House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) called on lawmakers and activists who argue that fossil fuels are “immoral” to “stop using them today.”

‘Environmental Crusader’ Arnold Schwarzenegger Warns: ‘Fossil Fuels Will Kill Us’—after Arriving in a Suburban SUV.

When the climate alarmists start acting like it’s a real emergency by changing their lifestyles, I’ll think about taking them seriously.

WASHINGTON – Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) warned young people that “fossil fuels will kill us” if the U.S. doesn’t switch to renewable energy. The Terminator actor said millions of people die each year because of pollution.

“So, therefore, it’s very important for you to get involved to fight and to get rid of fossil fuels because fossil fuels will kill us and fossil fuels will create global climate change. Now I’ve studied this issue very well. It’s another issue I didn’t know much about when I became governor but then when I listened to the studies and to the scientists I became 100 percent supportive of it,” Schwarzenegger said during a discussion on gerrymandering at the National Press Club on Tuesday with former Attorney General Eric Holder.

“And that’s why I’m a crusader, an environmental crusader around the world to make sure we stop this madness of using fossil fuels and that we switch to renewables or electric or hydrogen cars and new technology but this government doesn’t do anything about it,” said Schwarzenegger, who arrived at the event in a Chevrolet Suburban SUV. “You don’t see them talking about it. You don’t see them going out and handing out research and development money to the car manufacturers to say in 10 years from now we’ll have more electric cars,” he added.

Why I Don’t “Believe” in “Science”
Science isn’t about “belief.” It’s about facts, evidence, theories, experiments.

For some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment.” This was in response to news that scientists who are skeptical of global warming might be allowed to have a voice in shaping public policy.

So what Warren really means by saying “I believe in science” is “I believe in global warming.”

But we owe it to Andrew Yang—a Democratic presidential candidate who just managed to qualify for the televised primary debates by getting more than 65,000 individual campaign contributions—for stating this trope in such a comical form that it gives the game away:

“My father has a Ph.D. in physics,” he said. “I believe in science.”

This prompted some well-deserved mockery along the lines of, “My father was a cartoonist. I believe in Daffy Duck.” More important, it captures a lot of what annoys the rest of us about the “I believe in science” crowd. It reduces a serious intellectual issue—a whole worldview and method of thought—to a signifier of social group identity.


Some people may use “I believe in science” as vague shorthand for confidence in the ability of the scientific method to achieve valid results, or maybe for the view that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning.

But the way most people use it today—especially in a political context—is pretty much the opposite. They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand.

There are a lot of people these days who like things that sound science-y, but have little patience for actual science. These are the kind of people who gush when Elon Musk tells them he’s going to put a million people on Mars but seem less excited about discussions of cosmic-ray shielding, or solar wind, or hydrogen escape, or all the reasons why Mars is a dead planet.

They prefer the imagery of “science” to the more prosaic reality. In my experience, “I believe in science” is just a shorthand way of admitting, “I have a degree in the humanities.”


The problem is the word “belief.” Science isn’t about “belief.” It’s about facts, evidence, theories, experiments. You don’t say, “I believe in thermodynamics.” You understand its laws and the evidence for them, or you don’t. “Belief” doesn’t really enter into it.

So as a proper formulation, saying “I understand science” would be a start. “I understand the science on this issue” would be better. That implies that you have engaged in a first-hand study of the specific scientific questions involved in, say, global warming, which would give you the basis to support a conclusion. If you don’t understand the basis for your conclusion and instead have to accept it as a “belief,” then you don’t really know it, and you certainly are in no position to lecture others about how they must believe it, too.

Because science is about evidence, this also means that it carries no “authority.” The motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba—”on no one’s word”—which is intended to capture the “determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”

That’s the opposite of what “I believe in science” is intended to convey. “I believe in science” is meant to use the reputation of “science” in general to give authority to one specific scientific claim in particular, shielding it from questioning or skepticism.

