Tuesday, August 9, 2022
HomeMiddle ColumnMeteorologist: 2010s officially the snowiest decade in the east coast in the...

Meteorologist: 2010s officially the snowiest decade in the east coast in the NOAA record – surpassing the 1960s


The monster blizzard of 2015 will be adding to what is already the snowiest decade on the East Coast.

“Assuming this storm gets ranked by NOAA as one of the high impact (population affected by snowstorm) snowstorms (likely since the November storm was), we will have had 14 major impact storms this decade (only half over) beating out the 10 in the 1960s and 2000s,” Joseph D’Aleo, CCM (Certified Consulting Meteorologist), told Climate Depot on Monday.

“Watch for widespread sub-zero cold next week if the European models are right (all the way to North Carolina and including DC area),” D’Aleo, the co-chief Meteorologist with Weatherbell Analyticsadded.

Screen shot 2015-01-26 at 12.52.03 PM

The increase in snowfalls is counter to what the UN IPCC predicted. See: In 2001, the IPCC predicted milder winters and less snow. Experts are hoping no one remembers – UN IPCC 2001: ‘Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms’

Below is a round-up of scientists debunking the notion that blizzards are caused by man-made ‘global warming.’

2014: Scientists reject claims of record cold being caused by ‘global warming’ – Time Mag. blamed ‘polar vortex’ on ‘global cooling’ in 1974 – Special Report

2013: Climate Astrology: Blizzard blamed on global warming?! Is there any weather event that is inconsistent with global warming? — Climate Depot Round up – ‘No matter what the weather is like, it always turns out to be exactly the kind of weather we should expect if human activity were causing global temps to rise’

2013: Round Up: Meteorologists Slaps Down latest warmist claim of ‘Less snow = more blizzards’ — AP’s Seth Borenstein rebutted – Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue mocks: ‘Hint, if your theory or hypothesis involves contradictions, may be time to admit your original knowledge of subject was inadequate’

2013: Meteorologist Slaps Down latest warmist claim of ‘Less snow = more blizzards’ — ‘Whac-a-moling Seth Borenstein at AP over his erroneous extreme weather claims’ – By Dr. Richard Keen, Meteorologist Emeritus, University of Colorado, Boulder

Gore now claims ‘increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with… man-made global warming’

For more see: 2015 U.S. Blizzard blamed on ‘global warming’ – Warmist Bill McKibben: Blizzards are ‘Climate change at work’ 


Media retreats: AP issues ‘clarification’ on ‘hottest year story’: Now concedes claim ‘falls within a margin of error that lessens the certainty’

Update: ‘Conning the Public’: Scientists Accuse NASA/NOAA of ‘Misleading’, ‘Deception’ & ‘Lying’ About ‘Hottest Year’ Claim – Concede 2014 probably not ‘hottest year’

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues

Watch: Morano on Fox on ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: ‘It’s statistical nonsense’ – ‘NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has egg all over his face with this’


  1. The New York Times had an article in February, 2014 titled “The end of Snow.’ The article documented how snow soon was going to be a distant memory and our kids would never see it except in news reels. Doesn’t the Times ever get embarrassed about never being right about anything?

        • A Mexican, Carlos Slim is now the majority owner and the family who used to own the N.Y. Slimes are wealthy, but NOT all THAT wealthy anymore. And Pinch Sulzberger ran the Slimes into the ground; losing money hand over fist by turning the Old Gray lady into a losing proposition with his idiocy.

          Do try to keep up, prior to posting !

                    • You don’t know, so you just make attacks. The “scientific models” predict much more warming than scientifically observed, but you refuse to question them.

                      I’m tired of politicians running around saying the sky is falling “if we don’t act now” about everything. And I’m tired of religious acolytes professing their faith because “science.”

                    • Actually, I do know. I have done the research (many times over). I have seen the well-funded misinformation overcome lesser minded people like yourself, who are now so sure they are being duped. Do you have a clue about scientific confidence and how it’s calculated? The irony of course, is that you see scientists doing their job as proof that they are in it for the money. This same logic applies to most higher level professions, but how often do you hear your doctor’s diagnosis of _____ and say, huh, he must just be saying that because he’s paid to? not often? right. It’s amazing how deluded the denialists have become, but hey backed by enough $$$, anything will be bought by ignorant idiots.


                      I have questioned all the evidence so many times i can’t count them anymore, and everytime the real scientists with credentials come out on top. When a sane person looks at the deluded pseudoscience claims, like the fraud that is the climategate emails (scientists exonerated repeatedly), and other obvious examples of lies and fallacies pushed by pseudo-scientist like those you find on cliamtedepot, WUWT, and others, it should quickly become clear how loose the deniers evidence is. not accurate, not peer reviewed, but yes paid-for by big oil in particular.

                      Your misplaced confidence is reassured by the conspiracy theorists, who have no credibility. Time to look again, brute.

                    • I can tell by the way you write that you’re not a scientist, you’re not an engineer, and you’re probably not employed in a technical field, except maybe one involving computers.

                      You sound incredibly upset because I don’t believe 100% in a scientific theory who’s predictive models (or at least 98% of them) have been wrong for over 15 years. Likewise, that theory can’t explain why it’s not just the sun causing the arming, as it had been going through a rather warm period in the last half of the 1900s. Note that this would, of course explain the warming on Mars. Hell, even the guys pushing the theory admit there’s something wrong with the models. Yet you run around claiming we must do something and do something now, instead of waiting for the science to become more solid.

                      Which do you believe, scientific models, or scientific observations? When they disagree which do you, personally, believe?

                      I’ll stick with scientific observations any day of the week.

                    • yet you ignore the observations you don’t like. the ocean has been warming dramatically — we know this, it’s OBSERVED.


                      I’m sure you’d get lost among the misinformation, so here’s one you can directly visit:


                      why do you prefer to remain ignorant of the evidence? if you care enough to argue the point, why don’t you actually pay attention to the valid evidence?

                      Denial aint just a river in Egypt, SON!!

                    • hmmm, you refuse to look at them… hmm, wonder why.

                      Here’s where you say, “I”m not a scientist” lol, what a foolish comment!!

                    • So you’re admitting that the global warming models are/were wrong? And the new theory is the oceans are warming. Got it.

                    • No, the oceans are not warming dramatically. You cannot find any observational evidence to prove they are. You are simply repeating bs that you have decided must be true. What I do find fascinating is that when an alarmist prediction, like increased hurricanes for instance, fails, the true belivers just go onto the next prediction, like polar bears in trouble or the end of Arctic sea ice by 2014 as if nothing happened.

