Climate Change

The New York Times' Laughable Climate Change Coverage

The end of snow? Not quite.

|

Boston—The morning temperature here was negative three degrees Fahrenheit. That makes it harder to shovel the four feet of snow outside.

Boston is having the second-coldest February in its history, according to the National Weather Service. The temperature has averaged 19.6 degrees Fahrenheit, colder than any year since 1934. The city has only been at or above the freezing mark for 28 hours in the entire month so far, or 7.7 percent of the time, according to the National Weather Service. It's so cold the salt and friction of the car tires don't even melt the snow on the roads, making travel dangerous and difficult.

Speaking of snow, there is plenty of it. The Blue Hill Observatory in Milton, Mass., which says it is home of the longest climate record in the nation, reports that it has an average snow depth of 46 inches, "the greatest snow depth ever measured in our 130 year existence." The Observatory reports that February 2015 is "the snowiest February on record, as well as the snowiest month on record." The National Weather Service reports that for Boston, too, it is the snowiest month on record, with at least 58.5 inches of snow so far in February. That brings the season's total snowfall here this season to 95.7 inches, the city's third snowiest winter on record, according to the National Weather Service.

Since it is so cold and miserable outside, I've been spending some time indoors, curled up in front of the computer watching comedy. No, not the 40th anniversary program of Saturday Night Live, but The New York Times newspaper coverage of climate change, which in this context is bitterly humorous.

There was the February 9, 2014, Times article headlined "The End of Snow," which ran on the front page of the paper's Sunday Review section, and which the ever-shrewd Matt Drudge remembered, and linked from his Drudge Report site, amid the snowmaggeddon roughly a year later. "In the Northeast, more than half of the 103 ski resorts may no longer be viable in 30 years because of warmer winters," the article warned. "It's easy to blame the big oil companies and the billions of dollars they spend on influencing the media and popular opinion. But the real reason is a lack of knowledge. I know, because I, too, was ignorant until I began researching the issue for a book on the future of snow…. This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact." 

But that article was just one of many. Others ran not in the opinion sections but in the news columns. "Rising Temperatures Threaten Fundamental Change for Ski Slopes," was the headline over a December 2012 dispatch from New Hampshire by the Times' Katharine Q. Seelye. "Scientists say that climate change means the long-term outlook for skiers everywhere is bleak," she reported. "The threat of global warming hangs over almost every resort, from Sugarloaf in Maine to Squaw Valley in California. As temperatures rise, analysts predict that scores of the nation's ski centers, especially those at lower elevations and latitudes, will eventually vanish."

"As Snow Fades, California Ski Resorts Are Left High and Very Dry," was the headline over another Times news article, from November of 2014. It reported, "The ski industry, which expects higher temperatures, less snow and shorter seasons in the coming decades, is seen a bit like the canary in the coal mine of climatology."

None of this is to say that global climate change is nonexistent, or that human activity may not contribute to it, or that it may not make sense to consider some policy actions to avert the chances of potentially damaging consequences, such as sea level rise. The Web site Climate Central, an organization of scientists and journalists funded by government and foundations, reports that some climate scientists suggest that global warming could "paradoxically" be behind the "non-stop sucker punches of frigid air," but acknowledges that "many people who study the dynamics of the atmosphere are dubious about the connection." The cold and snow could be a matter of "natural fluctuations" or "random shifts," Climate Central says.

Meanwhile, the cold is hardly limited to Boston. WTMJ radio in Wisconsin reports that ice cover on the Great Lakes was about 58 percent. That's higher than the average of 51 percent. "2014 saw the second highest amount of ice ever on the Great Lakes with 92.5 percent ice cover at its peak," the radio station reported.

Nor is the climate change panic limited to the pages of The New York Times. Divest Harvard, a group that wants to fight climate change by getting Harvard University to divest its endowment from fossil fuels, picked last week, of all times, to storm the Harvard president's office in Cambridge for an overnight sit-in to draw attention to its goals.

It's certainly possible that 30 years from now, the snow-is-over crowd will be proven right, and that instead of shoveling snow in Boston we'll be sunbathing. But the evidence from this winter, at least, is that if climate-change "science" consists of making testable predictions, the debate on snow isn't over yet.

Advertisement

NEXT: Philip Levine, R.I.P.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are these going to be the evening lynx, or will we get actual ones?

    1. Late nite links! Damnit! That’s why we’ll never get them, because everyone can’t agree that it should be late nite links!

      We need consensus!

      1. Late nite links!

        If we’re just gonna be making shit up, then I vote for the Nocturnal Lynx!

        1. +1 Minnesota Lynx

          1. +1 Links Lynx

      2. Is this where Tony tells us that CO2 feedback with H2O is not what most climatologists this in the primary mechanism for heating the atmosphere?

        What a fucking clueless moron. Even the dbags are RealClimate would laugh at this idiot.

        Also forget about telling him about Popper, falsification, and all the other info about how science really works. He doesn’t understand one bit of it. It’s just jibberish to this moron.

        Jackass is just as idiotic.

        1. Hey man, don’t even challenge Tony the rocket surgeon, he’s a real man of science!

      3. Mid PM is best, because where I live they’re AM links with coffee.

  2. I just spent several hours plowing many drifts of global warming off my lane so I can get to work tomorrow.

    1. Climate change is causing the snow, you silly goose!

      1. ^This

        the same people who will routinely sigh and insist that no thinking person is saying that “the weather” is climate change, will *still* insist that the “Severity”! of weather-events… or the LACK of wealther events… are both ‘symptoms’ of the obviousness of man’s impact on the mega-complex climate system.

        Its a weird combination of pretend-scientific posturing and straight-up-WE HAVE OFFENDED THE VOLCANO GOD!!-Voodoo bullshit

        I promise you, in 20 years, when there’s little further evidence of any progress toward the Great and Inevitable Unraveling of the Planetary Climate, they will still be smugly singing the same goddam tune, and be telling you how “no one really took the alarmism of the 90s/2000s/2010s *seriously*” and that “everyone knows” that the problem is more Long Term, which is why we need to be urgently hogtying the economy like they’ve always said, duh.

        1. Agreed.

          The way I see it, is I’m going to thoroughly ignore the climate crazies’ demands to destroy the economy. That is, until they volunteer to be one of the 3-4 billion people who’ll starve to death if we follow all their recommendations.

          I have the same response to the anti-Monsanto nutballs.

          1. If we would just sacrifice all the warmists to the volcano gods, the problem would go away, literally.

            1. No, no , no!

              That would be wasteful! The lard between all those ears is an excellent fuel source. Do you know how many diesel trucks could operate on that much lard?

              And that neglects the rest of their bodies. I know it can be hard to identify their a$$ since it looks so much like their head, but still, the fuel opportunity is significant.

        2. It’s a religion, not a science. Their faith will not waiver in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

        3. Its a weird combination of pretend-scientific posturing and straight-up-WE HAVE OFFENDED THE VOLCANO GOD!!-Voodoo bullshit

          Maybe sacrificing some virgins would help? Oh dear, I guess we’ve run out of those.

      2. And causing it to get colder.

  3. Here we go again. Weather is not climate. Model tampering. Ocean hiding heat. Umm…Gaia is displeased. That about cover it?

  4. It’s certainly possible that 30 years from now, the snow-is-over crowd will be proven right, and that instead of shoveling snow in Boston we’ll be sunbathing.

