I can't tolerate broadcast news so early in the day, so I've been navigating print reports of the "Snowpocalypse," which seems anything but. Or should that line end with a question mark? I can't really tell. To us provincials, the situation is somewhat sketchy.
The NYT reports that its city "was spared from the worst" -- a happy turn that banished the story from above-the-fold headlines to the lesser segment of "More News." The story goes on to note that "the National Weather Service [has] acknowledged that the predictions had been off-target," which no doubt will be used by detractors to blast not the NWS, but Mayor de Blasio and climate-change confirmers. "This will most likely be one of the largest blizzards in the history of New York City," the mayor had cautioned; that it's not is not reason to celebrate, but to scoff. Let the George Wills of the world commence.
On the other hand, the Boston Globe reports that "Massachusetts is under siege Tuesday morning by gusting winds, relentless snow, and coastal flooding." Its front page blazes with headlines about thousands without power, an offline nuclear plant, and businesses being "forced to scramble."
But back to those detractors. ThinkProgress is running a useful piece for the layperson, titled "The Climate Science Behind New England's Historic Blizzard." Historic or not, the underlying science is undeniable, which is why George Will, corroborated by such climatological giants as Rush Limbaugh, will giddily proceed to scoff on the basis of lay ignorance -- and political partisanship! -- always a sound line of reasoning against hard science.