                    • http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/a-fresh-look-at-the-watery-side-of-earths-climate-shows-unabated-planetary-warming/?_r=0

                      “This is not even close to a new finding”

                      there is measurably less ice, and thinner ice, though you can pretend that polar bears don’t use ice as part of their habitat.

                      you pick and choose words from a complex explanation and think you’ve disproven something — only that your approach to evidence and credibility is extremely juvenile. I hope they pay you well to maintain your ignorance.

                    • Tapasap,
                      You are a sap that seems to self tap.
                      Picking and choosing, like splicing proxy records together to hide declines and using hogenization to cool the past. Or pretending that slr is diong anything different than it has done since the measured record has been kept. Or claiaming that every weather event is proof of a catastrophe. Nothing can be more entertaining than to watch a superstitious sap see the boogey man under every rock and behind every tree.
                      But a self-tapping sap can be wound up and depended on to be dependably stoopid.

                    • HUNTERSON: “No, the oceans are not warming dramatically. You cannot find any observational evidence to prove they are. ”

                      Tapasap: “http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/a-fresh-look-at-the-watery-side-of-earths-climate-shows-unabated-planetary-warming/?_r=0 ‘This is not even close to a new finding'”



                    • tapsap,
                      I offer you quotes of the failed predictions and you come back with more alarmist hype.
                      Good luck. Keep chanting your mantra of faith. I will stick with the real world, where when predictions fail you toss out the theory. You stick with dogma.

                    • one might consider supporting their words with, dunno, evidence?

                      feel free to show which flawed “observations” you’re clinging to in order to disprove the basic truths of today’s changing climate.

                      happy friday!

                    • Geez, it’s a religion with you, isn’t it?
                      If you’re curious you can look this stuff up. Why would I care if you’re ignoring observations?

                      Your “side” is wrong. As time passes and more and wild predictions prove false and the actual warming is no longer considered a threat, your credibility will wane and the rest of humanity can move on.

                    • from your response, i’ve learned:
                      1. you don’t the difference between faith and evidence-backed conclusions.
                      2. Me and my assertions are more credible than you are.

                      neither revelation is a surprise.

                    • Time will tell, won’t it buddy?
                      Today the observations are disagreeing with the models. As that continues it will be harder and harder to justify such blind faith.

                    • your hermetically sealed bubble is the only place where denial is the prevailing belief.

                      and yes, the bubble will pop, and future generations will blame you and yours.

                      sleep well, friend.

                    • Check the official thermometers at the airports and see if some are in areas where they can be warmed by jet exhaust when the wind is “just-so.” (I’ll save you the trouble. The answer is “Yes.”)

                      Check the official thermometers atop municipal buildings and see if some are in areas where they can be warmed by air conditioner condensers when the wind is “just-so.” (I’ll save you the trouble. That answer is “Yes,” too.)

                      You claim to have checked and rechecked the data, but it the data is poo, don’t treat it as if it were pudding.

                  • Are you basing this on the 100 years of climate data collected on Mars as it has been here on Earth that clearly shows a pattern of warming in the past 20 years, 13 of the hottest years in history coming in the last 15 years?

                    Oh wait, there isnt 100 years of Mars climate data to compare as there is here…

                    Does it hurt to be as ignorant as you clearly are or do you get used to being a dimwit over time?

          • Every few months, when climate change deniers decide they’ve come up with an all-new reason to convince themselves that global warming is all a big hoax, we like to take a look at whatever the latest scam is that they are propagating, either because they are part of the effort to help out the fossil-fuel industry, or simply because they enjoy being their brainwashed and/or incurious little tools.

            Back in 2013 these stooges were promoting the phony notion that “Arctic ice has grown to a record level!” It hadn’t. After that debacle, they claimed UN scientists had found their predictions of warming were off by 50 percent or more. They weren’t. More recently, they were pushing the false claim that the globe has been cooling ever since 1998. It hasn’t been. And, of course, when all else failed, they could always fall back on their old standby: weaning ourselves from dangerous fossil fuels won’t make any difference anyway because China would never do the same. But, of course, China is now doing so at a rate that should embarrass these jackasses. But it won’t. Because they are never embarrassed about being wrong.

            So, with 2014 recently clocking in as the hottest year for the planet on record, according to every major world agency that measures such things, and with 13 of the hottest years on record all falling within the past 15 years, these clowns are getting pretty desperate for something — anything — to use to keep the denialist scam going on behalf of the most profitable industry in the history of civilization.

            The latest such scam, helpfully propagated on several Fox “News” shows last week, is that the so-called “scientists” have been caught red-handed in the act of “lying” about raw temperature data! That’s right! They have been manipulating the data to exaggerate the extent of global warming!

            Except, of course, they haven’t, and they aren’t…

        • “The left hates the truth and facts.”….then why is it that conservatives can’t produce more than 2 peer-reviewed articles that support their claim about it being bogus out of more than 10,000 published in the last few years that support the notion its real and man-made?

          • If you were honest, then you would acknowledge that there are thousands of scientists who do not agree with the IPCC idiots, who’s climate models have be consistently wrong. But stick with your lies, you wouldn’t want to have too dramatic a change in your life.

              • If you are honest enough to investigate alternatives, then I recommend Dark Winter. Oh, if not, fine, you will only reinforce what I stated.
                The data have been abused by the Warmer community, for the most part to prove their case and get continued funding.
                None of the IPCC computer models has been right, NONE. They base their predictions on faulty and incorrect models, and you still support them? I hope that isn’t a real Cobra you are flying, you might be a few cards short of a full deck.

                  • You mean like the fact all the following organizations disagree with you?

                    NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/g

                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl

                    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):http://www.grida.no/climate/ip

                    National Academy of Sciences (NAS):http://books.nap.edu/collectio

                    State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/…

                    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):http://epa.gov/climatechange/i

                    The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page

                    American Geophysical Union (AGU):http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/pol

                    American Meteorological Society (AMS):http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/

                    American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy1

                    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1

                    American Meteorological Society (AMS):http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/

                    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):http://www.cmos.ca/climatechan

                    Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

                    Royal Society of Canada

                    Chinese Academy of Sciences

                    Academie des Sciences (France)

                    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

                    Indian National Science Academy

                    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

                    Science Council of Japan

                    Russian Academy of Sciences

                    Royal Society (United Kingdom)

                    National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

                    Australian Academy of Sciences

                    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

                    Caribbean Academy of Sciences

                    Indonesian Academy of Sciences

                    Royal Irish Academy

                    Academy of Sciences Malaysia

                    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

                    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

                    But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

                    BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, hasthis opinion:

                    There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

                    Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

                    Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

                    Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

                    Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

                    Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

                    • And, being smart, they will hop on the government run “alternative” bandwagon while continuing to hold and supply oil.

