Accuracy in Media

WASHINGTON — Even the liberal newspaper The Washington Post cannot deny how cold it has been recently.

buffalo snow storm

The analysis in question is entitled, “Analysis: Coldest November morning in U.S. since 1976: All 50 state freeze.” The average morning temperature of the U.S. on Tuesday was 19 degrees Fahrenheit, the analysis wrote, which is the coldest morning in November since 1976.

The D.C. metropolitan area was in the high 20’s, but other areas suffered from cold winds as well. The city of Buffalo is being pounded with snow and wind due to a storm.

Data also said about 85% of the lower 48 states (meaning, not Alaska or Hawaii) were below freezing yesterday morning.

So much for climate change or global warming endangering human lives…but what about the snow and cold weather? Global freezing, anyone?





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • terryk

    Weather is not climate.

  • caerbannog

    Hmmm… the last time I checked, the continental USA occupied about 1.6 percent of the Earth’s surface. What are temperatures doing on the rest of the planet?

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    God is sovereign over all. “Climate Change,” or the hoax formerly known as “Global Warming” is a cooked up supranational crisis that intentionally extends past sovereign borders, so that a world tax can be placed on sovereign nations. Taxation is the key to funding world government which can gradually grow control over nations. They’ve got to have a revenue source. That is why Obama will bypass Congress to implement “Climate Change” measures. The commies are meeting strong resistance, so strong arm tactics will have to be applied. People can be blind. But God sees it all and God won’t be mocked. These commie social engineers like to lift themselves up as gods and the one true God will knock them right back down. God will eventually allow world government to take place, but it will be His timing and not man’s. God will glorify His name. God is sovereign over all.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    That’s right.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Stupid!

  • I know Americans are not strong on geography but I am in Australia with all doors and windows shut and the air con going flat out. Its nearly 40C outside and its not even summer yet.

  • Kev789

    And it must be the oldest scientific hoax in existence, going back to the formulation of the green house gas theory of the 1800’s, quantified by Arrhenius in the early 1900’s, and refined in the 1950’s and 1960. How thoughtful of those hoax pioneers to get this hoax going long before it was needed!

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I see. So if you are creating a hoax, you would not try and find people who can support it? huh? First of all, “climate change” is based on consensus process, which is based on the hegelian-dialectic. (which Karl Marx married with materialism to create a revolutionary theory for “social change” called dialectical materialism) In consensus, principles MUST be abandoned, so all the process can produce is a watered down “truth.” It is interesting that you would give the name for an individual scientist, as consensus process can never produce a truth discovered by one individual. The consensus process itself is an application of collectivism. Consensus is the practicing of collectivism. It is in fact, a soviet council form of government. In effect, the theory for “climate change” comes out of a process that is applied in collectivist society, which in fact, is the goal of those who seek world government.

    “If man is somehow one [collectivism] and if the world is somehow one, it is not too soon to wonder what it is that unifies both man and the world. World organization will be human community or it will not be at all. And the great society…will not become the human community
    until it finds the common spirit [common ground through consensus] that is man…”

    Aspen Institute of the future, June 27, 1949

    (Marx’s theory “refined” near the 1950’s and 1960’s)

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Australia… let’s see… I’m trying to remember from my 7th grade geometry class.. that is the country/continent located northeast – northwest of California, led by “climate change” denier Tony Abbot? No?

    Here’s a quote from the Communist Party of Australia (see Human Relations in Curriculum Change, Kenneth Benne – 1951 to understand why Americans consider this a legitimate source) website:

    “Abbott’s attempt to steer the agenda of the G20 Summit around the issue of climate change was undone in spectacular fashion by US President Barack Obama’s address to an enthusiastic audience at the University of Queensland. Commitments about post-2020 domestic climate targets and energy efficiency appear in the communiqué coming from the two-day meeting of leaders of the world’s biggest economies. Pressure is mounting on the Abbott government to stop being a “leaner” and to join the “lifters” in the still stumbling international effort to head off a climate catastrophe.”

    So according to your country’s communist party website:
    A.) Barack Obama is a god (the CPUSA prefers to hide their gushing support for him, it would appear too obvious)
    (after all we still have the 2nd amendment here)
    B.) Your President is not so much (i.e. a “resistor”)
    C.) The Communist Party support of Climate Change is not A BIG RED FLAG for y’all. (I’m from the south U.S., where the folk say y’all and go huntin’ with “guns.” How’s that gun control working out for y’all?)

  • Guest

    The oldest scientific hoax in existence is that the devil does not exist.

  • jerseymike1126

    2014 is on pace to be the warmest year on record but its cold in an area that covers about 2% the earth so let’s ignore that. That’s some great logic the author has, you can clearly tell he doesn’t even have a basic understanding of science

  • jerseymike1126

    Climate change and global warming are two different things.