If it weren’t for grandstanding, they have no standing at all.
House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled long-awaited legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions and take on climate change by binding the United States to commitments made under the Obama-era Paris climate accord. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined other Democrats in releasing the legislative package in the Capitol, framing climate change as “an existential threat” and promising that the party will move the legislation quickly to the floor. “The American people know that the … crisis is an existential threat of our generation, of our time, a crisis manifested in natural disasters of epic proportions,” she said.
The five-page bill known as the Climate Action Now Act aims to block President Trump from pulling out of the Paris climate agreement reached by the U.S. and other world powers in 2015 under former President Obama. Under the bill, Trump would also have to submit a new plan to Congress outlining how the U.S. will continue to meet the goals established in the Paris agreement.

ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL, DEMOCRATS EMBRACE THE FIERCE URGENCY OF MAYBE LATER:

But if the measure is simply a resolution laying out goals, why can’t all members of the Senate say whether or not they support the goals now, as Markey, Ocasio-Cortez, and the Senate Democrats running for president had done when the Green New Deal was first introduced? “We haven’t had any witnesses or expertise or science,” Markey replied. “It’s a perversion of the political process to not have hearings on legislation before you bring it out. I want hearings.”

In other words, he and his fellow democraps didn’t get his opportunity for political grandstanding and his widdle feewings were huwt. Poor bawby.

Claim: Climate Denial is “Malign and Evil”

Apt comment:
“Notice how it is starting to morph from “climate change” to just “climate”. It first changed from global warming to climate change, but lately I’ve noticed most of the references are no longer to “climate change deniers” but are now just “climate deniers”.”

According to “The Elders” Chair Mary Robinson, anyone who disagrees with her views on climate change is evil.
Climate change denial is evil, says Mary Robinson

Damian Carrington, Environment editor
Tue 26 Mar 2019 17.30 AEDT

Exclusive: chair of Elders group also says fossil fuel firms have lost their social licence

The denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, according to Mary Robinson, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

The former UN high commissioner for human rights and special envoy for climate change also says fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to explore for more coal, oil and gas and must switch to become part of the transition to clean energy.

Robinson will make the outspoken attack on Tuesday, in a speech to the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew in London, which has awarded her the Kew International Medal for her “integral work on climate justice”.

“The evidence about the effects of climate change is incontrovertible, and the moral case for urgent action indisputable,” she will say.

“Climate change undermines the enjoyment of the full range of human rights – from the right to life, to food, to shelter and to health. It is an injustice that the people who have contributed least to the causes of the problem suffer the worst impacts of climate change.”

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/26/climate-change-denial-is-evil-says-mary-robinson

The Elders” are a group of self important former United Nations leaders and other high profile international figures who seem to think you should do what you are told.

Mary Robinson stops short of saying what she thinks should be done about those “malign and evil” climate deniers, but I think we get the idea.

‘We’re Like the World Is Going to End in 12 Years if We Don’t Address Climate Change.’

Oh really?

Senate Democrats Refuse to Vote for the Green New Deal

The final vote was 0-57. All 53 Republican senators voted ‘no’ on the measure, and they were joined by three Democrats: Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), along with Independent senator Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats.

Utter abject hypocrisy about ‘climate change’. It’s nothing more than a grandstanding ploy for more government control that only imbeciles believe in and corrupt politicians promote.

 

Climate Change Activist Admits: Being Green “Requires the End of Capitalism”

Well, at least they’re now being honest about it. A headline this week in The Guardian reads: “Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it?”

The article, by Phil McDuff, goes on the discuss the “Green New Deal” currently being peddled in the US Congress, and declares a radical turn toward socialism is really at the heart of saving the planet from climate change:

The radical economics isn’t a hidden clause, but a headline feature. Climate change is the result of our current economic and industrial system. GND-style proposals marry sweeping environmental policy changes with broader socialist reforms because the level of disruption required to keep us at a temperature anywhere below “absolutely catastrophic” is fundamentally, on a deep structural level, incompatible with the status quo.

The “status quo,” we have now is a form of capitalism that is highly regulated by states, manipulated by immensely powerful central banks, and distorted by global NGOs like the World Bank. Nevertheless, this system contains enough of a semblance of market-based freedom that many leftwing ideologues regard it as a type of radical laissez-faire capitalism marked by unrestrained and fossil-fuel powered consumption.

Not surprisingly, they think this system must be abolished.

Unfortunately for the billions of human beings who have benefited from what market freedom exists, the new green-socialist global state imagined by McDuff will undo decades of gains against grinding poverty — gains enjoyed by the world’s most at-risk and poorest populations.