                      The Green Blob Unveiled, US Billionaires Purchased Policy: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/26/The-Green-Blob-Unveiled-How-UK-Energy-Policy-is-Bought-With-American-Billionaires-Cash

                      Clean Energy’s Dirty Secrets: http://www.nationalreview.com/energy-week/388619/clean-energys-dirty-secrets-rupert-darwall

                      “EPA administrator Gina McCarthy admitted it was not about pollution control. “It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy,” she told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in July. “This is an investment strategy.”

                      Best Anti Fracking Study Money Can Buy or, Science for Sale: http://capitolcityproject.com/meet-group-quietly-propelling-anti-fracking-movement/

                      Howarth received $35,000 to conduct the study — which was fundedby the Park Foundation. Howarth himself said that the money did not change the way the study was performed, but also acknowledged he was approached by the Park Foundation and agreed to produce a study going against the notion that shale gas extraction was clean.

                      But of course, we should trust pathological liars and snake oil salesmen, they care deeply for us so we should just shut up and pay up.

                    • your doctor profits from your sickness.

                      you can be sure (SURE!!) your doctor caused your sickness.

                      And your lawyer, definitely profiting from your legal issues. you were setup.

                      the world is out to get you, fool!!

                    • The real problem is they don’t come to their conclusions by scientific methods. Part of science is repeatable results and these studies aren’t correct in their predictions so something is wrong with their computer models. Real scientist admit the error and goes back to change some factors to create a more accurate prediction. Too many groups go back and fudge data to try and make it fit. This debate causes climate warming groups to dig their heels ignoring the errors in prediction so we don’t get accurate information from them.

                    • My source is my healthcare policy with HealthPlus of Michigan and it was the best of the 4 I could choose from, sweety

                    • “scales fall from everyone’s eyes sooner or later”

                      No, they don’t. Often, they turn into coins to keep the dead lids closed. We need to get there soon and if the warmies keep up the chicken little BS we should start frying them as treats for alligators in their own oil.

                    • Such confident words from a uniquely clueless individual. Feel free to post from where you dredged your misinformation. It would be a pleasure to clean-up your drivel in the name of basic evidence and facts.

                    • The facts you speak of speak for themselves. Where is all the warming?
                      Temperatures have been higher in the past, and for 18 years no warming! Oh, that is the fly in the ointment now isn’t it?
                      4 billion years of climate, and you and your idiot priest predict doom and gloom from a 20 year window. One of us is clueless, and not very thoughtful as well, but it isn’t me.

                    • Quoting a site that is ignoring the evidence, which “realclimte” is doing, does not make you look bright.

                    • I think you are highly resistant to evidence yo udon’t like. In the days when science worked one would have to offer evidence of the extraordinary claim that the earth is undergoig a climate crisis.
                      Now that religious kooks have hijacked science the only thing needed is the fervor of faith.

                    • you realize how pathetic your reply is?

                      you can’t even present what you DO believe, only sure that 97+% of credible scientists are wrong. oooh, don’t like that #? then PROVE IT”S WRONG!!

                      science is not religion, and if you’re still stuck on that issue, you have a long way to go before you start to grasp climate models and the change we’re facing.

                      it’s complikated!!

                    • Anyone who believes the 97% scam is already stuck on stupid.
                      Science is not relgion. And you are not a scientist.

                    • man you reach deep into the bowels of the internet to find such garbage.

                      ah, look ma, a wordpress site with quotes! do they link anywhere, provide any context, or are they meaningful in anyway? NO? NO! unless you’re a climate change denier, in which case, you see gold in dem piles of mierda!!

                      that you link to that site is enough to tell me how credible you are.

                      but you’re paid/post, right? so go gettem $$$$$$!!!!

                    • lol. You are no different in your defense than a bible thumper defending his rapture and “Left Behind” fantasy..
                      Thanks for playing.

                    • tapasap,
                      You will simply continue to reject the evidence. I offer you quotes of failed predictions and you just dismiss them. I point out that storms, slr, pH, sea ice, polar bears are all doing fine. You reject that. I have no faith in this matter. I reject yours and it seems to drive you crazy. But it is apparently a short drive for you.

                    • The falseness of the 97% claim was well established awhile back.
                      Your spittle flecked replies remind me of frustrated bible thumpers who dislike hearing about evolution.

                    • I still have not been able to locate the study that provides the empirical evidence that global warming is caused by human beings via CO2. I have found a large amount of papers and opinions pieces that include computer model predictions that support the theory of man made warming. These peer reviewed papers have plenty of statistics in regard to temperature and what not, but where is the evidence of cause and effect?

                      I am hoping you can provide me with the information that I am seeking. Again, I am referring to empirical data or evidence that shows the direct link of the globe warming due to human beings via CO2.

                      My main issue with the globe warming due to human beings and CO2 is some simple logic.
                      1. There are more humans populating the planet at the present time then ever before. This means there are more humans exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before.
                      2. There are more industrial type machinery as well as things such as cars and planes than ever before. This also means there are more entities producing CO2 than ever before.
                      3. The number one consumer of CO2 are trees and plant life. Due to human consumption and deforestation there are less tree/plant life present on earth than at any other time in mans existence.

                      So we have the two largest contributors to CO2 production at peak levels and the largest consumer of CO2 at its lowest level. Why are we not seeing the temperature rise higher and higher in a accelerated manner? Instead papers are issued that lay claim to the warmest yr or warmest decade having just occurred, with the difference in temp from a previous high being a hundredth of a decimal point.

                    • PROVE THE CO2 is from burning fossil fuels:

                      Why isn’t the [air] temperature exponentially increasing like the co2 concentrations:

                      are you able to comprehend the issues discussed at the links?

                      if not, do more research then come back and try again.

                    • I asked for empirical evidence that shows human created CO2 is a direct cause of global temperature increase. Your first link was not needed since I i stated in my comment that CO2 comes from fossil fuels.