    As for the hoax claim. Science is based off evidence. In this case the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. Your god has zero evidence supporting him. Safe to say your god is the hoax here.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    There is evidence that the “evidence” has been intentionally cooked up. My authority says that the nature of man is to sin. Man will prove God’s truth literally billions of times in the next 24 hours. You simply choose to refuse the premise.

  • jerseymike1126

    Give me one piece of evidence to support your claims of this “god”

    There is no evidence of numbers being cooked. I assume you are referring to the emails about the tree rings? Which was basically them talking about calculations in a way your low IQ couldn’t comprehend. But let’s pretend they were actually lying, how does that change the overwhelming other pieces of data supporting previous climate? That would just deal with one source of data from one group. But if you understood this you wouldn’t deny scientific facts like global warming.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Today’s science is built on theories developed out of Karl Marx. One being that there are no absolute truths for all times and places. (So there is no such thing as truth!) Every single theory in existence today, is subject to being replaced by a new theory tomorrow, in Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift. Theories are developed out of the consensus process, which is based on the hegelian dialectic. (which has never been proven to be true) The consensus process is nothing different from a soviet council form of government. In consensus, principles must be abandoned for the sake of relationship with the group. It is theory born out of conflict and surrender. Truth is found in what everybody can agree on. If real evidence enters into the process, but is not agreed upon by all factions, it will not survive. So, all evidence is subject to group dynamics, or manipulation. Fear of losing group approval, which in turn could mean losing a grant, etc. Same thing happened in Soviet Russia. If a scientist made a discovery that went against the communist party line, he quickly did a 180 and apologized. So-called science today is a system rife with abuse!

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I have an IQ of 160. My daughter tested with an IQ of 130 in the 2nd grade. I am not going put up with the disrespect, that emanates from delusions of being more sophisticated than everyone else. I guess you want to pull a Johnathan Gruber on me. Now either you can hold an intelligent debate without namecalling or you can take your commie tactics elsewhere.

  • jerseymike1126

    You would first need to show intellect. i can’t have an intelligent debate with someone denying a scientific fact, brings up wild conspiracy theories and uses an imaginary sky overlord that was invented by some bronze age peasants. I did notice you declined to answer my questions

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    You’re the one who doesn’t believe in absolutes. When tomorrow’s theory replaces the old, then you will automatically adopt the new theory. So you argue your evidence based on today’s theories, yet the language of your own paradigm is always in a state of flux, e.g., progressive, life long education, revolutionary, radical, reform, open-minded, open-ended, ongoing, etc. You believe you can stand and hold a position, when your position is one of constant surrender. Completely illogical in warfare.

  • jerseymike1126

    Your ramble just contributed nothing to the topic and you seem to not understand “how science works”. So I am still waiting for you to” begin your intelligent debate”

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    In the 1970’s, the theory of the day was a new ice age. Then in the 1990’s it was “global warming.” In the 2000’s the semantics of global warming was changed to “climate change.” Al Gore, based on your “science” said that coasts in the U.S. would be underwater by 2012.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

    To do that, we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” –Stanford University Professor Steven Schneider

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    You are what we call in the woods of the south: a moving target.

  • jerseymike1126

    Getting better but not other yet. 😉
    This is a false statement which is easily debunked. You had a small fraction of climate scientists who predicted “a new ice age”. The majority at the time predicted global warming. We can easily verify this with the published studies that scientists put out.

  • jerseymike1126

    Calling it a new ice age is not proper as well. We are still in an ice age. They have glacial and inter glacial periods. We are in the inter glacial period right now

  • jerseymike1126

    I am saving this comment to show other people. Please note we are laughing at you, not with you

  • jerseymike1126

    Lets save me some time.
    No, there has not been a pause in warming. You clearly dont understand math/science if you fell for this line. It is easily debunked if you passed a 6th grade science class.

    No, there has not been a recovery of the arctic sea ice. this also comes from a lack of understanding of math/science (notice a pattern?)

    I assume that was a joke about trying to shoot me? Its pretty tame to the jokes we make about southerners

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Laugh all you want.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I know the jokes you make about southerners. I was once a northerner.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Luke 16:19-31 King James Version (KJV)

    19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

    20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

    21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

    22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

    23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for Iam tormented in this flame.

    25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

    26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they
    pass to us, that would come from thence.

    27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

    28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

    29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

    30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

  • Guest

    31,487 American scientists have signed the Petition Project, including 9,029 with PhDs

  • jerseymike1126

    bible passages for no reason? i can play how about this one:

    30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

    33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

    34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

    36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.

  • jerseymike1126

    how many in fields relevant to the topic? i seen the list before and it kills your argument. you are about 0-4 on your arguments bud, why dont you give up before you make even more of an idiot of yourself

  • jerseymike1126
  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Deconstructing Global Warming
    Richard S. Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor
    of Atmospheric Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    CEI
    October 26, 2009
    A pdf of these slides is available on request from rlindzen@mit.edu

    Why do we need to deconstruct global warming? Simplybecause it has been an issue that has been routinely treated with misinformation and sophistry abetted by constant repetition, institutional endorsements, and widespread ignorance even (perhaps especially) among the educated. Because of the increasingly dangerous and expensive approaches being promoted to deal with
    this alleged problem, it is, I think, important to understand what is being said as well as to understand how climate actually works. I will begin with a few items that illustrate how this issue
    has been manipulated, and how, to a great extent, global warming has been merely a device for implementing broader agendas. I will then continue with an emphasis on the science.