OCASIO-CORTEZ’S GREEN NEW DEAL IS SO URGENT THAT SHE’S MAD GOP WANTS TO VOTE ON IT

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked the GOP Saturday — for calling a vote on the Green New Deal that she proposed.

Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee

A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports. Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.

An Analysis of the Recent Climate Change Hysteria

Most people were taken in by the false story of human-caused global warming. We can include all the students participating in the classroom walkout to demand governments stop climate change, organized by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg. Her goal is to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Apparently, she has no idea that the temperature was near or above that level for most of the last 10,000-years in a period known as the Holocene Optimum.

They are taken in by the false claim that a minute amount of human-produced CO2 is effectively controlling the entire atmospheric system since 1950 and causing environmental collapse through global warming. They don’t know that there is an upper limit to the amount that CO2 can increase temperature. They don’t know that the average level of CO2 over the last 250 million years is 1200 ppm. They don’t know that every projection of temperature by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1990 was wrong. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, how did so few, fool so many, to such an extent, for so long?

Similar situations occur throughout history of people fooling the world, although this is undoubtedly the largest in terms of its acceptance, impact, and cost. It is tempting to point the finger at the IPCC, but the speed with which the story took hold, spread, and deceived so many people requires better explanation. It likely won’t stop it occurring in the future because it speaks to the nature of human beings and our inordinate and pandemic fear that the sky might fall. However, we might stop the current insanity………….

 


To get an idea of just how “off the rails” these people are, have a look at this CNN thread on the topic:

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/global-climate-strike-students-protest-climate-inaction-intl/index.html

 Five of the Most Hysterical Environmentalist Claims.

Peddlers of the Green New Deal know that the only way for their radical agenda to become reality is if Americans buy into the wildest claims of climate extremists.

It’s clear that some of the most enthusiastic supporters of this radical agenda are young people.

This was on full display in the now viral video of a meeting between Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and a group of children from the Sunrise Movement.

Perhaps children and young Americans are more likely to buy into the extreme environmentalist doomsaying due to the fact that they weren’t around for the laughably wrong predictions of the past that never came true.

Panics over looming environmental and climate apocalypse have been with us for a long time. Thomas Malthus famously predicted in his 1798 book “An Essay on the Principle of Population” that population growth would overtake food supply and mass starvation would result unless population controls were implemented.

Of course, his predictions were utterly wrong, since free enterprise greatly increased the food supply as the population increased.

The modern environmentalist movement has picked up a Malthusian ethos of its own and, when combined with the politics of climate change, has produced numerous egregiously wrong predictions about global trends.

Here are five of the biggest misses:

1. Population Bomb to Cause Global Famine by 2000

The first Earth Day, in 1970, was filled with hyperbole and exaggerations about mankind’s future. Much of the craziness was unearthed in a remarkable expose in 2000 by Reason contributor Ronald Bailey.

2. Air Pollution Will Be So Bad That City Dwellers Will Have to Wear Gas Masks

Another grand prediction at Earth Day 1970 (it was full of doozies) was that the air pollution problem common to many American cities would continue to get exponentially worse without widespread government control of the American way of life.

3.  Entire Nations Could Be Wiped Out by 1999

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., a self-avowed socialist, recently claimed that the world would end in 12 years if we don’t radically transform our economy to combat climate change.

The decade long window of pronounced doom seems to be a favorite among climate alarmists.

4.  Ice Caps Will Melt Away

Predictions about the polar ice caps melting have been common. Dramatic pictures of polar bears floating on tiny icebergs have been some of the iconic images of the climate change movement.

Former Vice President Al Gore said at a conference in 2009 that a scientist predicted a “75 percent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.”

In 2014, the ice caps were still there. In fact, it’s 2019 and the ice caps are still there.

5.  The Coming Ice Age

In 1958, Betty Friedan, one of the leading thinkers of radical, modern feminism, wrote an article in Harper’s magazine describing the “coming ice age.”

It seems the mixing of climate science and radical left-wing politics is nothing new.

Friedan based her article on the work of two scientists, geophysicist Maurice Ewing, director of Columbia University’s Lamont Geological Observatory, and geologist-meteorologist William Donn.