    I’ll gladly take the other side of that bet.

    1. Yeah, bikinis and Mai Tais outside every day in Boston in February seems to be wildly unlikely.

      1. Its the Northeast US – can you imagine the *smell* if it was hot all the time?

  5. “I know I’m human. And if you were all these things, then you’d just attack me right now, so some of you are still human.”

    1. “I dunno what the hell’s in there, but it’s weird and pissed off, whatever it is.”

      1. I’m going to start quoting the prequel.

        1. Just don’t quote the newest remake where the broad is the lead character. A lady! SMH yalls.

          1. Just don’t quote the newest remake where the broad is the lead character. A lady! SMH yalls.

            That is the prequel dude.

            1. That dog really tied the movies together.

              1. I agree Fist, the dog was cinematically Feng Shui.

        2. I actually found the prequel to be totally watchable. Probably because it was pretty much a remake of the original rather than a prequel, but hey, at least it wasn’t terrible. Also, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a cutie.

          1. It’s basically fine, the only problem is when they have to twist the plot constantly to fit what the Norwegian camp looked like in the original. The CGI isn’t that great either, but the plot at least works and there’s some good scenes. Certainly not a classic like the 80s one, but fine.

            1. I will take your word for it, although I concede that MLW is a cutie.

              1. The original had James Arness (Marshall Matt Dillon) looking like the jolly green giant.

                You can not improve on that!

          2. I like the part in the 80s remake when the guys are tied to the chairs, they do the blood/hot wire test and everyone tries to get away, including the guys that are still tied to the chairs.

  6. When crack addicts don’t get their crack, they go crazy.
    When Reasonoids don’t get their AM/PM links, they go crazy.

    What the heck Reason?

    1. Reason is lucky this is a virtual world, otherwise we would all be warming ourselves around a smoking crater right about now.

    2. It’s a “holiday”. They never do Links on “holidays” or weekends.

      1. This is the day when Lincoln and MLK got gay-married. Or something like that.

        1. …by an illegal immigrant who provided the pot for the reception.

          1. a millineal gay immigrant

            1. Mexican ass fucking for the trifecta!

              1. No links because participants did not have required vaccinations…

              2. Bring the whole family, and the donkey.

            2. Was he circumcised?

              1. A circumcised donkey? That’s sick.

  7. http://news.yahoo.com/danish-p…..IAfG3QtDMD

    Europe tries to protect its dwindling Jewish population. It is a difficult issue. Suppose you have five million Muslims in a country and every year one in five hundred thousand of them blows a gasket and shoots up a synagogue or kills someone who has been critical of Islam. That is ten attacks a year. And ten attacks that you can’t predict and can’t deter.

    What do you do? If you do nothing chances are Jews and anyone who crosses Islam no longer feels safe in your society. Sure self defense and arming the public helps limit the damage from these attacks but since the people who do it are suicidal, it doesn’t stop them. Do you tell the Jews and those critical of Islam “sorry pal”. Or do you put the screws to the Muslim population in such a way that they stop embracing radicalism?

    I don’t see an obvious answer either way.

    1. I would also point out that if you do nothing, eventually society will do something on its own. Two can play the game of shooting and blowing up shit. So if it gets bad enough, you won’t be able to protect the Muslim population from violence either.

      1. if it gets bad enough, you won’t be able to protect the Muslim population from violence either.

        HATE SPEECH!

        1. I have a feeling the public is going to tire of that line of bull shit real quick, if they haven’t already.

          1. Until I see “hate crime” laws repealed, I’m not so sure.

            1. Like the public can ever get a law repealed. They will just ignore the law and hate Muslims even more because the laws even exist.

              1. I suppose it *could* be like the “no cellphone usage when driving” laws.

                1. As long your hate is hands-free, you’re good?

                  1. +1 bolt of Force lightning

    2. It’s a simple problem to fix.

      More gun control laws and strict hate crime legislation will stop those Mohamedeans cold in their tracks.

      1. Mohamedeans

        HATE SPEECH!

      2. That won’t work, because since Muslims are not white Christians, they cannot ever spread “hate speech” (or be racist)

      3. +1 Song of Roland

    3. I think there’s an emergent order answer, and I think you see evidence of it in the US. In the US, ghettos didn’t really develop nationwide until the 60’s or 70’s, as the civil rights movement dwindled and the black culture began to shift from what it was in the 40’s and 50’s to what it has become today.

      You would see a very similar thing in Europe. People in the wealthy non-muslim neighborhoods will become increasingly skeptical of muslims in their midst. Police will start to harass muslims in the wrong neighborhood, and non-muslims will move out of the “integrated” areas of most european cities.

      1. That is not a bad prediction. Of course that is going to basically kick Muslims out of society. That won’t be such a good result for them. When you think about it, PC multiculturalism is by making excuses and encouraging them not to confront the problem, setting the Muslims up for tragedy.

        1. “That is not a bad prediction”

          Already happening.

          1. But it isn’t stopping the violence. So just ignoring them won’t work.

            1. The Spaniards are experienced at expelling muslims, let’s dig up a few and ask them.

      2. Isn’t that more or less how it works in Germany?

        1. I think so. Paris is (supposedly) much the same way. There are certain neighborhoods that non-muslims know to avoid.

          1. And that does nothing to make anyone safer. So you are going to have to come up with more drastic measures than that.

            1. Abandon multiculturalism. Europe sucks on immigration, their pursuit of multiculturalism and disdain for “American” integration and absorption has led to internal Balkanization, and it’s only going to get worse the longer they encourage ghettoizing of racial/cultural minorities.

              They aren’t even good at dealing with immigrants from other European nations, FFS.

              Playing the game the way Papaya has suggested would eventually lead to pogroms for Muslims. I’m no fan of Islam or its adherents, but such suggestions are ghastly.

              1. things like “para Espanol, dios” would hint that integration ain’t what it used to be here, either. And I am awaiting the day when our already hyphenated culture adds one more: a Census designation for Arab- or MiddleEastern-American.

                Right now, those folks are white, along with the English, Swedes, Greeks, and Italians, all of whom are obviously similar. African-American discounts anyone from the top shelf of African nations and whites from South Africa. That shit is from actual Census forms.

                1. “things like “para Espanol, dios” would hint that integration ain’t what it used to be here, either.”

                  Because God forbid companies make an effort to make sure some people can speak in their native language to minimize communication issues (also, you need to brush up on your Spanish). Also, the notion that all immigrants of yesteryear immediately learned English and stopped using their native language is bogus. Such a time period never existed. The closest you could probably get was WW1 era when there was a governmental and societal crackdown on German. Do you think that is/was appropriate?

                  Also, while Arabs, Middle Easterners, and North Africans are included as white on the Census, in my experience very few of them would consider themselves such or would say that they’re perceived as such by society. Asian Indians are included as Asian on the Census, but they’re rarely included in the colloquial usage of the term in the US. Also the term Asian on the Census still excludes West Asians, as well as any white, black, etc. people born and/or raised in Asia, which is the same as your complaint about African-American.

                  I couldn’t care less about what the Census options are for this btw, I just don’t think they’re really going to affect integration in any significant way.