    From the 1970’s, there was a general feeling that
    ‘climate change’ would be an excellent vehicle for a
    variety of agendas. People openly espousing this
    included Bert Bolin, who was an adviser to the Swedish prime minister, and later the first head of the IPCC.

    Once the global issue emerged on the public scene,
    two cooperating institutions were formed in the 1990’s with interlocking leadership: The Tyndall Centre for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

    The latter is headed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
    and the former by Michael Hulme. These institutions
    epitomize the exploitation of the climate issue. Their
    members constitute numerous participants in the
    IPCC. Recently, Hulme came out with an interesting book

    Here are some revealing quotes:

    “The idea of climate change should be seen
    as an intellectual resource around which our
    collective and personal identities and projects
    can form and take shape. We need to ask not
    what we can do for climate change, but to ask
    what climate change can do for us.”
    ……
    “Because the idea of climate change is so
    plastic, it can be deployed across many of our
    human projects and can serve many of our
    psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.”
    …….
    “We will continue to create and tell new stories
    about climate change and mobilize them in
    support of our projects.”
    …….
    “These myths transcend the scientific
    categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’ “

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I gave you scripture as a response to your request for evidence supporting God. What’s your reason?

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Fairly accurate story, but still from a corrupted text.

  • jerseymike1126

    97% agree, 3% disagree. i could spend all week digging up scientists to agree while you would about be finished in about 10 minutes. i will give you a nice link to help you find the handful of articles against it. note the other side has THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS. http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The Bible is only understood by those who are spiritually discerned.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    97% of what agree? Communists, athiests, socialists, humanists?

  • jerseymike1126

    97% of climate scientists. not sure about their political and religious views. that is irrelevant in science but you are clearly too stupid to understand.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    A study based on search engine returns? Oh, that’s scientific, I’m not worthy.

  • jerseymike1126

    how is that evidence? the bible says that unicorns exist, the earth is flat, that some guy lived to be 1000 years old and built a boat that fit every animal on it, that a guy lived inside a whale….i can go on but the bible is nothing more than ancient superstition. we have lots of similar books telling of gods and such. none of it is evidence.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Snake oil peddlers.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The gist of the scripture I gave you, is that no matter how much evidence I provide, you are never going to believe. If you look at places like the Soviet Union where the government did everything in their power to annihilate the existence of God, and yet could not, ought to show strong proofs to the agnostic. Unfortunately, just as you will not recognize the plots of wicked men until the military boot kicks you in your backside, you also will not accept the existence of God until you are frying in hell like a sausage. That is the tragedy of the situation.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Your president has been caught lying so many times that he has established himself as a pathological liar, yet you still think he is telling you the truth.

  • jerseymike1126

    that is a good way to avoid the fact there is ZERO evidence.

    this fits well with the global warming conversation. you have yet to give a single piece of evidence all day. its rather pathetic to be honest

  • jerseymike1126

    who said i was pro obama? i am talking science here not politics

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The debate tends to follow ideological lines. does it not? Are you a Democrat?

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Do you believe obedience to higher authority?

  • jerseymike1126

    there is no debate. its a settled science. no, i am not a democrat

    what we have in this country is a political party that is bought out buy fossil fuels special interest. the members of this party also tend to be anti science and very religious. religion is the opposite of science so that is relevant.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    “THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF
    TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED.”
    —US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The IPCC report, the best available consensus of the world’s climate scientists is not settled science. You cannot settle science through dialectic process. It will never produce facts.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Religion is the opposite of communism, atheism, socialism, humanism this is true yes. Which would describe you?

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    ” a political party that is bought out buy fossil fuels special interest” The consensus process likewise serves collectivists.

  • Or dveloped by monopolistic capitalists that see an opportunity for profit by creating hysteria about global warming and whateber else.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The global warming myth has always been a leftist incarnation. They had to come up with a supranational crisis that extended beyond borders as a conduit for their already extremely successful conquest for world government. Corporations are simply filled with the indoctrinated graduates of marxist professors. They and their marketers have brought marxist causes into the marketplace. There is no link to capitalism “creating hysteria” over global warming. Global warming originated out of the U.N.

    That said, there are no doubt investors who support world government and influence corporations to promote U.N. goals. Marketing does more to condition people to accept leftist ideology, than capitalism itself. Capitalism does not inherently profit from myths. Sooner or later the truth comes out. However, behavioral marketing that creates a paradigm shift in attitudes that are favorable to marxist ideology, off the backs of capitalists, has proved to be quite profitable indeed.