Recently, alt-news sources such as the "Drudge Report" have been criticized for suggesting the US government was exaggerating the impact of Hurricane Matthew in an effort to support the "climate change" agenda. You can read about it here:
https://memoryholeblog.com/2016/10/08/hurricane-matthew-is-the-public-being-misled/
But as you may or may not know, on 9/11/2001 the US government and MSM apparently ignored the existence of Hurricane Erin, which was headed towards the US coast just north of New York City until it abruptly changed course around the time of the "terrorist attacks". You can see Erin's track here:
http://bit.ly/2dFSWY7
Now, I have no idea whether or not someone is tampering with weather data or what their agenda might be, but I do have the following legitimate question:
Why was Hurricane Erin ignored, while Hurricane Matthew was highly publicized? Both had the potential to cause extreme damage and loss of life had they made landfall in the US.
Or put another way - why was NOAA so confident of their models in 2001, yet so worried about them in 2016? Aren't climate prediction models supposed to be getting more accurate?
Something funny is going on here. What do you think it is?
And by the way, why is skepticism now called "denial" and why is denial now a crime?
No comments:
Post a Comment