A Monstrous Halloween Open Forum, Starting This Evening…

I am about to drive to New Jersey, where master singer/musician Mike Messer will assist me in presenting a special Halloween edition of “Ethics Rock Extreme,” our classic rock legal ethics seminar.  The three hour extravaganza will end around noon, whereupon my wife and I will commence the four+ hour trip back to Alexandria. I can’t promise that I’ll get a post or two up when I return, and I don’t want anyone thinking I’m dead if I don’t (liek last time), so here’s an open forum for Ethics Alarms readers to sound off and go crazy.

Ethically crazy, of course.

68 thoughts on “A Monstrous Halloween Open Forum, Starting This Evening…

  1. So, this one’s happening real-time on my corner of the Internet.

    A timeline from the lady at the center of it all, good for reference: https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2019/10/05/stack-overflow-fiasco-timeline.html

    Now the summary: Monica was a volunteer moderator at one of the Stack Exchange (a network of sites for users to post Q&As about multiple topics, outgrowth from the programming one: Stack Overflow), and the company “got woke” and presented a new Code of Conduct to the community, that among other things compelled moderators to use preferred pronouns. It also implied that writing in a way that avoids using pronouns is a microaggression. Monica, being a fairly professional writer asked questions about it. And the hammer came down hard, and essentially she was “fired” as a moderator.

    And that’s when it hit the fan… In response to this a number of moderators on the network quit or went on a strike. She’s now insisting on public reinstatement and an apology, and it looks like there will be lawyers involved at this point.

    Open for discussion, but a big question for me is: what is the right response for the company that a.) recognizes the error, and b.) does not open them to legal risk. It is clear that Stack Exchange is essentially covering their asses, which is clearly unethical given that they extracted value from Monica’s (and other’s) free labor instead of holding to the implied fairness of the relationship. How can the company be both fair and accept fault without opening itself up for legal repercussions? If impossible, what’s the “best” solution to this ethical conflict?

      • “Under what circumstances would you use a persons pronouns when talking to them?”

        Good point.

        Seems to me that if we all just use each others name and forget all the pronouns triggering the identity snowflakes the problems would basically go away.

        • We’re identifying snowflakes (the REAL KIND!) in the 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality as we speak.

          As dictated/mandated by our WOKE municipal powers-that-be priorities, the bike path/trail/lane/boulevard/bridge system will be cleared long before most city streets; mine included.

          This leads the lucid to ponder: How do I get my bike from my snowbound home to the bike path Promised Land…?

            • “Who rides a bike in the snow?”

              That would be secular heresy in the 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality!

              And joking…moi? You MUST know by now that lies far beyond the realm of possibility…

              Anywho, not joking about that; not in the least. There are some diehard year-rounders, but never have so many sacrificed so much for the benefit of so few.

              Local columnist Steve Elbow writes about biking/bikers time-n-again and yours truly was interviewed and mentioned in THIS ONE. The also referenced James Batt is an octogenarian whom I’m humbled to be able to call a pal-o-mine, and who’s one of the sharpest minds in my wheelhouse.

              Elbow got hooked up with me by googling “I Hate Bikers.” And while I only hate three things (the Chicago Bears, running into a cold, wind-whipped rain, and non-variegated Bishops Weed), it seems my…um…body of work locally might suggest otherwise.

    • I’ll take a stab with the caveat that I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on the Internet. But as a business owner, I do have some knowledge, probably just enough to be dangerous.

      I would suppose that a) first requires revision of the policy that caused the kerfuffle. If Stack Exchange actually believes that the policy was wrong, the first step is to correct it and explain to the community:

      – why they changed the policy to begin with, if they didn’t before, and;
      – why they are changing it back.

      The company has no real legal exposure for either changing or reversing a policy change unless the policy itself violates some law or regulation. They are privately owned, so as long as they abided by the policy that obtained at the time, there should be no exposure (keeping the above yabut in mind).

      It seems to me that if the moderator did not want to abide by the new policy, the right move for her would have been to resign. If she was fired for simply questioning the policy rather than violating it, then she may have some kind of claim, but if the controlling state law is “at will,” especially in a case of unpaid volunteer work, she’d have an uphill battle. If diversity exists and the case is removed to federal court, then federal employment law would apply assuming she met the definition of an employee.

      The next step would be to deal with the grievances. Presumably, making things right with the fired moderator would resolve the issues with the others, assuming they actually quit because she was fired. Your question is twofold — how to correct the grievance, and how to prevent legal action as a result of the corrective process.