                  1. Because God forbid companies make an effort to make sure some people can speak in their native language to minimize communication issues

                    by all means, let’s Balkanize the country with as many variations of this as possible and pretend that it will not be a disincentive toward either learning English or assimilating into the broader culture.

                    the notion that all immigrants of yesteryear immediately learned English and stopped using their native language is bogus.
                    this “notion” is only being peddled by you, complete with the weasel word “immediately.” Sure, native languages survived but learning English was a necessity since Italians could not count on Germans to speak Italian and vice-versa.

                    As to the rest, are you missing the point that multi-culti is a failure or just ignoring it? We’re being led by people who will work to expand such designations as there is power to be had in doing so.

                    1. “by all means, let’s Balkanize the country with as many variations of this as possible and pretend that it will not be a disincentive toward either learning English or assimilating into the broader culture.”

                      Yes, language call options have turned this country in Yugoslavia circa 1995. Damn those businesses for responding to market demand and making sure they can communicate with as many customers as possible as clearly as possible.

                      “this “notion” is only being peddled by you, complete with the weasel word “immediately.” Sure, native languages survived but learning English was a necessity since Italians could not count on Germans to speak Italian and vice-versa.”

                      I definitely did not make this notion up. And you’re still mistaken. Plenty of immigrants did not learn English. Entire German-speaking communities endured well into the 1900s on a good-sized scale. My great-grandparents immigrated from Italy in the early 1900s. My great-grandpa learned English gradually, my great-grandma never spoke a word. Growing up, my grandfather’s family spoke Italian at home and that was his first language. He learned English as a little kid and became fluently bilingual. That is not at all an uncommon story in this country at that time, and he grew up in a place where there weren’t that many Italian immigrants compared to other areas of the country.

                    2. Yes, language call options have turned this country in Yugoslavia circa 1995

                      Spend about five years living the barrio and I doubt you’d be this glib about it.

                    3. “Spend about five years living the barrio and I doubt you’d be this glib about it.”

                      I’ve lived in South LA for four years (and grew up in a town that had a significant Hispanic minority population), but please, keep making assumptions about me and my life experiences that you know nothing about. I pretty confidently stand by my assertion that “the barrio” is not exactly Bosnia 20 years ago.

                    4. It’s the same today as it’s always been. Out of first-generation immigrants who come here as adults, some learn English well, some don’t learn it at all, and most learn pick up some English while remaining significantly more comfortable speaking their native tongue. And then the overwhelming majority of the second-generation are bilingual and speak English fluently. Also, there are plenty of immigrants in this country who speak languages other than Spanish, and I’m not sure why the only pressure to learn English would come from other immigrants, then or now.

                      “As to the rest, are you missing the point that multi-culti is a failure or just ignoring it? We’re being led by people who will work to expand such designations as there is power to be had in doing so.”

                      My point is that whatever the problems with multiculturalism are, Census options are pretty far down the list, and as I’ve shown by the examples I mentioned, don’t even necessarily correlate with societal perceptions of race and ethnicity.

                    5. Kill ’em all, let Flying Spaghetti Monster sort ’em out.

          2. Unless they want to buy some hash or smack.

            1. I hate how the reply order works here, though the circumcised donkey was fortuitous.

          1. They’ll just surrender. What was the question?

            1. 20th century onward France, sure. Medieval or Enlightenment France? They’d kick your ass from Tours to Austerlitz.

              1. Until I got Krupp-stahl artie.

      3. You would see a very similar thing in Europe. People in the wealthy non-muslim neighborhoods will become increasingly skeptical of muslims in their midst. Police will start to harass muslims in the wrong neighborhood, and non-muslims will move out of the “integrated” areas of most european cities.

        No “would” about it Chet, that’s exactly how things work in Europe now.

        1. but wait a minute. The progs told me that was a big lie. Some muckety muck in France even threatened to sue Fox over the scurrilous accusation. You mean the left was wrong????

          1. +1 scurrilous or any variation thereof

          2. To be fair, some of the places featured were hilariously not scary or dangerous at all. Someone saw some Arabic or Turkish and assumed it was hostile.

    4. Here’s what I think I would do if I were France.

      1) Stop importing Muslims. No refugees, no family reunifications, nothing.

      2) Deport all illegal alien Muslims.

      3) Make it clear that support for Islamic terror is intolerable. If you are a French citizen and get caught supporting it, your citizenship is revoked and you are deported. Or, at least, the police look at every aspect of your life until they find a tax you’ve evaded or whatever, and throw the book at you.

      4) Time limits on welfare, and maybe limits on the number of children eligible for benefits.

      5) Official disavowal of multiculturalism: become French or leave. Official opposition to Sharia law.

      1. My take on what France should do? Move all the French-born to Montreal and leave the country to the Muslims. HOTTEST TAKE

        1. You are not going to get Canada to be willing to let in more Frenchmen. The separatist movements every thirty years are a bad enough now.

          1. I’ve always been skeptical of the “French separatists” in Canada. Having spent extended time in a number of Canadian provinces, I’ll take QUEBEC wholesale over the others – particularly BC…

      2. “3) Make it clear that support for Islamic terror is intolerable. If you are a French citizen and get caught supporting it, your citizenship is revoked and you are deported. Or, at least, the police look at every aspect of your life until they find a tax you’ve evaded or whatever, and throw the book at you.”

        What do you mean by “supporting Islamic terror?” Are you talking about someone supporting terrorists in a tangible, substantive way (e.g. knowingly donating to a terrorist org or withholding knowledge of a terror plot) or would this include people making statements verbally or on the Internet that are perceived as pro-terrorism? If it’s the latter, how is that in line with freedom of expression, and why wouldn’t that apply to people supporting any terrorist cause? Also, where are you going to deport a French citizen born in France to?

        “5) Official disavowal of multiculturalism: become French or leave. Official opposition to Sharia law.”

        Can you expand on this? Are you just talking about official proclamations, or do you mean laws mandating use of the French language in private affairs, banning burqas and other Islamic garb, limiting mosque construction and practice of Islam, banning other Islamic cultural traditions, etc? Genuinely curious what you mean.

        1. Technically it’s not like France doesn’t have hate speech laws on the books. And they could easily use those to charge Islamists on the grounds of insulting or incite discrimination against various non-Muslim groups (Jews, Christians, homosexuals, etc.). Certainly not a libertarian solution, but the ‘freedom of expression’ argument doesn’t fly that well in light of actual French laws restricting expression.

          1. First off, my comment was in reply to Papaya stating “If I was France” so current French law isn’t really relevant in this hypothetical where Papaya has dictatorial power over laws.

            Secondly, that’s already happening (see the French comedian who got arrested, as an example). While I agree that under current French law, people can be arrested for that, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they can be stripped of citizenship and deported, especially if they were born in France.

            1. Having a major religion devoted to conquering the world poses unique challenges to not just libertarian but wider Western ideas of fairness, free speech, etc. Certainly any material support for terrorism should count. When it comes to verbal support, perhaps the best approach would be to use undercover agents to lure those people into some material support, and charge them with that.

              As for them being French citizens, I don’t care. If they are traitors to their country, they don’t belong in it, and I prefer the old-fashioned punishments: if not execution, then exile. Confiscate their passports and parachute them into Libya or ISIS or somewhere. I don’t care. Just get them away from the non-Muslims they wish to oppress if not kill.

              As for multiculturalism, I would not make efforts to accommodate Islam. So yes, banning burqas, prosecuting FGM and polygamy, etc. It’s simply suicidal to be “multicultural” towards a culture that wishes to destroy all other cultures.