GREENPEACE CO-FOUNDER:
‘CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT ONLY FAKE NEWS. IT’S FAKE SCIENCE’

GAO Praises Virginia General Assembly: 1st Legislature to Strike at Bloomberg Attempt to Capture AG Offices

(Washington, DC) — Today the public interest law firm Government Accountability & Oversight, P.C. (GAO) congratulated the Virginia General Assembly for becoming the first to act in response to Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to capture attorneys general offices to pursue his ideological agenda.

Bloomberg established a “State Impact Center” to hire and place “Special Assistant Attorneys General” (SAAGs), with the statutory authority of AGs, to promote policies of interest to Bloomberg. Incredibly, in applying for these privately funded attorneys — and public relations services promoting his own activism — Virginia AG Mark Herring offered to use his office “to advance the agenda represented by” the Center.

Thankfully, in a mid-day vote on Sunday adopting the Commonwealth’s budget, the legislature restricted monies appropriated to the OAG, precluding the arrangement Bloomberg’s Center has used to place 14 SAAGs in 10 states and the District of Columbia – so far.

The “Virginia OAG insists to the Court, as it has for weeks to media outlets, that it never actually participated in the Bloomberg-financed SAAG scheme”, said Chris Horner, a Virginia taxpayer and attorney for GAO in the FOIA suit Horner et al. v Herring. “This claim not only makes no sense in our case, but indicates OAG can’t get its story straight”, Horner continued. “After making the extraordinary offer to use the office “to advance the agenda represented by” Bloomberg’s group, AG Herring even publicly claimed “I’m glad Virginia is participating in its fellowship program”.

That this vote by the General Assembly was even necessary is itself incredible given that not one but four provisions of the Virginia Code already prohibit this unprecedented arrangement — as GAO has argued in ongoing litigation against Herring’s office for documents related to this scheme.

Today’s vote is a statement from Virginia’s elected representatives that Bloomberg’s money can’t buy a donor’s way into Virginia law enforcement. GAO applauds this vote by the Virginia General Assembly, while wondering, what’s wrong with the rest of these legislatures?

Government Accountability and Oversight, a 501(c)3.

Like Most Climate Hysterics, Ocasio-Cortez Doesn’t Practice What She Preaches.

Well, well, well. Little Miss Revolutionary just may be be nothing more than your average hypocrite demoncrap after all. And I thought we were going to get to have some real excitement going here.

The New York Post published a story yesterday about the campaign for Congress by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that shows how the author of the Green New Deal refuses to practice what she preaches.

But the woman who boasts of a “razor-sharp BS detector” seems to have trouble sniffing out her own.

Since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign heavily relied on those combustible-engine cars — even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her Elmhurst campaign office.

She listed 1,049 transactions for Uber, Lyft, Juno and other car services, federal filings show. The campaign had 505 Uber expenses alone.

In all, Ocasio-Cortez spent $29,365.70 on those emissions-spewing vehicles, along with car and van rentals — even though her Queens HQ was a one-minute walk to the 7 train.

The campaign shelled out only $8,335.41 on 52 MetroCard transactions.

This is not surprising, as the carbon footprints of most climate hysterics would put the Yeti to shame. But instead of being contrite, begging forgiveness, and promising not to do it again, AOC took to Twitter to brag about her hypocrisy

If that argument sounds vaguely familiar, you might recognize it as the timeless excuse made by socialists the world over: “I drive this expensive car and have a dacha on the Black Sea, while you stand in line for five hours waiting for moldy turnips because I’m working hard for a better future for all you peasants.”

In AOC’s case, she feels perfectly justified in being a hypocrite because she’s a selfless leader who will endure “living in the world as it is” until she can make it all better. She really doesn’t want to fly and use gasoline-consuming cars. But she will accept the pain so that she can save us and the world from climate change.

Harvard Scientists Want To Spray Particles into Atmosphere 4,000 Times a Year… To “Fight Global Warming”

Despite the exposing of the global warming and climate change hoax, complete with the revelation that “studies” were falsified and manipulated, there are still people pushing the hoax.  Now, there are scientists at Harvard University who want to fight the mythical “global warming” by flying at least 4,000 missions per year and dumping particles into the stratosphere.  Anyone wanna guess what this is going to cost us besides health issues?