                      Now, if you take the second link to be empirical data that shows a direct casual relationship of human CO2 and temp increase then you may need more than a simple increase in your comprehension abilities. Do you have any idea of the size, variations, movements of currents, and the overall lack of knowledge man has of the oceans? Why weren’t these climate scholars alerting us to this phenomen during the rapid increase in temp in the late 20th century? Was the ocean on a absorption hiatus then? I seem to recall hockey sticks and other computer graphs predicting immenint doom that showed temperature increasing up up up. That turned out to be wrong. Wait, it wasn’t wrong, just listen to this ocean idea, ok? So to be clear, the warmers have moved on from sun spots, solar activity, strastpheric water vapor, pine aerosols, coincidence, pacific trade winds, etc and have definetly decided on the theory from the second link you posted?

                    • ah, the fool who refuses to understand answers to his own foolish questions… has more questions!!

                      and is still a fool.

                      Since you can’t learn (and actively choose ignorance over long-proven ideas), there’s no point in trying to point you in the direction of reality.

                    • That’s a good way to get around displaying empirical data to support your claim. Say you gave the evenidence and sling insults.

                      When using this response technique in the future I reccomend you rethink the “long proven” claim. It was only 40 or so years ago that we had a cover story in Time magazine where we were told to fear the impending doom global cooling was going to bring. The overwhelming majority of scientist surveyed back even said so. Hahaha

                    • I still have not been able to locate the study that provides the empirical evidence that global warming is caused by human beings via CO2. I have found a large amount of papers and opinions pieces that include computer model predictions that support the theory of man made warming. These peer reviewed papers have plenty of statistics in regard to temperature and what not, but where is the evidence of cause and effect?

                      I am hoping you can provide me with the information that I am seeking. Again, I am referring to empirical data or evidence that shows the direct link of the globe warming due to human beings via CO2.

                      My main issue with the globe warming due to human beings and CO2 is some simple logic.
                      1. There are more humans populating the planet at the present time then ever before. This means there are more humans exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before.
                      2. There are more industrial type machinery as well as things such as cars and planes than ever before. This also means there are more entities producing CO2 than ever before.
                      3. The number one consumer of CO2 are trees and plant life. Due to human consumption and deforestation there are less tree/plant life present on earth than at any other time in mans existence.

                      So we have the two largest contributors to CO2 production at peak levels and the largest consumer of CO2 at its lowest level. Why are we not seeing the temperature rise higher and higher in a accelerated manner? Instead papers are issued that lay claim to the warmest yr or warmest decade having just occurred, with the difference in temp from a previous high being a hundredth of a decimal point.

                    • Jerry, those papers are primarily from the IPCC. They are not Science, no matter how many peers reviewed them. The whole mess involves taking historical data, questionable at best, with newer ground stations taking temps. Some of the ground stations are in areas where their accuracy has been called. It is all smoke and mirrors, since we are talking less than 2 degrees at any rate. Don’t waste your time, it is the IPCC and Al Gore, and Government trying to get more money from you as a Carbon Tax. Liars, cheats, and thieves, that’s what we are dealing with.

                    • That wasn’t meant for you, I apologize. It was meant for one of the commenters who are sure the human breathing cycle is heating the planet. My tone was an attempt at disarming them so they wouldn’t fly off the handle. It may have given us the opportunity to listen to them twist themselves into pretzels explaining how even without empirical data/evidence it’s still a fact . I am very well aware that the entire subject is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on man. There are zero studies with empirical data/evidence that show CO2 causes global warming nor are there papers with proof of a direct cause and effect relationship btw the human breathing cycle and global warming. Its nothing more than communists dyeing their red shirts green.

                    • Obamacare program costs $50,000 in taxpayer money for every American who gets health insurance, says bombshell budget report
                      Stunning figure comes from Congressional Budget Office report that revised cost estimates for the next 10 years
                      Government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare
                      The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured – a $50,000 price tag per person at best
                      The law will still leave ‘between 29 million and 31 million’ nonelderly Americans without medical insurance
                      Numbers assume Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment will double between now and 2025

                  • It’s a book…. “Dark Winter”, by John L. Casey, NASA Scientist.
                    Read it if you are interested in both sides of the conversation. Available as an ebook on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.
                    You might keep in mind that once Plate Tectonics was considered rubbish by greater than 90% of Geologists, and those who denied it were all wrong.

                    • the earth was flat and we had a new ice age in the 70’s , and the population bomb of the 70′;s , and then of course Guam will tip over with too many in the military there. .

                    • the evidence for plate tectonics was overwhelming, as is the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

                      a refusal to address evidence is only proof that you’re pathological, it does nothing for scientific inquiry.

                    • You don’t know much evidently, plate tectonics wasn’t readily accepted, taking years and years to be accepted as fact.
                      Then when it was accepted, they had irrefutable evidence to support their theory.
                      There is no evidence which hasn’t been massaged, or downright cherry picked in support of global warming. As a matter of fact, the whole global warming nonsense began from a Science Fiction Novels, plot!
                      Believe what you will, you will be surprised when cooling begins.

                    • empty words from an empty head. you don’t have evidence on your side, yet the entire world has evidence showing you’re wrong.

                      And you rely on the likes of Monckton et al to support your side? your POV is an embarrassment because it’s not supported by anything other than angry superstition. You conflate your politics with science — a grave error that hopefully future generations will forgive.

                      I’m not so sure they will — in the age of information, you cling to misinformation to support your ignorance. Shameful.

                    • Well, I am happy in my ignorance, but you might want to read the Skeptical Environmentalist, and Dark Winter. I get the biggest kick out of pathetic humans like you. Someone spoon fed you a lie, and you just have to believe it. How many secret emails have to be leaked by the GW community in order for you to smell a rat? How many times will you blindly allow the IPCC to guide your life when they have been wrong time and again? An old saying, totally appropriate to you and those like you is “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. Are you aware that the UN wants you to buy into their scam, so that they might tax you and take the money to other countries under the guise of humanitarian aid? Are you aware that they would love a world government that they control with our Constitution set by the wayside? Are you unaware that the main supporters in the political world are making a killing on fallacious Green energy projects? What does it take to wake you up, are you really this stupid?

                      The schooling you received has obviously done it’s job. You and those like you need a noble cause because you have shallow, petty little lives, and cannot abide not belonging to some larger group. No brains, no spine, and no ability to think and observe what is surrounding you on a daily basis. Pathetic really, I feel sorry that you and so many others are incapable of thinking independently. I feels sorry you are so easily led, I’ll bet you supported Obamacare too! Just as we get the government we deserve, we get it due to the likes of you and yours.

                    • Yes, you are happy in your ignorance.

                      and you dwell in evidence-free conspiracy theories. I’ll pass on that approach, thanks.

