Surviving the Latest Blizzard

It looks like we have made it through the second blizzard to hit the DC area in less than a week.  The first one hit Friday and Saturday dumping about two feet of snow.  It took me about four shifts of digging after that one to get the cars out.  On Tuesday and Wednesday, blizzard number two hit the region.  It only dropped about a foot of snow on us.  It took only two shifts of digging to get the cars out.

With the latest round of snowfall, the 2009-2010 winter is the snowiest on record in the DC area. It has surpassed the previous snowiest winter of 1898-1899, and there is still nearly six weeks of winter remaining.

On Monday, the Washington Examiner had a post online regarding an editorial written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. just 15 months ago. RFK, Jr. is a hypocrite in the order of Al "I invented the Internet & Global Warming" Gore. They type of person who flies around in his private jet while telling everyone else what they need to do to save the planet.  The Examiner reprinted most of the editorial, but to sum it up, RFK, Jr. blamed the lack of snow in the DC region in recent years on global warming.

Fast forward to today.  As I said, this has been the snowiest winter on record in the DC region. We now have Time magazine writer Bryan Walsh telling us that the record snowfalls are a result of "global warming."  We also have MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan telling us the same thing.  The Heritage Foundation has an excellent rebuttal to Walsh's argument.

Now, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, but I am a thinker and I do tend to think logically.  On the one hand, you have a global warming alarmist, RFK, Jr saying that due to global warming, the DC region doesn't get much snow fall.  Then when the DC region does get snowfall, and a bunch of it, we get more global warming alarmists saying it is due to global warming.  Which is it?  Doesn't seem logical to me.

Let me put it into our old mathematical equation of if a=b, and b=c, then logically, a=c.  In this case "a" will be DC not getting snow; "b" would be global warming, and "c" would be DC getting a bunch of snow.  So a=b is DC not getting snow=global warming; next b=c would be global warming=DC getting a bunch of snow, therefore DC not getting snow=DC getting a bunch of snow.  Again, doesn't seem logical to me.

Now I know that one season doesn't a trend make.  However, the global warming cultists want to attribute everything to their cause.  Even if those two things are polar opposites.  The phrase, "You can't have your cake and eat it to," comes to mind.