      The company should meet with the fired moderator and determine what she would like to see to make this problem go away. If she insists on a lawyer, then the company should bring council also. A simple negotiation should be sufficient, and if they reach an agreement, the lawyers can wordsmith any apology to avoid legal consequences from the apology itself.

      Whether or not they can reach a satisfactory agreement, the company should conduct an immediate review of all policies, procedures, and their adherence to them. They should take any corrective action required, being as transparent as possible with the community about what they are doing and why, and vetting their actions through council to minimize or avoid potential legal exposure. This will help them if they have to litigate.

      If they have to litigate, they should settle with the woman, hire new moderators, and move on.

    • “Monica, being a fairly professional writer asked questions about it. And the hammer came down hard, and essentially she was “fired” as a moderator.”

      Unless I’m missing something; she got fired for asking questions (rocking the boat) about the new Code of Conduct not for violating the Code of Conduct? This is identity politics gone absolutely insane and unethical!  As far as getting her job back; why would anyone want to work for a company that fires people simply for asking questions about a new policy.

      After some deep diving into this here what I understand.

      First and foremost, I can’t find any justification for firing Monica.

      Additionally, it appears that everything the company did in relation to the firing was unethical and some of their actions might be libelous.

      Monica was “fired because they thought I wouldn’t follow the future code of conduct.” I don’t know if this is Monica’s opinion or if it’s fact (I can’t read Monica’s email threads) but this alone is a huge “Minority Report” style red flag if it’s fact. Their Magic 8 Ball isn’t any better than mine and they’re acting on it as if it’s fact.

      They went from telling Monica that “we’ve been as clear as we can and your values are out of alignment” (values out of alignment is not a reason to fire someone) to fabricating lies about Monica to justify their firing. After the firing and all the various complaints about their actions they started making up lies that she had violated the Code of Conduct but they cannot, or will not, provide a shred of evidence to support their after-the-fact claims. I’m no expert in laws surrounding what employers can and can’t do as it relates to information surrounding being fired but the nature of this particular kind of “employment” should warrant providing clear evidence to support claims. Everything I’ve read about this shows me that Monica rocked the boat by questioning a new PC policy that virtue signals at identity politics, they fired her because of her rocking the boat and then they drummed up false claims about her. How dare an employee challenge their politically correct woken hive. They they need to be dragged into court and taught a lesson – don’t settle Monica!

      Based on all that I read in the link you provided and following all the links contained within that in a deep dive, I think she probably has a valid libel claim and should pursue it.

      I’ve been a hard-core coder using Basic, QuickBasic, Pascal, Fortran, C, C++, HTML, PHP, JavaScript, SQL, etc since the mid 1980’s and I’ve used stackoverflow.com many times over the years but as of today I’m boycotting their site.

      • Sniffle. The Astros imploded.

        As an aside, what do we think of Gerrit Cole telling the entire world that he is no longer an Astros employee less than 20 minutes after the end of the game, while wearing his agent’s marketing cap? I realize he is a hot commodity and can (and will) command a handsome new contract, but is this an ethical thing to do to the Astros and Houston after he was embraced with open arms? Seems kind of smarmy to me from a PR perspective.


        • Yes, and I thought it called into question his not pitching in the last game. If that’s where his head was, was he worried about a bad relief performance costing him money?

          Also, I just wrote this on Facebook: “Twenty years ago, even five, Harris never would have pitched to Howie Kendrick (who, as you know, hit the game-changing homer in the 7th.). I immediately thought pulling Grienke was a trendy, risky, foolish move by Hinch, and would have even if Harris had been masterful again. The starter had given up two hits,and used only 80 pitches. A single walk and you panic? It was nuts. This is relief pitcher, match-up mania. In previous Series, Greinke might have benn allowed to throw a complete game And Cole would have relieved him.

          • Agreed. Grienke had a great game. Hinch pulled him and the Nats rallied against weak middle relievers – he didn’t show confidence in his pitcher. But, isn’t that just moral luck? If the relievers soundly dispatched the Nats, then it would be celebrated as a brilliant move.

              • Grienke can give up homers in a hurry. He’s fun to watch and lives on guile but once his pitches start getting up in the zone, look out. I think Hinch went to the wrong guy. Plus, you can’t win playoff baseball games without any offense. Good pitching can’t score runs and in the post season, the batters are all too good. And by the way, is there anyone on Earth who looks more like a flesh and blood Doonesbury character than A.J. Hinch?