              I consider myself largely a libertarian, but I don’t think that includes welcoming and accommodating religious (or secular) fanatics who wish to destroy the rights of others. And it seems like the greater the population of Muslims in a society, the fewer rights non-Muslims have.

              1. In other words, freedom is great as long as it doesn’t offend your sensibilities. Hate speech laws are bogus and oppressive unless they only apply to Muslims, then they’re perfectly fine and necessary.

                “As for them being French citizens, I don’t care. If they are traitors to their country, they don’t belong in it, and I prefer the old-fashioned punishments: if not execution, then exile. Confiscate their passports and parachute them into Libya or ISIS or somewhere. I don’t care. Just get them away from the non-Muslims they wish to oppress if not kill.”

                And deporting people to countries they aren’t from and possibly have never been to will have no major consequences or repercussions. And only people who are guilty and deserve it will be deported. Coming from someone who understands how broadly applied hate speech laws can be, it’s puzzling how you can’t recognize the potential consequences of such a policy. Why is this one crime not solvable by imprisonment (even in cases where legitimate terror support is provided)?

                I’m with you on prosecuting FGM and coerced polygamy, but I can’t support government dress codes or banning consensual relationships between adults. Also, passing laws against this stuff doesn’t necessarily even help your goals. A lot of women who wear burqas will become even more confined and isolated if not allowed to do so, rather than integrate openly with Western dress.

                1. In other words, freedom is great as long as it doesn’t offend your sensibilities.

                  No, freedom is great as long as it isn’t empowering murderous totalitarians, including and perhaps especially theocratic ones. If being libertarian means I have to support the liberty of murderous theocratic totalitarians, then count me out. One of my principles is to never take any belief, no matter how important, to the point of suicidal idiocy.

                  Regardless of the beliefs and behaviors of any individual Muslim, Islam is an anti-libertarian ideology. There’s really no denying it. I consider opposition to the spread of Islam to be pro-freedom, the same way opposition to the spread of communism and fascism is pro-freedom. If fascism had been a religion, I’d feel the same way. Sorry, well-intentioned but non-violent believers in the same “faith,” but your beliefs suck, and I have a right to say so.

                  I am aware of all the downsides, actual and potential. Fighting anything on a worldwide scale is risky and messy and will create “backlash” and “blowback.” World wars always have those. But the spread of Islam is reducing freedom around the world. Doing nothing is not a viable option.

                  1. “If being libertarian means I have to support the liberty of murderous theocratic totalitarians, then count me out.”

                    You don’t have to support the “liberty” of anyone to be murderous, but you shouldn’t support legal action against people for thoughtcrime and you should definitely support things like inalienable rights and due process that serve as societal safeguards for everybody.

                    “One of my principles is to never take any belief, no matter how important, to the point of suicidal idiocy.”

                    You already have with regards to opposing Islamic terrorism. You’re willing to throw away bedrock protections of liberty in the US and Western society to appease your pants-shitting fear of Islamic terrorists.

                    “Regardless of the beliefs and behaviors of any individual Muslim, Islam is an anti-libertarian ideology.”

                    And one key aspect of libertarianism is not suppressing anti-libertarian ideologies. Liberty-infringing actions taken in furtherance of those ideologies? Sure, but not just for holding those beliefs or expressing them.

                    I don’t see how fascism not being a religion is relevant. Fascists still desire to seize power in society and enforce their beliefs. Same with communists. You’ve completely conceded every argument to leftists arguing for restrictions on speech and expression in the name of combating fascism and other extremist ideologies. There’s no principled argument you can make against them besides “Those people just don’t scare me enough like Muslims do.”

                    1. Ah yes, the old “pants-shitting fear” clich?. Your concerns are valid and well-balanced, and thus anyone who thinks anything is more serious is “shitting their pants” over trivialities. Trivialities like terror groups that kill tens of thousands of people all over the world, with the support of millions of co-religionists. Not anything important, like a cop unjustly shooting a dog.

                      I am not advocating some sort of willy-nilly suppression of ideologies, simply because I dislike or fear them. Communism and fascism no longer threaten the planet. Unfortunately, Islam does. I wouldn’t have wanted a bunch of German-American fascists running around the US in 1942 advocating for Germany, either.

                      Perhaps France has slit their own throat with Muslim immigration into a welfare state. But they need to take some unpleasant action now, to avoid either of two worse fates: even more unpleasant (and non-libertarian) action later, or simply surrendering and losing all liberty once the Muslims take over.

                      If Islam does what their holy book says, and what countless numbers of their clerics advocate, and which many millions of adherents believe, liberty is gone. Have you looked at what’s happened to the Muslim world over the last 50 years? Have you looked at what Muslims have done to Europe in that time? It’s 2015 and a Jew can’t walk down the streets of Paris. The last time that was the case was 1944.

                      But my fears are exaggerated. Right.

                  2. “I am aware of all the downsides, actual and potential. Fighting anything on a worldwide scale is risky and messy and will create “backlash” and “blowback.” World wars always have those. But the spread of Islam is reducing freedom around the world. Doing nothing is not a viable option.”

                    Nor is “doing something” for the sake of doing something a smart option. I’m not arguing terrorism shouldn’t be combatted, I’m saying that a sane anti-terrorism strategy would make sure it was actually reducing terrorism, and do so without shredding protection of fundamental liberties and limits on governmental power.

                    1. I’m not arguing for an insane anti-terror strategy, or for doing something for the sake of doing something.

                      I admit I am more concerned with the fundamental liberties of people oppressed and killed by totalitarians than I am with the liberties of the people oppressing and killing them.

                    2. Because of course only totalitarians will be affected by giving the government the sort of powers you advocate.

                2. And deporting people to countries they aren’t from and possibly have never been to will have no major consequences or repercussions.

                  One might say the same thing of mass immigration in general.

                  People who think that culture doesn’t matter and that a stable, high-trust society can be built on the back of an open borders policy are being deliberately ignorant of thousands of years of human history.

                  This is one of the areas where dogmatic libertarianism simply does not fit into the real world.

                  1. “One might say the same thing of mass immigration in general.”

                    That’s not relevant to the discussion Papaya and I were having, so thanks for the red herring, but I think that there might be a couple significant differences forced deportation and voluntary immigration that hold some importance.

                    “a stable, high-trust society can be built on the back of an open borders policy are being deliberately ignorant of thousands of years of human history.”

                    Is the US not a counterexample of that notion?

                    1. Good work Cali. These boards have been becoming, strangely, less and less libertarian. Its good to see a fellow-traveler fighting the good fight.

        2. 1. Supporting Islamic Terror= Not ratting out scumbag jihadis.
          2. Devil’s Island.
          3. Burqas should be replaced by mandatory thong bikinis.
          4. Mosque construction- denial of construction permit or tactical nuke.
          5. Whatever.

    5. If European history is any indication, you put them in ghettos in order to make them way easier to hit every time a harvest fails.

    6. The key advantage that Israel offers a Jew is that if they get attacked by a head chopper in a shopping mall in Tel Aviv, the head chopper is likely to succumb to a couple dozen gunshot wounds within ten seconds of his intentions becoming apparent.

      -jcr

      1. And nobody standing around saying: “Well, it’s his own fault,” “He deserved it because of the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians,” etc.

