In February of 2014 we find the New York Times offering this suggesting global warming will eliminate snowfall:
The End of Snow? by Porter Fox.
Almost a year later we find predictions of an “historic” storm before it even hits.
There are two definitions of climate change. One is the natural fluctuations of the climate that have been occurring for as long as the planet has existed. The second is anthropogenic climate change – the change caused by us. These two types of climate change are very different, but we use the same term for both. It would be one thing if both sides of the controversy each used their own definitions to talk past one another. But that’s not what’s happening. In the case of climate change, the alarmist side of the argument uses both of these definitions and cleverly switches between the two whenever convenient. It’s dishonest, but common place in the climate change controversy.
Another dishonest tactic of the alarmist side of the argument is the attempt to shame into silence anyone willing to think for themselves and ask questions of the “we’re destroying the planet” narrative. You probably didn’t know that blindly accepting the claims of scientists or news article of journalists reporting on the opinions of scientists qualified as thinking for yourself. But that’s the world we live in today.
Matt Walsh has another challenging piece well worth a few minutes of your time. Give it a read:
Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane
bias, environment, global warming, propaganda, relativism, science