    • Congrats to the Nationals on winning their first World Series. They certainly are worthy of the championship, considering how they overcame the adversity of a terrible start to the regular season, and how they dispatched their opponents in the playoff season, when the Nats’ backs were against the wall so many times.

      Dittos Diego Garcia: not the result I wanted. But, I’ll say it again – I can’t really remember if I said it in EA comments, but I said it many times to fellow baseball fans in my community: The Nats of 2019 are the most like the 1969 New York Mets of any team that has made it to the World Series since that season of 50 years ago. In fact, they might be even better exemplars of playing a “miracle season” than those Mets of long ago. They beat all the odds that were against them. For this one shining season, they are a great team, a team of destiny – totally worthy of their winning it all.

      • And ninety-five years since D.C. had a World Series champion, the ’24 Senators with Walter Johnson. Why isn’t that mentioned. As long as Cubs futility. Even longer emotionally because the Senators moved out TWICE to become the Twins and then the Rangers. Hardly a mention of that. Maye not a good look for MLB as an industry. But come on, Walter Johnson. Are you kidding me. A baseball giant.

          • I completely agree. Walter Johnson had pitched for the Senators for what? 23 years? before winning that one and only (for him) in Game 7 – in extra innings – pitching in relief. I now wonder whether Gerrit Cole lost his only opportunity to at least save a Game 7 triumph. I also wonder if, after he did a bit of warming up, Cole self-empowered to tell Hinch, “No, I’m not going into the game tonight.”

        • SHHHHH! This is the Wokeness Era. Actual history is to be forgotten, when it can’t be completely “re-constructed.” White guys of old must NEVER be credited with greatness of ANY kind.

  2. I have an ethics question. The set up is a bit long, so please bear with me.

    Imagine a small town where one out of every nine people works for the same company. Now, this company hires predominantly men, not because it is sexist, but because the work and positions available are more likely to be applied for by men. 9 out of every ten employees are male. In addition, it pays well enough that if a married man were to work in a salaried position, he could make enough money that his wife could stay home with the children if the couple displayed only a modicum of frugality. Thus, most stay-at-home mothers in the community have a husband who works for the same employer, usually in different stages of the chain of command.

    Now, imagine that there was a low level supervisor and one of his subordinates. They are of similar ages and have similar values. Their wives are of similar ages and find each other to be enjoyable company. Their children are of similar ages and like to play together. Also, no one else in the supervisor’s area is of a similar age, value system, or time in their families. (No kids or college age kids)

    Is it unethical for these two families to hang out socially? What if it is just the wives and kids, not the husbands? What about kids birthday parties, as the kids are friends?

    I have heard both sides of this argument played out in my town, but often with both sides using some set of rationalizations from our host’s list. I’d like to hear a more educated opinion here.

    • Sarah B.: Just to be clear, the issue is about hanging out socially (not as a part of some work-related function) with a subordinate, right?

      I guess I can imagine why it might be considered a question, but generally I don’t think it is NECESSARILY a problem, though it could be in some instances, I suppose.

      My example is that one of my employees has a child very close in age to one of my children. He and I work closely together and our kids have met at work functions (picnics, that sort of thing). So, they have attended each other’s birthday parties, even though they are not close friends. I have also been invited to the parties of other employees children.

      Several caveats:

      -We are a small company (12 people), so everyone is familiar with everyone else.
      -Before I hired him, he was an independent lawyer who worked in the same office suite as I did, so we were already colleagues.
      -We are close in age.
      -He is only a few years less experienced than I am; he is really only a subordinate because I “hired” him (he could have worked as an independent contractor).
      -Our families do not regularly socialize otherwise.


      • You are correct as to the question. This would be quite similar to your situation except that the families regularly socialize. The wives and kids, in this situation have a standing play date. Several people in town are saying this is unethical. Others defend it.

    • Social relationships between subordinates and their supervisors are fraught with pitfalls.. This becomes more of a problem in small towns. In and of itself such relationships are not unethical but can quickly become unethical when issues arise that require the superior to act in a manner detrimental to the subordinate. It is the use of the relationship to change business decisions conciously or even unconciously that make the relationship unethical.

      The problem is family members. Kids should be able to play with each other without much difficulty but wives run into the issue of sharing confidential conversations from either side.

      Keep the adult relationships arms length. Enjoy each others company at company events but don’t become coffee clatch buddies. Just watch one episode of Real Housewives to see how things could work out.