        1. They have those in Israel.

    7. Europe shouldn’t make any special provision for any religion. If you’re violent, you get punished, simple as that. Whether that violence is motivated by greed or Abrahamic insanity is irrelevant.

      Also, when talking about Europe’s “dwindling Jewish population”, you’re really talking about the dwindling population of observant religious Jews, which simply mirrors the dwindling population of religiously observant people of any religion. What’s the problem with people choosing not to be religious anymore?

    8. “I don’t see an obvious answer either way.”

      That’s understandable. As long as you are content to attribute the violence to Muslims “blowing a gasket” you are going to remain in the dark.

  8. I had a fun discussion today in class about the Establishment Clause, primarily regarding public schooling.

    Personally, I find the issue very fucking simple. Public accommodation and government services will always and irreparably conflict with freedom and liberty, both religious and non-religious in nature. Therefore, it’s not at all shocking that courts struggle with finding that utilitarian line between an unburdened conscience and free shit.

    It’s amazing to watch progressives (and some conservatives) struggle with this concept. They want to be intolerant to the “bad” people, but they struggle so badly at coming up with a legal test that doesn’t hurt all the “good” people, too! The schadenfreude is so very, very delicious!

    1. That is a good point. You can’t have mandated public schools without running afoul of someone’s religious views.

    2. Its the general problem with our Constitutional republic in a nutshell:

      So long as the feds stuck to their enumerated powers, they just couldn’t really do much that would infringe on the BOR.

      However, once you go fascist (Everything for the State, etc.), then the conflicts just frickin’ multiply. The courts, having already given away the game on the scope of government power, are reduced to ever-more-baroque interpretations of “protected” “rights” that lead to absurdity.

      1. It ended up coming down to prayer being allowed in the legislature and at football games, but not during the beginning of class or at graduation. A nativity is ok only if Frosty is there, and the ten commandments are ok only if donated by a secular group.

        We got into a debate about coercion in which my friend got banished from speaking for suggesting that economic coercion isn’t the same as gun-to-head coercion. Also, holding a gun to people’s heads to force them to pay for school is ok, because we do it to criminals, too.

        The class was a clusterfuck because there were no first principles. It was just utilitarian bullshit wrapped up in legalese.

  9. Weather isn’t climate.

    But saying that global warming is causing the cold weather outside — you’d have to have a PhD to come up that weapons-grade level of stupid.

    1. global warming is causing the cold weather outside

      It’s like when the sun (global warming) causes the snow on your roof to fall onto the ground, which then gets colder (the cold weather outside).

      Now, where’s my honorarium?

    2. I’ve been hearing that since the early 90’s. Cold weather/ warm weather/ hurricanes/ tornadoes/ snow are all proof of global warming because something something jet streams.

      This, of course, is after the Ice Age we had coming in the 70’s, and the OMG we’re all going to die cause the ozone layer is disappearing in the 80’s.

      And before that we had the overpopulation we’re all gong to die crowd.

      We’re at about 50 years of these nuts being consistently wrong and we’re still supposed to take them seriously.

      I think the key to their “success” is being able to indoctrinate a new generation every 10-15 years in the public schools. Do they even mention the ozone layer any more in school?

      1. and whatever happened to the acid rain that was gonna kill every tree everywhere?

        1. I think the environmental response to that would be the laws passed in the 1970s saved us from acid rain (not agreeing with them, just saying that’s the likely response).

        2. We now have a sulfur shortage in many agricultural areas.

        3. Or the new Ice Age predicted in the early 1980s?

  10. Where’d you get a picture of me from? I know it kinda looks like Kurt Russell, but I swear that’s me after spending two hours on my roof Saturday hacking away at ice dams with a hatchet.

    1. I heard you were dead.

    2. You’re nailing Goldie Hawn? Kudos!

      1. She’s like 90 years old. When she fucks, you can hear the creaking.

        1. That’s my hip creaking. And her walker. I prefer doggy-style on her wheelchair.

    3. Insulate your attic, you fool.

  11. Up to 8 inches here, and counting. BG is handling it worse than Madison or Louisville but better than Atlanta. Which is pretty much duhs all around.

    1. You’re in *Bulgaria*?!

      1. Yes, exactly.

        Bowling Green, KY actually.

        1. Hmm. I sometimes consider relocating there. Modulo the 8″, should I?

          1. Do you like small cities? I miss some aspects of Louisville, but it isnt a small town, so Im okay with it. The county is dry, but the city is wet so no one cares.

            Cost of living is low, except for housing, which is higher than equivalent in Louisville.

            And you might get eaten by a sinkhole at any given moment.

            1. Nice food scene in Louisville, though. We’d move there.

              1. Yeah, I miss that.

            2. Just sacrifice a ‘vette or two to the Sinkhole Gods. You’ll be just fine.

  12. I’m channel Longtorso and post this in every thread for the next month:

    THE BATFE IS CONSIDERING A CHANGE OF EXEMPTION THAT WOULD BAN THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORT, AND SALE OF M855 5.56mm BALL AMMUNITION. This is currently the most widely available inexpensive “mil-surp” ammunition in 5.56mm.

    IF YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FIREARMS RIGHTS START BITCHING *LOUDLY* NOW

    Link to batfucker proposal.

    1. *going to

      Derp.

    2. Then we get out the 30 ought 6 orb .375 Weatherby. No problem.

      1. *or- thanks, Oaxaca.

  13. Wake up to the “changes” everyone;

    -Climate Change deniers have successfully prevented climate action for 34 years.

    -Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

    -Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists.

    -The pause in global warming is now old enough to vote.

    -Not one CO2 scientist is willing to say they are not “allowed” to say climate change is “proven” because of the “scientific method” yet “believers” lie to their own children saying they have.

    -Not one IPCC warning “believes” or “agrees” beyond “could be” or says; inevitable or eventual our unavoidable.
    34 years…………….no climate action.

    How can history not judge the lib’s exaggeration of vague science and their decades of needless CO2 panic as a pure war crime. These climate cowards issued CO2 death threats to our children with sickening glee. History will not be kind to this modern day witch burning of climate blame.

    1. I, for one, welcome our new tropical climate overlords.

  14. Climate Change deniers have successfully prevented climate action for 34 years.

    Mmmm, yes, I suppose we have. That should be “34 years and counting”, by the way.

    /buffs monocle, adjusts top hat to jaunty angle.

    1. +1 bonus orphan

      1. +1 Eskimo bongo beach party

    2. Since you didn’t mention spats or having your gentleman’s personal gentleman hand you your whangee and you seem not to have an orphan to polish your monocle, I am beginning to doubt your bona fides as a swell.

  15. “It’s yet another example, writes Ira Stoll, of the Times’ inadvertently comical coverage of the climate change debate.”

    They aren’t just wrong. They aren’t just mistaken. It isn’t inadvertently comical. They are lying. It is a calculated lie meant to create a sense of urgency in the public so that Global Warming legislation (higher taxes) can be rammed down our throats before people have time to think it through.

    It is how a scam works.

    1. Their tactics are the “limited time only!!!” of the government.

      1. Just like PA’s temporary two-year state income tax plebiscite, which was made permanent by the legislature two years later

        1. Or the Johnstown Flood Tax of 1936(18%), which we still pay today when we buy something through our wonderful liquor store system.

