![\"snow](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/snow-in-Israel.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This brings me to a question that sort of ties in with yesterday\u2019s post<\/a> regarding Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT. Professor Lindzen called the followers of Global Warming a \u201cCult.\u201d This brings me to the \u201cmeat\u201d of this post, how the New York Times, one of the main propaganda organs for the Church of Global Warming, (Algore be praised), was writing as recently as a year ago That snow was a thing of the past. The Times was screaming about this last year when there was a problem with snow at the Winter Olympics in Sochi<\/a> last year. According to the New York Times:<\/p>\n OVER the next two weeks, hundreds of millions of people will watch Americans like Ted Ligety and Mikaela Shiffrin ski for gold on the downhill alpine course. Television crews will pan across epic vistas of the rugged Caucasus Mountains, draped with brilliant white ski slopes. What viewers might not see is the 16 million cubic feet of snow that was stored under insulated blankets last year to make sure those slopes remained white, or the hundreds of snow-making guns that have been running around the clock to keep them that way. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I remember that. I also remember that Sochi is not located in the cooler climates of Russia, but near the Black Sea. Still, the New York Times, and the Church of Global Warming, (Algore Akbar!), and the New York Times has never been one to let a little thing like geography get in the way of \u201cThe Truth.\u201d Because it happened to be warm that year, the Moonbats in the \u201cScientific Community\u201d took flight and commenced barking.<\/p>\n That situation <\/i>(The warm temperatures)<\/i> led the climatologist Daniel Scott<\/a>, a professor of global change and tourism at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, to analyze potential venues for future Winter Games. His thought was that with a rise in the average global temperature of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit possible by 2100, there might not be that many snowy regions left in which to hold the Games. He concluded that of the 19 cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics, as few as 10 might be cold enough by midcentury to host them again. By 2100, that number shrinks to 6. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I see that one of the Cardinals of the Church of Global Warming, (Algore be praised!), chipped in on the debate. I\u2019ve looked up Mr. Scott and found his academic credentials to be confusing at best. Actually, I would say they are nonexistent. Still, you should judge for yourself<\/a>. I will say that I didn\u2019t see anything regarding degrees in climatology or any of the other earth sciences, unlike Professor Lindzen from MIT<\/a>. In any case, the New York Times continues tunneling through the snow drifts, claiming that all the ski slopes in the North East will eventually close due to a lack of snow.<\/p>\n The same could happen in the United States, where in the Northeast, more than half of the 103 ski resorts may no longer be viable in 30 years because of warmer winters. As far for the Western part of the country, it will lose an estimated 25 to 100 percent of its snowpack by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed \u2014 reducing the snowpack in Park City, Utah, to zero and relegating skiing to the top quarter of Ajax Mountain in Aspen.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And then, they have to double down on their stupidity.<\/p>\n The facts are straightforward: The planet is getting hotter. Snow melts above 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The Alps are warming two to three times faster than the worldwide average, possibly because of global circulation patterns. Since 1970, the rate of winter warming per decade in the United States has been triple the rate of the previous 75 years, with the strongest trends in the Northern regions of the country. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, and this winter is already looking to be one of the driest on record \u2014 with California at just 12 percent of its average snowpack in January, and the Pacific Northwest at around 50 percent. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yeah, that myth has been pretty well debunked by actual scientists who are trained in the various fields that actually deal with the climate and weather of the Earth. So, what\u2019s the New York Times saying today?<\/p>\n As millions of residents in the Northeast braced for a powerful blizzard set to sweep across the region, states announced travel bans and the suspension or reduction of public transit, thousands of flights were grounded, and officials urged people to leave work early before heavy snow and high winds would make travel treacherous. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But, you said last year that we would never ever again have a massive blizzard like we\u2019re about to get hit with? This obviously isn\u2019t real now, is it?<\/p>\n In New York City, officials warned that the storm could be one of the most powerful blizzards ever recorded. The latest forecasts called for as much as two feet of snow to fall by Tuesday morning, with accumulation in some areas even higher depending on where the heaviest storm bands settle. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So Al Gore LIED! You all LIED! Now we\u2019re going to get slammed and have to dig out from 2 or more FEET of snow. There is no global warming and Al Gore is the true \u201cGreat Satan\u201d the Iranian\u2019s keep ranting about. I should have known when I read how he conned Al Jazeera out of millions of dollars for his worthless television channel. May he burn in Hell! (Provided it hasn\u2019t frozen over now)<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n [yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good day all. Tonight we will start getting slammed with a good 2+ feet of snow near the Anger Central Primary Dwelling. Needless to say, the Angry Groundskeeper is not looking forward to the shoveling and snowblowing that he\u2019s going to have to do. Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n