      • In general it should not be a problem, no? But, life has ways of throwing curve balls. For instance, what happens when subordinate confides in his “boss” that he is involved in some chicanery at the office, or that the subordinate is doing things outside of the office that might create blowback on the employer?


        • This is covered in the most recent post. Any communication between boss and subordinate must be appropriate for BOTH settings. The boss can’t keep anything confidential for pal subordinate that he or she wouldn’t treat the same with anyone else.

    • Sounds like a military question.

      The wives can probably hang out together with the children fine. But unfortunately the husbands should probably stay distant. If discipline ever arises or if any accusations of favoritism ever arose, it’d be hard to argue against. Of course, the wives would need to be extra careful to simply not discuss their husbands and their husbands work also. It’s a very very tough arrangement.

  3. For you fans of richly textured hypocrisy.

    THEN: AOC runs Amazon outta NYC.

    NOW: Amazon’s selling her My BFF; AOC: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020 Wall Calendar.

    And what does one get for $14.98 (US) + S/H?

    “Not only do we (?) look up to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘AOC’, but we also wish we were best friends with her as well. This yearlong celebration of the powerhouse that is the youngest woman ever to serve in the United States Congress includes 12 images of her everyday fierceness, uplifting quotes and funny remarks inspired by and about our best friend.” (bolds mine)

    One of the (IMO) funniest remarks is February’s quote: “Women like me aren’t supposed to run for office.”

    Fair enough; women (or however candidates “identify”) should possess, at the very least, a middle school understanding of basic economic realities before they seek, and assume, office.

    My Kingdom to be a fly-on-the-wall in Amazon’s marketing department and/or the day care facility that doubles as AOC’s office as they discussed how they would handle the breathtakingly deep irony through which they would both need to slog in order to get this green-lighted.

    Christmas is fast approaching, d_d, lucky, et al; how many can we put you down for…?

    • I cannot in good conscience purchase a PAPER product such as the AOC BFF Calendar when it has not been officially certified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as Climate Change-Neutral AND Green New Deal-Friendly AND Profit-Free.

    • I am on the fence here. Yeah, Ocasio-Cortez mistreated Amazon based solely on her complete misunderstanding of how the deal was structured. She supposedly has an economics degree from Boston University – I guess I can now see the value in THAT degree. I hope she pays dearly for her idiocy in the polls next year – hope springs eternal. But, Amazon simply sells stuff. They don’t necessarily endorse or promote the stuff on their page. I imagine no one at Amazon even read the nonsense about her calendar (by the way, thanks to the person who linked to Dolezal’s calendar – I needed a good laugh this morning). The seller responsible for that little gem is Universe Publishing, who also publishes “The Gay Agenda Undated Calendar” (talk about irony and double entendre!) and “My Big Sister Michelle Obama 2020 Wall Calendar” (is she going to run for President or not?).


  4. As the Left and the media and the government workers continue their relentless assault on Trump’s presidency, I’ve begun to wonder whether any kid in America can in fact grow up to be president. Is the office reserved only for career politicians approved by other career politicians and the permanent bureaucracy and the media? Do you need to attend Harvard or Yale either undergrad or law school or business school? I think this old saying is being exposed as an outright lie.

    • The old saying IS an outright lie. To paraphrase something comic George Carlin said in a different context, it’s a special little club, and only a privileged very few are in it. We just happen to be living in a time of a sick, dying empire, in which the nascent predominant groupthink is that the office of POTUS must be reserved only for career politicians approved by other career politicians and the permanent bureaucracy and the “approved” media.

  5. Different topic, but when are all those people who show up at the anti-Trump demonstrations with the signs that say “No one is above the law” going to head down to the Southern border?

  6. Now that baseball season is over: when will it become UNethical in professional leagues to NOT use – and depend upon – technological tools to verify and confirm balls and strikes?

    A cynical part of me assures me that the answer is “never:” there will always be enough money involved to keep stoking a “justice” excuse for continuing to depend entirely on umpires’ eyeballs. What do I mean by “justice?” I mean, like how facial recognition technology – despite how effective it can be for so many good and ethical purposes – is already being deemed inherently “unjust” (because how dare anyone NOT let a criminal like a terrorist or other extremist get away, or get off the hook).

    Okay, then. Let’s not disturb the hive. Wrong is right. Inaccurate is perfect. Technology doesn’t win ballgames, or make sure the games are fairly played; people do. /sarc

    • I am mostly persuaded about the balls/strikes issues. The technology is good enough now that you can reliably be consistent with the strike zone, technologically.