                      I prefer to read all i can about the subject, with a skeptical eye. the most obviously wrong claims so far are from people like you, climategate emails, etc. anyone with a single good eye or half a good ear can discern who is full of BS.


                    • Conspiracy theories…there is nothing theoretical about either of the items id mentioned. Deluded is what you are.

            • Show me a model – any model for any complex phenomenon – that has ever been “right”. If you know what “wrong” is, then you’ll certainly be able to point out what’s “right”. I await your reply.

              • There are many, but since you ask we have continuously made our Nuke weapons cleaner and more potent without increasing weight. Computer models did this…
                Every Space Shot has simulations done for many contingencies, they have been proven accurate.
                You should be able to find this information out yourself, but like so many, you are emotionally invested in “your” belief system. Belief systems need to be challenged, not just accepted as correct, that is the way a child acts.

                • Yes, computer models have simulated nuclear explosions. And they have guided us to the moon. But they are not “right”, any more than weather models or climate models are “right”. You haven’t shown me a model that is “right”. No model is ever “right”. They only give approximations. What is “child”-ish is the notion that we can generate exactly correct outcomes with man-made computer models for complex phenomena (we probably will never be able to do that). The medication(s) that you take were formulated with the help of computer modeling. Those models are not “right”, but yet you take the med(s). Your doctor treats you based on protocols and procedures that are based largely on computer models, but yet you don’t eschew medical professionals. Your car engine’s design is based on complex computer models, yet those models can’t give you the “right” value for the performance of the engine in your car. As an engineer, I use models to predict the performance of certain motor components, such as bearings, yet I have never had one instance where the model I used ever gave the “right” value or actual outcome. So, do we disregard climate models because they haven’t been exactly “right”? Or do we act based on the best available modeling that science can produce thus far (as we do with all other models)?

                  • Do you program computers for a living Tamra? Models are only as good as the ability of the programmer to get the variables right. If your modeling programs don’t measure up, then get a new program.
                    As with anything relating to computers GIGO!
                    Uh, yes when the models used predict temperature rises which none of us has seen for over 18 years, and when those same agencies pushing Climate Change are doing so to tax the Global Community, then you ought to ignore the models. Ockham’s Razor mean anything to you?
                    The Earth has been warmer many times, and much much cooler too. All without man’s presence. Do you know how much C02 was generated laying down the beds of coal we’ve used for hundreds of years? A great deal. Yet mile thick glaciers covered the northern latitudes, and they melted! Without man.
                    I suspect we will be able to model climate, once we truly understand it. Today we don’t, and taking hard earned wealth from Global Societies without proof is just plain theft.

                    • I have written computer models. I don’t do it for a living. Now are you going to answer my questions (including my original question of how you would gauge if a computer model were “right”)? If not, I’ll suppose you just don’t really understand what computer modelling is about and what the expectations are from employing models.

                    • You are silly beyond my ken. If the model doesn’t reflect the observations, not even close, the model is flawed. If the model is correct, it should properly predict in advance the observations taken at a later time, none do!

                    • Obviously you don’t have the same understanding of models as I do. And you’re not going to answer my questions. Good day.

                    • I’ve built computers from discrete ICs Tamra, hell, I’ve built half adders from vacuum tubes! I understand binary logic, and have programmed them using hard wired connections, instructions entered via switch bank, paper tape, magnetic tape, and disk drives. I do understand models, and know that if you don’t have all the variables, constants, or you make assumptions which are not valid, you will not get results which correlate to observations in real life.

                      You need to consider that the Sun is the variable with the greatest impact upon our climate. It has been so for billions of years. There lies the culprit, and it is now entering into a period of less activity.
                      You ask me questions, but can’t even answer simple ones designed to make you think.

                      Tamra, 10,000 years ago, there were glaciers 1 mile thick in Minnesota, Michigan, and other northern tier states. Man wasn’t industrial in the least, unless you want to count creating Clovis points for his weapons.
                      Good day yourself.

                    • I don’t think you’ve said anything relevant to the topic. But we really don’t have any common basis of understanding to make it worth continuing.
                      I’ll end my side of the conversation here.

                    • Tell me what textbook related to Climatology or Atmospherics you’ve read that establishes theory based on “Ockham’s Razor”.

                    • Like I said silly beyond my ken.
                      Tamra, if we haven’t observed any warming for 18+ years, then obviously CO2 isn’t forcing warming, especially since we’ve still been pumping out CO2.

                      The simpler explanation is often the correct explanation.
                      ie. The warming that the alarmists are concerned with fall within the variability of the normal distribution when looked at from the entire known data. 4 billion years of climate, some hotter, some warmer, some wetter, some drier. Tamra, what factor has the greatest impact on the Earths Climate? This isn’t a hard question. Ockham’s Razor will give you the answer.

          • There are plenty of scientist who disagree with man-made global warming or even with the notion that the earth will continue to warm. Sadly a lot of careers rely on ‘global warming’ being real so the propaganda will continue in order to keep climatologist relevant.

            • “There are plenty of scientist who disagree with man-made global warming”…..then why haven’t any more than TWO been able to publish peer-reviewed papers on the topic, out of more than 10,000 that have asserted its real and man-made?

              • Your statistics are false. Here is a small fraction of the scientific field who publicly have disagreed with the notion of man made global warming. You don’t here of these people because they don’t promote the Liberal Media’s agenda.

                David Bellamy, botanist.
                Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
                Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
                Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
                Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
                Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
                Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
                Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
                Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
                Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
                Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
                Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
                Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
                Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
                Zbigniew Jaworowski,

            • that is an asinine comment. The $$$ supporting pseudoscience is real and growing. Anyone who will put their name on the lies coming from the deniers will be paid handsomely.

              ah, and travel the world speaking to the dwindling #’s of likeminded deniers. Monckton is a great example.

              Whatever happened to climategate? you check that out? uh huh.

          • You’re asking why the conservatives can’t produce peer-reviewed articles that attempt to prove a negative (that AGW is not happening)?

            You can’t prove a negative. What we can do is find the faults in the “studies” that make a positive assertion, and that has been done in spades.

            Appeals to authority have no place in science. We’ve already seen concrete examples of guardians of the peer-review process protecting their pet theory against all comers, and we’ve seen “scientists” like Hansen massaging the data so that the past becomes cooler and the present becomes warmer. We’ve seen the climate-gate emails from East Anglia. We’ve seen as computer models fail to predict events as significant as 18 years of flat temperatures, and been amazed as the so-called scientists tell us to ignore the actual data, and instead believe the climate models.