The following is an article written by Barry Brownstein, professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore and author of The Inner-Work of Leadership, at Foundation For Economic Education, which explains this ridiculous notion that man thinks he is in control of the Creation rather than the Creator.

Harvard’s Gernot Wagner wants to save the world from global warming. His method? Develop a new type of plane that will fly more than 4,000 missions a year dumping particulates into the stratosphere.

Wagner and his colleague Wake Smith call the proposed plane “SAI Lofter (SAIL).” Anonymous individuals at “Airbus, Atlas Air, Boeing, Bombardier, GE Engines, Gulfstream, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Near Space Corporation, Northrup Grumman, Rolls Royce Engines, Scaled Composites, The Spaceship Company, and Virgin Orbit” provided input.

Estimates for SAIL’s design and operation seem sophisticated but are fabricated. Wagner and Smith admit, “No existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill [their] mission.”

Wagner and others believe that scientists can calculate how many particulates will be needed to cool the Earth to a desired temperature.

Wagner and Smith are not alone in their geoengineering dreams. As early as 2006, Paul J. Crutzen, Nobel laureate in chemistry, called for “stratospheric geoengineering research.” Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to experiment via balloons spraying “a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere.” Wagner, Keith, and Keutsch are all part of the Solar Geoengineering Research Program at Harvard.

Geoengineering is gaining global traction. Last fall, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report saying geoengineering could be used as an emergency “temporary remedial measure.”

Spraying aerosols in the stratosphere would mimic what large volcanoes do.”

Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails! For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

– From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals. They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters — all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications

BLUF: 50 to 90 TRILLION Dollars.
That’s $50,000,000,000,000 to $90,000,000,000,000

So, the real question is; Is Occasional-Cortex actually that stupid, or is this just a sort of smokescreen/flypaper to keep people occupied while they do something else. Of course we could embrace the mighty power of “and”.

The Green New Deal (GND) is a sweeping policy plan setting out ambitious objectives for energy and economic policy. The breadth of its proposals makes it daunting to assess the GND using the standard tools of policy analysis. Nevertheless, this short paper is an initial foray. We have three broad conclusions

Gov. Dunleavy abolishes Alaska climate-change commission, removes roadblock for Knik Arm bridge

JUNEAU — Gov. Mike Dunleavy has abolished Alaska’s climate change strategy commission and has removed a procedural roadblock for several major construction projects, including the Knik Arm Crossing.

Administrative Order No. 309, issued Friday, rescinds seven orders issued by former Gov. Bill Walker, including one from Oct. 31, 2017, that established the state’s climate change strategy and the Climate Action for Alaska Leadership Team. That team drafted a climate change policy and formally submitted it to the governor’s office in September. The plan has not been implemented.

The governor’s office sent letters to the climate change team on Friday saying their work for the task force “has ended.” The state website for the team, including the draft strategy it created, has been removed. The developments were first reported by Alaska Public Media on Saturday.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez She Guevara ranted last night that until someone else comes up with a plan to “address the global climate crisis,” then “we’re in charge”

Sen. Feinstein Tells Green New Deal-Promoting Kids She Won’t Respond To Pressure Tactics

I have no doubt Sen. Feinstein is going to be savaged for this by the far left and that’s honestly fine with me. A group of kids organized by the Sunrise Movement, the left-wing group campaigning for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, went to Feinstein’s office today to pressure her to support it. The organizers clearly figured Feinstein would have a hard time telling these cute and earnest kids no. They were wrong.

I just love it when the left beat up on themselves.

Flagstaff, Arizona, sets all-time snow record as major snowstorm buries southwestern US

Just another indication why the econutz had to change it from ‘GlowBull Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’.  Maybe Leonard Nimoy was right.

A storm is unloading feet of snow, creating blizzard conditions and shutting down travel over the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico.

Snow fell over the northern Sierra Nevada, including Donner Summit, California, throughout the day on Wednesday. However, the heaviest snow will not be on the Sierra Nevada but rather the mountains farther to the southeast.

During Wednesday evening, parts of the valley around Las Vegas picked up over 4 inches of snow. Travel became slick and treacherous in the surrounding area as a result.

On Thursday, Interstate 5 at the Grapevine in Southern California was closed as snow created difficult travel.

Some schools in Las Vegas will be closed on Friday due to the recent snowy and current freezing conditions.