    2. If there’s not a readily available crisis to take advantage of, just manufacture the shit out of one.

  16. Times article headlined “The End of Snow,”

    I did laugh.

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    As reported by the Associated Press in November 2nd…

    … 1922

  17. if climate-change “science” consists of making testable predictions, the debate on snow isn’t over yet.

    Testable predictions are sooo last century. New Science is all about consensus!

    1. HM’s post-positivist constructionism in action.

    2. “Testable predictions are sooo last century. New Science is all about consensus!”

      Exactly. And social media trending.

  18. Didn’t ski resorts open early this year?

    I know that: The fire ant population is a bit lower than usual, my trees grew slightly less last year in spite of all the rain, crawfish population is lowish causing a price spike, etc.

    I trust those indicators over thermometers manned by people with a political agenda. Hottest year on record – my ass.

    1. There were never warm days, floods or hurricanes before you monsters had to open your factories and pollute the earth.

      1. And we had unicorns.

  19. It was Sydney’s hottest April in 63 years – read: 63 Y-E-A-R-S.

    As reported back in the Sydney Morning Herald, April 12th, 1922

    Hottest.

    In 63 years.

    We’re doomed.

  20. I know, why can’t they base all their climate change reporting on the stenography of satellite data by two of the most discredited researchers in the field and nobody else? Or they could waste precious internet space conflating climate and a single weather event when they know goddamn well how that’s now how this works, and how this is one of the more confusing aspects of the subject to its moronic readership?

    1. You are so intelligent. I learn so much from you. Please, never stop.

    2. A single weather event? That’s the derp you want to use? Just stop as you are now joining the NYT in self-parody. NONE of the dire predictions the warmists warned of has come to pass: there have not been more and more violent hurricanes, there have not been tidal waves sweeping ashore, there have not been any of those and other horribles.

      1. Which specific predictions in the literature are you referring to?

        1. just Google “failed global warming predictions” and numerous sources will not just catalogue them, they will point you to the original source where said predictions were made.

          1. To be fair, some preditions turn out to have come to pass. Methane venting from the ocean floors has been predicted for years and last summer vents were discovered in much greater numbers than previously known.

        2. “In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions.

          In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

          The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring.

          In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.”

          “…In its final 2007 report, widely considered the “gospel” of “settled” climate “science,” the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature.”

          1. Speaking of how awesome and super-intelligent and a-politically biased the IPCC and the UN Climate Change groups are…

            …enjoy this delectable contribution to “the literature” =

            SPEND MORE DAT CLIMATE MONEY ON FEMINIST BULLSHIT, ASAP!!

            Because what Climate Science and Environmental Resource Management *really* needs? Is a bunch of Gender-Studies departments up in their shit. Seriously.

            1. I think that’s a positive development: when the feminists and the lesbians start debating, nothing else gets done.

            2. “SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!” (from the ES in the ‘report’) I wonder which experts, researchers and outside partnerships the authors have in mind?

              “That DEWA commits to using independent (external) gender-review experts as part of the expert cohort in all cases where publications and work products are sent out for external peer review.”

              “That DEWA actively engages with ? and advances ? cutting edge intellectual research and researchers within the “gender and environment” field.”

              “That DEWA makes greater use of partnerships, both within and outside
              the UN system.”

        3. Tony|2.16.15 @ 5:41PM|#

          Which specific predictions in the literature are you referring to?

          Quit being stupid. You know exactly what he is talking about and you know their predictions have all been wrong.

          1. What? You mean all the polar bears haven’t drowned yet?

          2. Leftists never argue in good faith. They are allergic to the truth because the truth destroys their narrative.

            Eventually all leftist movements fail. Their policies fail because their outlook is not reality based. Their support fails because eventually reality proves them wrong.

            Yes, Tony knows what is being talking about. He will pretend it does not exist just like shreek pretended that people aren’t having their hours cut over Obumblecare. Thee very next day after he made that assertion the Staples story came out. Shreek just pretended that nothing ever happened, just like Tony is pretending now. They are liars and deceivers. They have to be. They know if they say what they really want, what their actual goals are, people will reject them, and rightly so.

    3. Re: Tony,

      I know, why can’t they base all their climate change reporting on the stenography of satellite data by two of the most discredited researchers in the field and nobody else?

      What are they basing it on right now? The most advertised predictions have been proven wrong time after time. Maybe these journalists should try their luck with these “discredited” researchers; it couldn’t hurt at this late stage of the game, before everybody else goes home to rest their funny bones.

      Or they could waste precious internet space conflating climate and a single weather event

      What about wasting precious ink and a few trees conflating weather events and climate?

      http://www.theguardian.com/env…..oon-haiyan

      1. Wow. That is pretty bad.

        The Guardian is the one that published a computer doctored image of the earth showing the icecaps nearly gone.

    4. Except, of course, that that is exactly what “experts” are doing:

      http://boston.cbslocal.com/201…..rms-worse/

      ThinkProgress is even better: “of course, climate change doesn’t cause single weather events, but it ‘affects’ them”

      http://thinkprogress.org/clima…..rrrrrrrrr/

      It even tells you how climate change is supposed to causeaffect winter storms.

      Progressives just keep changing their story on climate change.

      1. Stop using the term ‘climate change’.

        It is ‘Global Warming’.

        1. I am calling it “climate change” because that’s what I’m criticizing in the NYT article. Geez, get a clue.

      2. “”of course, climate change doesn’t cause single weather events, but it ‘affects’ them””

        Noted above.

        The rhetorical “have your cake and eat it too-ism” is delicious.

        They will on one hand assert oh-so-scientifically that “weather” is not “climate” and that ‘Climate Change’ is likely to have disparate effects in every major region depending on a variety of variables.

        Yet, in the next breath…ThinkProgress notes = “HurricaneSUPERSTORM Sandy= Strong Links to Climate Change

        Because hurricanes never happened before. Nope.

    5. Tony

      “waste precious internet space conflating climate and a single weather event when they know goddamn well how that’s now how this works,

      how that’s NOW HOW this works.

      Tony meet freudian slip….Freudian slip meet your greatest student

  21. You know where the warming cult really fucked up?

    It’s when they invented the words ‘global warming’. Now if they would have just started out with climate change, then they could now go back to the new ice age shit that they were spewing in the 70s, since we’re obviously going into a long term cooling trend, and no one would notice. But now everyone associates climate change with global warming. Their stuck with it, lol, there’s no going back. And STFU, Tony.

    1. They fucked up when they released The Day After Tomorrow

      1. Killed by bad science!

      2. Some of the fx were good. Lost some respect for Seth Shostak over that movie. He did an ep of Big Picture Science on scientific accuracy in movies. Pretty good episode too – noting strengths and weaknesses in various movies.

        Then he got to TDAT and noted that, although there were major scientific inaccuracies, it was probably OK for the movie maker to do that because it was such an important issue.

    2. I thought it was where Margaret Mead and her Malthusian buddies said that they needed to invent a fake climate crisis and get the scientific community on board with it so they could use it as a pretense for social engineering.

    3. You know where the warming cult really fucked up?

      I suspect you’d have to go all the way back to some kind of childhood trauma.