            These climate models have never been validated– they’d have to
            successfully predict something for that to happen. They’ve never done
            that. They have continued to predict warming over the last 18 years, even as the temperatures have remained flat. The period of warming alarmism (that began when cooling alarmism of the 70s ended) has only been a hair longer than the period of flat temperatures.

            In science, if the data don’t fit the theory, you try a new theory (actually a hypothesis, but most people don’t really know the difference). In climate science, if the data don’t fit the theory, you change or ignore the data and double down on the pronouncements of the accuracy of your predictions.

            The warmists love to wrap themselves in the banner of science, but the cult of warmism is anything but.

          • Hey pb, your ” facts” are bogus.and so is your common sense. No intelligent person is going to spend their time, energy and funds ” disproving someone else feelings! You can not be so naive, ( then guess you can) to think that 99% of the ” peer” article writers, did not begin with a conclusion first of ” global warming, err climate change, err ice age, err no ice age, err no snow, err too much snow, err lots of hurricanes, err no hurricanes? It is as comical as listening to Obama say something this week that he said the opposite last week. The sun will rise tomorrow, and set as that proves global warming, prove me wrong on that conclusion?

          • You nailed it – peer reviewed – so when your ” peers ” review your science, they amazingly agree with it, because their agenda is the same. If you are invested in Natural Gas, you darn well want coal plants shuttered. and the beat goes on===

            • what a simple-minded approach to a complex issue.

              go ahead and do some further research on climategate. Huh, i wonder why you choose to read ONLY THE EDITED emails, and not the actual emails that existed before HACKERS DOCTORED THEM.

              don’t look behind the curtain — you might see something you don’t understand!!

          • Yeah right…….that’s the ticket….publish a lie and it becomes truth. What about the hoaxes where the books were “cooked” to promote a false narrative to promote global warming……
            We’ll just overlook that, right.

                  • I suspect that you would believe the world is flat if the right person told you. In the mean time I would suggest that you calm down a little and quit calling people who disagree with you stupid. What is stupid is the global warmist alarmists declaring the debate over when there is credible evidence to support the other side of the issue. You are apparently one of the easily manipulated who have fallen into their trap. I have no further reason to communicate with you as I believe you to be too narrow minded to evaluate a subject objectively, preferring to accept and regurgitate the liberal narrative of the day. Good day.

          • That’s right you should always believe the con man who is trying to take your money with some phony lie. You flat earthers and your consensus science. You were wrong when your consensus scientist told us that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and you are wrong now with your man made global warming. Always remember we have seen the email where these so called scientist admitted they lied and hid the truth.

    • Do you ever get the feeling that someone up there (maybe Mother Nature) is showing the East Coast, especially the New York Area what they think of “Global Warming”?
      It just cracks me up. Blaseo, the Mayor, is running around crazy closing all the streets.
      I wonder what the next era will be called. Remember “Nuclear Winter?”

    • For libs, global warming, err climate change is a religion. While the NYT’s and libs have no problem attacking faithful for superstitious like beliefs, the climate change wacksos who live in a fantasy land of unicorns and fairies.are beyond reproach.

    • to them it just proves their point that the climate is changing. And look in a year man changed it so much that now it snows a lot. The left will never admit they have been taken for suckers by Gore and Co, because they have their own agenda.

    • In our region, snow IS a distant memory. Growing up in upstate South Carolina, we had at least one good snow — 12 to 18 inches — a winter. The last one I remember was in 1987. Now we get an occasional dusting of 1/4 to 1 inch, which is typically gone by noon. I know folks in the Northeast would probably love that right now, but my children have never seen or experienced snow the way I remember it.

    • Does ever Nabisco get embarrassed about their claims for Shredded Wheat? Do Cubs fans ever get embarrassed about their predictions for the next World Series?

      See, the thing is, propagandists don’t have to believe what they’re saying. Simply saying it seems to serve some strange but useful purpose for them. //big smile//

      • Up until now I thought the warmists were true believers in the data and simulations; that they were just mediocre scientists that simply didn’t check their input or results sufficiently. Yes, in the sense of a Cubs fan wishing for a World Series, wishing very hard for the “necessary” government policies may not be immoral in their eyes. This fits other situations as well.

        • I understand and we’re almost entirely on the same page.

          Immorality isn’t a necessary component of being factually wrong, although if somebody knows he’s wrong and promotes a viewpoint anyway, that’s immoral, I think.

  2. “Man Made” Climate Change / Global Warming is a *THEORY*

    So far, all the 20 year-old computer model projections and doomsday predictions have been wrong . . . so have the 10 year-old ones, and in this case – last year’s whine.

    Watch “Inconvenient Truth” again and compare AlGore’s predictions to reality – it is eye opening.

    Where I sit typing this in Ohio – was covered with glacial ice *7 times* in the last 700,000 years ~ where did that ice come from / and go if “warming” and “cooling” is not a natural cyclical phenomena?

      • In order for “Gravity” to be *proven science* the way AGW is ~ Newton’s apple would have to fall BOTH down and up…

        Tell us all, Nicolas ~ when *any* result is used to *prove* a theory ~ how would we know if we solved the crisis of AGW?

        More snow / less snow ~ droughts / floods ~ cold / warm . . . “scientific models” have been flat out wrong about the predicted impact of AGW for almost 20 years. If your GPS had you going in the wrong direction repeatedly for that long, would you still be using it?

        Or would you still be unable to find your ass with both hands and a mirror?

    • True.Fact.

      “Climate Change” is the multi-purpose crisis:

      – causes floods in the Phillipines
      – causes droughts in California
      – causes the cold Polar Vortex
      – causes the stifling summer heat
      – causes an increase in crime (you can Google it!)
      – causes an increase in rapes (Google that, too)

    • When a summer day is hot – climate change is to be blamed.
      When a summer day is cold- climate change is to be blamed.

      When a winter day is cold – climate change is to be blamed.
      When a winter day is hot – climate change is to be blamed.

      If the weather is average – you can’t say anything because local weather is not climate, you dumb non-scientists.

      /sigh – any wonder why the alarmists are not believed any more?

      • That question is irrelevant to the blizzard.

        The Left’s claim that global warming would end snow and melt the ice everywhere has been shown by science to be false. The Left then tried to switch to “climate change with violent weather”. But the hurricanes didn’t show up and the number of tornadoes was also down.

