Quantcast
Skip to main content

Same Meteorologists Who Cry “GLOBAL WARMING!” Hyped Up NYC Blizzard

The FDR Drive the morning of the 'blizzard' that wasn't via User Actions     Follow   Valarie D'Elia

The FDR Drive the morning of the ‘blizzard’ that wasn’t. 

 

We hear from global warming… er… climate change alarmists daily about the need to uproot and alter our entire economy for the sake of preventing more damage due to our changing weather. We are told that “all” of the scientists agree it’s a phenomenon (they don’t), and if someone dares to express an opinion outside of the party line, they are called deniers, truthers, and even criminals in need of jail time.

One such outspoken alarmist, Slate’s Eric Holthaus, has spent the better part of the last two years sounding the global warming warning signal, even going so far as to refuse to fly, which he proclaims would add too much to his ‘carbon footprint.’ Holthaus is a meteorologist by trade, and like all meteorologists, has some storm predictions in his ‘win’ column, and some in his ‘loss’ column. Holthaus tends to loudly sound storm alarms, as he does with global warming. He was one of the first and one of the loudest individuals warning on the severity of Superstorm Sandy. On that storm he was right, and the publicity from that prediction increased his profile in the meteorology world immensely. On the ‘historic’ blizzard that was supposed to strike New York City this week, however, Holthaus’ predictions fell far short of reality.

Before the storm, Holthaus was positively giddy over the numbers he was seeing in computer models. The National Weather Service, run by the U.S. government, backed up his predictions. Holthaus sounded the ALL CAPS alarm:

Predictably, this storm was blamed on ‘climate change’ as well:  

Screenshot 2015-01-27 at 10.22.15 AM    

Screenshot 2015-01-27 at 10.21.16 AM

Anyone who had the audacity to disagree with Holthaus and the NWS on this storm, like with global warming, came under fire:

 

That second tweet was sent just hours before the blizzard of the century was about to begin. Low and behold, the science on the blizzard wasn’t settled, as evidenced by the Weather Channel’s correct “low” snowfall predictions for the New York area. Holthaus, while playing up the correct portion of his predictions in the Boston and Long Island regions, also issued a mea culpa to his colleagues at the Weather Channel:  

Turns out, a scientist and computer models are both capable of being wrong, even hours before a weather event is set to occur. If that’s the case, will we see an admission that maybe, just maybe, it’s hard (if not impossible) to declare the science on anything weather related, let alone global warming, cannot possibly just be ‘settled?’ Or does that require too much humility?

Comment below: Do you think the science on global warming is settled? 

Comments

Advertisement