      1. When they pretended that issuing decrees was the same as science.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..edictions/


        1. In 1865, Stanley Jevons (one of the most recognized 19th century economists) predicted that England would run out of coal by 1900, and that England’s factories would grind to a standstill.
          In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California.
          In 1891, it said the same thing about Kansas and Texas. (See Osterfeld, David. Prosperity Versus Planning : How Government Stifles Economic Growth. New York : Oxford University Press, 1992.)
          In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
          1944 federal government review predicted that by now the US would have exhausted its reserves of 21 of 41 commodities it examined. Among them were tin, nickel, zinc, lead and manganese.
          In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.

          TOP. MEN. Why do you not listen to the Experts!?

  22. None of this is to say that global climate change is nonexistent, or that human activity may not contribute to it.

    But Occam’s Razor would suggest that the most likely explanation is that we’re experiencing normal weather activity and that so-called “climate change” is merely an exaggerated preoccupation with extreme weather events, adding a bit of Sins of Our Fathers to the mix (you know, the Volcano God Is Angry kind of stuff) because it provides the perfect excuse for global bureaucratic interventionism and social engineering to the Sim City crowd.

    1. Hey! You leave Sim City alone. (Seriously, it’s good fun despite – or even because of – its God’s eye perspective).

    2. But it does suggest that the idea of Science being settled about Climate Change is ridiculous.

  23. I remember snow storms like that in Boston decades ago. I don’t see anything unusual about it.

  24. Reminds me, I should really go rewatch The Thing sometime.

    1. Have never seen it.

      1. I enjoyed the two versions mentioned above, but I suggest you watch the original first (if you can find it).

        Unfortunately I’m of little help, I found the trailer, but little else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5xcVxkTZzM

        1. cool. thx:)

  25. Meanwhile in southwestern British Columbia the ski hills around Vancouver, and onto Vancouver Island, are all closed due to a lack of snow. It’s doubtful I’ll get in any days of snowboarding this year. It’s been incredibly warm here (I don’t know how much warmer, if any, compared to an average winter I have to admit) this year. So, YMMV.

    Pierre

  26. Just another reason landfills should be populated with progressivess.

  27. THIS IS CETI ALPHA V!

  28. This is one of the best pieces I’ve ever seen written here. Thank you for writing this Mr. Stoll.

    Whenever I point out exactly this, I always end up with a couple of our more sanctimonious types lecturing me with stuff like “ooooooh, we can’t resort to the same tactics the left uses!”

    The hell we can’t. They deserve to be mercilessly mocked and ridiculed at every possible opportunity. As Saul Alinsky taught all his disciples, ridicule is man’s most potent political weapon.

    1. A lot of the time Mike M., it’s not that ridicule is a bad thing, it’s just that you’re bad at it.

      ‘Block Insane Yomamma’, for example, is just unfunny idiocy. The only thing ridicule of that nature does is make you look stupid.

      1. It’s just team partisan hackery.

        I was over at WaPo today posting, the article was about the chaos that will undoubtedly ensue because pot will be legal but there is no regulatory structure for legal sales. Along the same line as the article posted here today.

        Anyway, I always find it funny how because I am supportive of a certain issue, today, cannabis legalization, how the liberals think I am one of their own and I’m like their best buddies. When I tell them I’m a libertarian, they completely change their tune and start attacking me even though I agree with them! When I try to reason with them, saying ‘hey I agree with you on this issue, what’s the problem here?’, it’s always something like ‘Rand Paul is crazy and a racist!’.

        It’s almost like they could be reasonable people until they find out you aren’t one of them, you’re not on their team.

        And almost every conservative, with a couple of exceptions over there, want people crucified for smoking pot. And they don’t have any real explanation except that only dumb lazy liberals smoke pot, and they’re not on our team. It’s really scary.

        You can’t win when it comes to team hackery.

        And I agree with you, the Block Yomomma thing is totally distastefully bad.

        1. Same here. It is funny. I ask “why do you attack allies?” Never get a good answer.

  29. “Weather isn’t Climate”, except when the weather is convenient for pushing the desired result.

    Then it’s climate.

    (I’d be fine if they said “Weather isn’t Climate” consistently, because they’re wight.

    But a cold winter is irrelevant [unless it’s REALLY cold, then it Proves Climate Change].

    A hot summer? How can you troglodytes deny global warming?!?)

  30. In 30 years all the civil disorder caused by domestic adaptation of Islamic extremism will give “climate change” a whole different meaning. And still, the liberals will be arguing that the vast majority of peer-reviewed science proves global warming was real.
    Lock and load, bitches. The future is coming.

    1. Well, at least in Europe, they are super tolerant liberals, all of them. I’ve been told that over and over. Especially in France, 100% super tolerant liberals only. The only problem is America, because capitalism, or something like that.

      Tolerant liberal France

      1. Germany is governed by Christian conservatives, folks that make many Republicans look liberal.

  31. “It’s easy to blame the big oil companies and the billions of dollars they spend on influencing the media and popular opinion.”

    Wut?

    Am I being manipulated and don’t even know it?!

  32. Weather is not BLURGH!

  33. This is why we have to roll with it dude.

    http://www.AnonWeb.cf

  34. You know who else predicted global catastrophe unless we immediately did something drastic?

    1. Some guy in Atlantis that nobody listened to?

      -jcr

    2. Margaret Sanger?

    3. The Little Red Hen?

      1. Or Chicken little?

  35. As I type, it’s currently a balmy 7 degrees, and the high today was 20. Which is a good 25 degrees colder than average (and that’s apparently based since 1990 or so, and thus includes “global warming).. It’s going to be like this for the next 3 days, then it will warm up to a blistering 39 Friday, then back below freezing for the foreseeable future (ie, how long Weather Underground looks ahead)

    I get that climate is not weather, yet at a certain point, shouldn’t it be? What is the point of having a warmer climate, if it doesn’t, you know, actually get noticeably warmer?

    And actually looking at weather records, if not for “global warming”, we would be setting cold weather records. As it is, we still might well be.

    There was a recent scare story about our (Missouri) climate would be that of Arizona thanks to global warming. Is that really a problem? Arizona has had millions of people flock there because of the weather, while the opposite is true here, people leaving here in part because of the crappy weather (which not bad by upper midwest standards, does still suck)

  36. “If you like skiing or snowboarding, you should care about climate change ”

    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..te-change?

  37. If I said I haven’t been enjoying watching an area of the nation which hosts a sizable concentration of AGW cult extremists suffer repeated Arctic cold I’d be lying. It’s been quite pleasurable.

  38. Get ready for the revolutionary program that will change the making money online industry forever.
    How Can I EArn Money With Automatic Mobile Cash ?

    Move to a better life…. .. http://www.Work4Hour.com

  39. Funny article, Ira.

    First you equate an article that clearly is about CLIMATE (a change in numerous weather patterns over the course of many years) to WEATHER (the fact that it is snowing today in Boston). You might try to learn the difference.

    Secondly, you might want to understand that the ski industry takes it all very seriously because they already are experiencing changes, regardless of the fact that it is snowing TODAY in Boston.

    http://news.vice.com/article/c…..i-industry

    1. Hey Jackanapes – what is an observable condition that would falsify AGW? The ‘Climate not Weather’ trope is silly because weather conditions are the observable result of climate, so each little bit adds up to a picture of what is going on (or not)… like, say, a pause in warming for… how many years now? Anyways, climate alarmism has failed Popper’s falsifiability test and is pseudo-science.

      1. No pause in warming at all…you may have missed it…2014 the warmest year on record, beating out even 1998 which had a super El Nino to add to temperatures…no such El Nino in 2014.