        We really do need some global warming. In the middle age warm up places like Finland had great wines and people lived longer than when it ended. Warmer weather will open up great crop land in northern Canada and Alaska and elsewhere. But, things like all the C02 man is pumping into the atmosphere only raises the level by 0.001%. Not enough to make a difference. And the Al Gore’s who want to tax and tax and tax for climate change admit that if they get all they want it will make do difference in the outcome. In the end, green is the new red.

  3. Elmer Gantry is laughing his arse off. When global warming catastrophe deadlines pass innocently, these shyster global warming preachers just set a new date, but only the stupidest believe them anymore. Remember when British school children weren’t supposed to ever have seen snow by now? UHHH, time so shift the date again to fool the rubes.

  4. The author/editor of the NYT article graduated with an MFA in fiction from The New School in 2004. it’s amazing people will believe the lefts rhetoric without real research. Blind faith in liberalism is the most frightening dogma, ever.

    • The New School (formerly known as the New School for Social Research) started out as a socialist hippie commune in the 1970’s to suck down federal education grant dollars and convert them into weed and sex parties for the “faculty”.

  5. When will we ever learn? The Global Warming hoax is just another liberal taxation scheme. Just like the VAT in Europe, it’s supposed to be a tax on the producers so none of the rubes down the line know they are being taxed. It was a pretty elaborate scheme that used scientific grants to get the results they wanted. Too bad they got caught. /sarc

  6. I have an innovative idea.

    The alarmists claim global warming is “settled science”.

    In that case, we should de-fund it. If the science is settled, what’s the point of spending money on it anymore?

  7. Ya but the Libtards in the North East are not smart enough to put Two and Two Together…. I mean think about it… How many times was the World Trade Center Bombed? What Cities famous Marathon was bombed? and they think the biggest threat to the WORLD is a woman having to buy her own birth control and American Christians….

    • HAHA. Their claim about 2014 being the hottest year on record was crap. Their “perceived temperature change” was 0.1 Degree. The standard margin of error was 0.3 degrees. Not statistically significant, which means 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record.

  8. Uh, care to comment, former vice president and (must . . . not . . . smirk) climate activist Al Gore? Doesn’t the pla-YANN-et have a fa-HEE-ver?

    Yes, I see, and no, you can’t f— me or the horse I rode in on. I don’t even own a horse.

  9. What happened to that “hottest year on record” dribble that was floated last week? Oh yes, of course – the bite of the progressive wine takes a man’s soul into regions that he cannot easily escape without clinical intervention. Bunch of ignorant dullards that inhabit the grand echo chambers constructed by the unsavory oligarchs who would proclaim themselves your leaders and rule over your sorry souls!


  11. It is increasingly clear, from the historical record, from geological studies, from corings on an off shore, and from recent observations, and new theories, that CO2 is NOT the cause of warming, and the warming that does exist is withing the normal range of variations for the planet when viewed over centuries, let alone the 10,000 years since the melting ice sheet cleared the midwest, or the eons of hot and cold periods science has detected.
    It is clear that CO2 significantly increases the growth rates of forests, food crops and everything green.
    It is also obvious that fracking and horizontal drilling can massively reduce the cost of energy in the world while minimizing the surface footprint dedicated to energy production.
    In most of the world, the mineral rights deep below ground belong to the nation, not to private land owners. Once CO2 is exonerated and recognized to be the natural fertilizer it is, National governments will adopt and advance modern hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and horizontal drilling world wide, leading to an order of magnitude decrease in the cost of energy, and a doubling or tripling in the availability of food, world wide.






  13. When St. Peter meets me at the gate and asks, “Scooter, did you put your personal well being above that of all your fellow humans”. I will honestly be able to say, “no, I did not”. Maybe he’ll spare me.

  14. We thinking folks will just have to accept that for everyone with a mind, there are 2 without a mind.
    Thus we have cretins falling all over themselves hyping Global Warming, and its new name Climate Change.
    How simple you must be to accept the fact that the Climate has been warming, and cooling for billions of years, long before man came on the scene, and now blame man for normal climate variation, and not call CO2 a pollutant! Just more proof that over half of us are stupid, and willing to believe anything that and “Expert” tells them. What is an expert you ask?
    X = unknown quantity
    Spurt = a drip under pressure.
    An Expert is an unknown drip under pressure, particularly when it comes to Climate.

  15. I remember that column by that brain-dead Ski Magazine editor Porter Fox in the Times in Feb. It was as laughable then as now. NYT didn’t allow comments, probably because they knew he’d get justifiably eviscerated.

    Besides his knee jerk goose-stepping alarmism, what grated even more was his preening, narcissistic but ultimately phony Horatio Alger life story he weaved in.

  16. Does anyone think the 1,700 private jets belonging to the wealthiest 1% of the 1% who were in Davos, Switzerland last week discussing the affects the unwashed masses have on global warming had an effect on Super mega snowstorm Juno?

  17. Let’s see now………

    We have warmed up an average of a what, a degree and a half, (Globally speaking of course.), since the end of the Little Ice age at around 1850 or so. (And thank goodness for that!). Then we find out that the warming stopped or “paused” over 18 years ago, long before such was admitted to by the scientists we’re all told we should trust.
    In the midst of all this we are also now said to be having the snowiest decade of the last 50 years or so, since this winter makes at least the ninth consecutive one with record amounts of snow and cold.

    So basically we’re all supposed to believe it when we’re told that something which stopped………excuse me…..”paused”……is real, while something we see as ongoing doesn’t constitute a trend of a completely different sort?

    Sorry, I don’t think so.

  18. Make your mind up people you can’t have it both ways, first you say it’s the warmest year on record (BS) then in the same sentence you claim the snowiest. Environmental freaks must be rolling over in their planes that they pollute the air with heading to their yachts for a cruise to discuss climate change.. hypocrites they are.

  19. This is all due to Global Warming ? How stupid have we become to let bastards like Al Gore get rich on such a big lie ! We really need to wake up ! We need a good and trained firing squad to fix the USA !

  20. Europe has considered charging Climate Change deniers as criminals. This is how EVIL of a lie this is. This is the biggest hoax on the planet, and it is squelching so many peoples livelihoods and freedoms.

  21. If the Warmists really want to contribute to the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, they should kill themselves… Thereby eliminating all of that nasty CO2 they exhale day in and day out….The need to lead by example —

  22. In science isn’t one supposed to test theories or hypotheses? If what a “scientist” predicted would happen does NOT happen, doesn’t he and “the scientific community” revisit said theory? Answer: Not when it’s global warming science.

