The Winter Storm Weather:
The Weather, Is It Really That Bad??? (It's Only Bad If You Are Hitler Trying To Invade Russia In The Mide Of WINTER ... Just Sayin' ...
This Winter Blast is called 'FERN' When I was a kid we just called it 'WINTER'. Then it warmed up and we called it 'SPRING'. Then when it started to get 'HOT' it was called 'SUMMER' aka SUMMA' TIME. Then it cooled down and we called it 'FALL' or 'AUTUMN'. Then it got 'COLD' again. Then we were back to 'WINTER'.
All of my Science Teachers have passed away. Even Don Woods, Channel 8, Tulsa, OK, ABC, didn't talk this crazy mess.
As far as the crazy Environmentalists try to say that storms are increasing in strength are lying. I remember when Tulsa got DOPLAR RADAR. Now they have DOPLAR II Radar. They can see more now than ever before. More storms can be seen more.
GET OUT THERE ...ON FOOT!!!
Weathering the Storm: A Conservative Case for Common Sense Over Climate Alarmism
There’s a winter blast moving across the country, and the television tells us its name is “FERN.” A social media post, dripping with the wry, grounded skepticism of a bygone era, cuts through the noise: “When I was a kid we just called it ‘WINTER’.” This simple observation is more than just nostalgia; it’s a potent symbol of a broader conservative pushback against a culture—and a political movement—that has lost its grip on proportion, history, and basic reason. From a conservative perspective, the modern obsession with branding every weather event as a catastrophic portent of climate doom represents a dangerous departure from facts, a surrender to political hyperbole, and an insult to the resilience and good sense of the American people.
The post’s author recalls a simpler time, marked by the straightforward rhythms of nature and the trusted, local voice of a television weatherman like Don Woods of Tulsa’s Channel 8. This memory points to a foundational conservative principle: trust in local knowledge, practical experience, and observable reality over abstract, politicized models from distant elites. The weatherman was a community figure, accountable to his viewers. He explained the storm coming this week, not a hypothetical crisis decades hence. His tools were barometers, historical patterns, and a duty to inform, not to terrify into compliance with a pre-ordained political agenda.
Today, that localized, practical relationship with weather has been supplanted by a nationalized, apocalyptic narrative. Every named winter storm, every summer heatwave, is presented not as a natural occurrence but as conclusive proof of an irreversible, human-caused catastrophe. This represents what conservatives see as the core tactic of the modern progressive left: the seizure of any and all events as vehicles for expanding government control. If a blizzard can be framed as “climate change,” then the solution inevitably involves crippling regulations on domestic energy, radical “green” mandates that transfer wealth and sovereignty to unaccountable international bodies, and a fundamental restructuring of the American economy and way of life.
The author’s second crucial point tackles the science directly, and with a common-sense clarity that defies the complex jargon of the alarmists: “As far as the crazy Environmentalists try to say that storms are increasing in strength are lying.” He correctly identifies the technological illusion at the heart of the panic. “I remember when Tulsa got DOPLAR RADAR. Now they have DOPLAR II Radar. They can see more now than ever before. More storms can be seen more.”
This is not climate denial; it is scientific literacy. Conservatives understand that our ability to detect and measure phenomena has increased exponentially. We have satellites, advanced radar, millions of smartphone cameras, and a 24/7 global media ecosystem that broadcasts every tornado, hurricane, and flood instantaneously. We are comparing the detailed, real-time data of 2024 with the incomplete, often anecdotal records of 1924 or 1824 and declaring a “new normal.” This is a profound statistical error. It confuses improved observation with an actual change in frequency or intensity. Historical records are replete with storms of terrifying power—the Great Hurricane of 1938, the Blizzard of 1888, the Dust Bowl droughts—events that occurred long before the industrial carbon emissions blamed for today’s weather. To claim today’s storms are uniquely powerful is to ignore the vast, turbulent history of our planet itself.
This leads to the post’s final, emphatic command: “GET OUT THERE ...ON FOOT!!!” This is the quintessential conservative ethos of resilience, self-reliance, and engagement with the real world. It is a rebuke to the sheltered, digital pessimism of the climate alarmist who views humanity as a destructive plague upon a fragile, static Earth. The conservative view is the opposite: humanity is a resourceful, adaptive force, capable of thriving in all climates. Our ancestors settled this continent without central heating or air conditioning, building communities from the swamps of Florida to the tundra of Alaska. They understood weather as a fact of life to be prepared for and endured, not as a political cudgel.
The environmental left, by contrast, promotes a philosophy of fragility and retreat. Their solution to weather is not better infrastructure, more resilient power grids, or continued technological innovation in energy. It is less human activity. Less driving, less consumption, less economic growth, fewer children. It is a dreary, anti-human vision of managed decline, justified by a relentless stream of alarmism about the weather. They have taken the natural, awe-inspiring power of a winter storm and turned it into a source of guilt and a pretext for control.
Furthermore, this alarmism directly undermines national strength and energy security. While American conservatives champion an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that utilizes our vast natural resources—oil, natural gas, nuclear, and yes, emerging renewables—to ensure affordability and independence, the climate agenda seeks to deliberately make traditional energy scarce and expensive. It kneecaps American industry, surrenders our advantage to adversarial nations like China and Russia (who cheerfully ignore their own carbon commitments), and makes everyday life harder for working families. To watch a winter storm named “FERN” roll in while policies are advocated that would make heating your home unaffordable is the height of ideological hypocrisy.
In conclusion, the post about “FERN” is a small manifesto for sanity. It calls for a return to perspective, to trust in tangible progress over dystopian speculation, and to the enduring American spirit that meets a challenge head-on. Conservatives believe in prudent stewardship of our natural resources—clean air and water are conservative values. But we reject the weaponization of weather. We believe in data over dogma, resilience over alarmism, and human ingenuity over controlled despair. The weather isn’t “that bad.” It’s just weather. It was winter when we were kids, it’s winter now, and with the grit, innovation, and common sense that built this nation, we’ll be just fine. The real storm to watch out for isn’t brewing in the atmosphere; it’s the one of political overreach, dressed up in the clothing of a season we used to just call “winter.”
#Spring #Summer #Winter #FALL #Weather #NOAA