        All observable.

        1. Oh my god, you are stupid. Warmest ever. First of all, records only go back 100 years or so. So, there’s that.

          It’s been a lot warmer than it is now, in the past.

          Second, the amount that it was warmer was less than the error. In other words, it might have bee warmer, it might not have been.

          Third, even if you say there is no error, it was only warmer by 0.002 deg c. Wow, I’m shitting my pants.

          Fourth, what do you propose to do about it. Taxes won’t stop it. Until I see you people clamoring about it stop your lifestyle, I don’t think I’m gonna be too worried.

          1. Yikes…didn’t think I would have to spell that out, but I guess so.

            Warmest since record keeping began. In fact, since we have started keeping records, it hasn’t been warmer than 2014. OK?

            Wrong on the amount that its been warmer as well, jorono. The amount of warming SINCE the industrial Revolution is outside of any margin of error…its indisputable. You want to start measuring from 1998 because that was the previous warmest year…SINCE RECORD KEEPING…only to be eclipsed by 2014.

            What to do? What science is telling us we have to do…start to limit man-made CO2 emissions. More investment in renewables, putting a price on carbon, stop the use of the worst culprits like tar sands oil by not making it any easier for them with things like Keystone, etc.

            Got it?

  40. The “Settled Science” Computer Models Have Been Missing An Important Variable http://wp.me/p31sf8-1Co

  41. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  42. my co-worker’s aunt makes $84 every hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her pay was $15545 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit this site…………

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  43. This sort of inconvenient truth is why Bill Ney the Fake Science Guy has advised his fellow alarmist propagandists to use “climate change” instead of “global warming” whenever it’s cold. The agenda is all, the facts are nothing.

    1. Yeah, you probably didn’t believe the scientists when they started saying that smoking was bad for you too.

  44. I’m just thrilled that Interstellar was essentially a polemic against the alarmists.

    “Dr. Mann is the best of us” but he turned out to be a scumbag who believed in the noble lie for the greater good.

  45. Work at home jobs- 100% Free, 100% Legitimate

    You will never be asked a single penny.

    You will make at least $80.00 per day- Guaranteed!

    Useful Site…..
    ?????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  46. Here’s what ‘climate’ is

    Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time.

    Here’s what ‘weather’ is

    Weather is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over short periods of time.

    Seems to me that ‘climate’ is just a bunch of ‘weather’ layered up over time. So this cold winter, and last years cold winter, and the cold winter the year before that are just ‘weather’, but the cold winters of 75-78 are ‘climate’ now, yes?

  47. I am amazed at the gross ignorance and stupidity displayed here. On the topic of global warming what kind of limited IQ does it take to think that Boston in Jan is some appropriate sample of the entire globe? Boston is about 250 sq. miles, & the area of the globe is almost 200 M sq miles or almost 1M times greater. Is the author of this article that stupid, or does the think that his readers are that dumb.

    Then there is the volume of snow. OK, let me explain this so that even this author with a double digit IQ will understand. The earth is 2/3 water. When the globe gets warmer, the oceans get warmer. When the oceans get warmer more water evaporates. That water does not stay in the atmosphere. It must come down somewhere sometime. If it comes down in the winter then it will come down as SNOW. Ie until the globe gets so warm that we cease to have actual winters, then those places that have winters will have more snow. So, unless you have a room temp IQ, you should now understand that global warming means more snow. Also more rain.

    In addition, a change in climate also means changing climate patterns. The warmer globe is not universally warmer everywhere. Surprisingly enough the global climate is a dynamic complex system. But if the author had a basic knowledge of physics and heat transfer he would not be writing such embarassingly foolish articles.

    If you note gramer and speling erors here it is becauyse this is not worth my time to double chek.

    1. A warmer globe does at least mean a warmer globe. In reality, there has been no significant net warming since the last century. Note how an estimated world temperature for 2014 .02 degrees over the past maximum (with a margin of error of .1 degrees, 5 times as large) was hyped as simply the warmest year on record, carefully neglecting to report the actual difference and margin of error.

      1. You need to understand something about statistics. Margins of error apply to all the data, including the previous warmest years. It doesn’t really mean anything…2014 was still the warmest year on record. And you should note that it eclipsed 1998 which had the El Nino of the Century to boost temperatures…no such boost in 2014 and it still was warmer than 1998. There isn’t any margin of error that can account for the rise in temperatures for the past 100 years.

        You might look at the graph on this page, which highlights by year global temperatures, and also highlights years with El Nino’s. You will see the slight increase of 2014 over 1998.

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

        Nobody neglected to report anything…margins of error are understood in all statistical analyses. Its just that it is meaningless to the warming of the earth for the past 100 years.

      2. Tell you what, lets put it this way…take the same boost to the temperature that occurred in 1998 and put it into the non El Nino year of 2014…do you think it would put the temperature increase out of the range of margin of error compared to 1998 when even the base is warmer? Of course it would.

      3. Saw this quote that might interest you as to how much the 98 El Nino effected ocean temperatures:

        “The warmer water tends to get only 1 to 3 degrees Celsius above the average sea-surface temperatures for that area, although in the very strong El Ni?o of 1997-98, it reached 5 degrees or more above average in some locations.”

        http://iri.columbia.edu/news/e…..t-el-nino/

        Now, that same increase would not apply to global temperatures, but you can see how much of an effect it can have, particularly is as strong as the 1998 El Nino.

    2. Shouldn’t you be posting this on the NYT website?

    3. Climate change? The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky ? has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. For the past 5 days, solar activity has been very low and one measure of solar activity ? its X-ray output ? has basically flatlined in recent days (plot below courtesy NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center). Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.-vencoreweather

  48. Climate change? The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky ? has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. For the past 5 days, solar activity has been very low and one measure of solar activity ? its X-ray output ? has basically flatlined in recent days (plot below courtesy NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center). Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.-vencoreweather

  49. Get ready for the revolutionary program that will change the making money online industry forever.
    How Can I EArn Money With Automatic Mobile Cash ?
    Move to a better life…. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  50. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  51. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself……….
    ???????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  52. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself……….
    ???????? http://www.Work-Mill.Com

  53. Actually, this kind of weather is exactly what we expect to see in North America as more and more of the Arctic sea ice disappears each summer. The weakened jet stream leads to two known oscillations which lead to the jet stream swooping down over the US and allowing all that cold air to hit us more often. There were some great articles on this in Scientific American back in 2012…

    http://www.scientificamerican……r-extreme/

  54. my roomate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for six months but last month her check was $20790 just working on the computer for a few hours.?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  55. Hey, Ira, in keeping with your focus on WEATHER rather than CLIMATE, you might be interested to know that despite the fact that it snowed TODAY in Boston, nationally the country has been going through a warm winter. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the December 2014 to January 2015 period has been the sixth warmest in the contiguous U.S. since record-keeping began in 1895. This January was also the second warmest on record globally.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/…..bal/2015/1

    Oops!!!

  56. “instead of shoveling snow in Boston we’ll be sunbathing”
    Fine with me. I pray for Global Warming every winter. Who cares that a few feet of prime beach-front property will disappear, only rich douchebags will lose their mansions, they can afford to build elsewhere and the homeless guys under the docks can move anywhere. I look forward to riding my polar bear around the sunny beaches of Lake Erie.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.