we see people who are either ignorant to the facts, or know the facts and are trying to deceive people so they can push their agenda. It has to be one or the other."
I just would like for everybody, belonging to the gov't. or not, to be honest with the information that is disseminated. Both the Obmamanites and the tree huggers have a piss poor record of being honest with us.

Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 5:18 PM