Time Magazine sported its Statist regalia earlier today with a truly funny article entitled "Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change".
After the laughter subsided, visitors to its website noticed that the headline had changed to "Another Blizzard: What Happened to Global Warming?.
I emailed Time with a suggestion for a new headline -- "Serial Blizzards That Resemble a New Ice Age Prove Global Warming Is Real" -- but have not yet heard back.
In all seriousness, the text of the article is something out of a rejected SNL skit: it's just too preposterous. Some of my favorite quotes?
• "There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm." And there's also evidence that eating five bags of pork rinds a day could cause you to lose weight, but I can't quite prove that yet.
• "While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture..." And stupid people can hold more crap, but I digress.
• "But as far as winter storms go, shouldn't climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen — but probably not for a while." Or at least not until we've passed Cap-and-Trade and the new Lightbulb Bill.
• "As global temperatures have risen, the winter ice cover over the Great Lakes has shrunk, which has led to even more moisture in the atmosphere and more snow in the already hard-hit Great Lakes region." See, it's easy to follow: warming has shrunk ice cover in that region while greatly increasing the snow cover!
No mention of ClimateGate. No mention of missing weather stations. No mention of corrupted or intentionally destroyed data. No mention of the glaciers that were supposed to melt next week.
Just the Democrat-Statist talking points, recited to an audience that's disappearing faster than a gallon of ice cream in front of Michael Moore's pie hole.
Time Magazine thinks its readers are really, really dumb. Perhaps the few that remain are truly stupid. But I kinda doubt it. They'd be working for Time if they were that dumb.
Linked by: Michelle Malkin and Ed Driscoll. Thanks!