  23. No snow or rain, global warming. Too much rain and snow, global warming. Record cold, global warming, record heat, definitely global warming. No statistically measurable change in global temperatures for nearly 20 years, that’s global warming for sure! /sarc

    • I think you totally nailed it, except that you missed the scientific explanation of why temperature measurements that are actually real, not tampered with, show clearly that global warming has gone deep into the dark depths of the oceans, and will rise up and strike, wreaking its vengeance on mankind like that Iron Man robot in the Black Sabbath song. Just you wait. Global warming is really, really sneaky.

  24. OK I only have one question. Is this any more believable then the constant lie about Global warming, cooling or change, what ever those morons are calling it now. They have to keep changing it because every time they predict something it doesn’t happen. It is all lies, fake, fraudulent and made up to try and control people and steal more money from the American people.

  25. The most disturbing thing about the hoax of Global Warming is that they want to charge you for their religious beliefs— No other religion decrees mandatory monetary gain except the religion of GW — There must be a lot of money to swindle with this scam .. Warmists need to study physics, chemistry, and mathematics — basically the hard sciences in order to deprogram themselves from the lies they have been taught….

  26. If you are looking for news, ignore NY Times. If you want Left-wing propaganda, then buy the Times. there are lots of Low-information people who don’t know who they are. They will continue to listen to the junk because it fits into their pre-conceived notion. when things turn out differently, they never look back and wonder what went wrong. There people are not only low-information people, they are arrogant. Obama is a typical one in this group. He has an ideology, so any lie, any prediction that fits into that ideology strokes their ego. these are ignorant, arrogant ideologues. They are also idiots.

  27. Oh God, Its Globull Waring, Climate Chaos – the oceans are on fire, its the CO2, its the Methane, its those Viking SUV’s and Roman Coal Fired Power Plants, oh god I am so afraid.We must stop all CO2 production immediately and the Planet will cool – oh wait – Snow?

  28. Snowiest decade on record. Hottest year on record. Coldest year on record. Worst draught followed by worst flash floods. The Arctic Ice cape melting … record ice thickness in Arctic. El Nino followed by La Nina. There definitely is never any good news when it comes to the weather except that at 8 Billion and growing the human race seems to be thriving.

  29. Maybe this is the coming Ice age my teachers told me about when I was a kid. It never came but then they switched to global warming so maybe they just got their timing waaaaayyyy off. It’s too bad, I would have preferred global warming to this new ice age.

      • I was also taught by my teachers we had to achieve ZPG (Zero Population Growth) otherwise we would be living in a Soylent Green dystopian society. Teachers are freaking stoopid! LMAO! Hey Mrs. Sutter I never bought into your BS even as a kid you worthless indoctrinator.

  30. This is the first article I have seen where the lies of the progressives are actually listed so that you can link to them and see for yourself that as they say, EVERY weather event is due to Global Warming. Moreover, just go back to the 1960s and early 70s to see that they were predicting an ICE age by 2000. When that failed to happen they were saddened and switched to Global Warming, later–after Al Gore, and his orgasmic ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ (yes I know he had nothing to do with that film, but it gave him an orgasm to see NY flooded, I’ll bet)–it became Climate Change. That was really the surrender flag, saying ‘we don’t know enough, but we have to keep people afraid. Progressives and the entire Democrat Party survive on the fear they instill in the uneducated, or worse the ‘college-indoctrinated’ who think of themselves as the ‘highly educated’. Everything they do, is related to somehow ‘protecting others’. It is not enough for a Progressive/Democrat to wear seatbelts, or eat Vegan, or to not drink and drive, or what have you, no, they have to get laws passed or protest people who wear or sell fur coats, in order to rob them of their freedom. Climate change is no different. Fear tactics so that they can pass laws to reduce our driving, or flying in airliners (all the while Al Gore is taking his private jet from here to there).

  31. Anyone who has taken even an elementary science class knows that in the scientific method you must control all variables in and experiment before you can prove your hypothesis — How can you control variables such as solar activity ? The Warmists are plain ignorant… sad that they are so easily manipulated…

  32. Lies and more lies. Man is not responsible for climate change aka global warming. You have more scientists who deny it’s happening than those who claim it’s mans fault. That’s a fact. Getting sick of it. These winters are actually getting worse, hurricanes are down etc. The data is crap.

  33. Seems that all the cold temperatures and all that snow landing on the liberal east coast (with their huge array of “human caused global warming nut-cases) might well be seen as God laughing at them. We haven’t had any warming for the last 19 years now and these clowns are still pushing their nonsense.

  34. it’s interesting as i am sure during the ice age start the northern part of the land and the southern half also had decades like this at the start.. could we be seeing another ice age coming? it would take thousands of years for the massive glacier to form. so not only are we leaving are kids and future americans a much poorer life but a rather cold and deep snow to live through! but don’t tell that to obama and his kind they still think we are going to sweat allot in the heat! of course while they enjoy air conditioning!

  35. Too little snow global warming, too little the same. too cold the same, too warm the same, hurricanes global warming no global warming, Gas p[rices low Obama good, Gas prices high Bush’s fault and on and on. Isn’t it great and so simple to be a liberal, especially in Govt and the media and Academia? they never ever have to think again.

  36. The earth is preparing for global warming by hurrying up and getting all the snowing over with. The earth is now quickly running out of snow. This may be the last snow we see, at least until Al Gore and Barack Obama can repair the climate.

  37. For all those who think that Global Warming has anything to
    do with this blizzard, or that this storm is unprecedented, pick up a history
    book. You will find that in March of 1888 most of the northeast was hit by a blizzard
    that dumped over 50 inches of snow, caused millions of dollars in damage, and
    caused over 200 deaths.

  38. Opinions and loyalties are bought with grants and cash. Hot summer global warming,cold winter global warming sure makes sense to me. Climate changes all the time and will in the future. WE had a ice age because the earth knew in advance global warming was coming. Whatever happened to the holes in the ozone must not be any money in that since I got my new refrigerator.

  39. No it’s actually not, but climate change scientists have to spread the word since they’ve already been paid. Apparently everyone forgot the 5-15 feet of snow around 2004 in about 20 states. It seems scientists have no concept of time. Why should I trust their BS climate change?

  40. Ozone Hole –>
    Global Warming –>
    Climate Change –>
    Climate Disruption –>
    Magnetic Pole Shift
    Climate scientists speculate that the resulting Magnetic Pole Shift will result in one of 3 scenarios:
    1) Global Extinction
    2) Massive meteor strikes
    3) A Godzilla-like creature will be awakened