      Here is the next step, when will the technology be good enough that you don’t have to appeal a taken pitch to first or third. Maybe I don’t understand the rule well enough, but there are a lot of half-swings where it does not look like they pulled back fast enough.

      Should that be decided from the booth too? Can that be decided as easily from a technology standpoint?


      • Since overhead and side view cameras would be needed to assess balls and strikes, there’s no reason that those same video feeds couldn’t be used to call those half-swings, too. I’m sure an algorithm can be developed that measures the relationship of the bat to fixed points on the batter’s body to determine how far they’ve swung, relative to their original batting stance, the ball, and the plate.

        • Balls and strikes need to be addressed. Personally, I just don’t see checked swings as terribly controversial. The umps on first and third seem to do a pretty good job handling the appeals. The frequency of called balls and strikes not matching the computer strike zone is appalling. Almost one or two or three each at bat. I think computer balls and strikes will also speed up games. Pitches just barely on the edges of the zone will be strikes, strikes will accumulate more quickly and batters will have to be more aggressive. Lower counts, faster games.

  7. I’ve been seeing anticipatory whispers about three or four reports and indictments in the near future, but I can’t seem to find any real substantial details about who’s involved and what the accusations might be.. It’s surprising how little information about this has been leaked. One might start to suspect that the people in the Department of Justice who feed information illicitly to the media are entirely partisan and have no interest in revealing what these investigations uncovered.


  8. https://campaignlegal.org/update/yes-president-trump-violated-campaign-finance-law-asking-ukraine-favor

    The White House has released a summary of the July 25 call that corroborates the whistleblower’s account. In particular, the call summary indicates that, with Congressional aid for Ukraine on hold, Trump told Zelensky that U.S. support for his country has not always been “reciprocal,” and then asked Zelensky for a “favor”: to work with Trump’s personal attorney, as well as the U.S. Attorney General, to investigate Trump’s potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden.

    Tweetable quote:These facts not only reflect a startling abuse of executive power; they also unambiguously demonstrate that Trump broke the law by soliciting valuable assistance to his reelection efforts from a foreign government.Tweet this quote.

    Trump’s direct request that Ukrainian President Zelensky work with Trump’s personal lawyer and use Ukraine’s government resources to investigate Trump’s political opponent served no apparent purpose other than to benefit Trump’s reelection efforts. In other words, Trump solicited a campaign contribution from President Zelensky.

    In the campaign finance world, a “contribution” is any “thing of value” given to affect an election.

    There is no doubt that a foreign government’s search for damaging information about a candidate’s political opponent would be valuable to that candidate. As Special Counsel Mueller noted, “[a] foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.”

    Tweetable quote:By directly requesting or suggesting that President Zelensky use Ukraine’s resources to help his reelection efforts, Trump violated campaign finance law.

    this person seems to claim that a criminal investigation constitutes a thing of value for election law purposes.

    Such an interpretation would have far-reaching effects beyond this impeachment campaign. Campaign finance laws would restrict the ability of police and prosecutors to investigate crimes if it might involve a political candidate or elected official.

    Nor could candidates for office report a crime to police if it would benefit their campaigns.

    • As I understand it, no court has ever ruled that information constitutes a “thing of value” for campaign finance law purposes. So opined Mueller and so ruled Bill Barr.

      • I was going to make this point too; “thing of value” doesn’t follow the facially obvious meaning. There are several things that seem to have value that have never been deemed to have value for the purposes of campaign finance law. There are differences between a criminal investigation and information, but I think that the investigation is probably closer on the spectrum to information than it is to paying hush money to porn stars.

        All that said… Leveraging presidential powers to investigate a political opponents might not be a campaign finance violation, but it isn’t good either. I mean, I’m old enough to remember when the Obama IRS scandal happened, and this feels similar, if on a smaller scale.

        I don’t know if either was impeachable, but I’m not rushing forward to carry water on this either. Trump is, and always has been, his own worst enemy. The Democrats were looking for an impeachable offense, and he keeps on giving them ammo. And while it’s fair and necessary to defend him when they’re being hysterical, when he’s actually done something bad, he can stew in that spotlight.

        • All that said… Leveraging presidential powers to investigate a political opponents might not be a campaign finance violation, but it isn’t good either. I mean, I’m old enough to remember when the Obama IRS scandal happened, and this feels similar, if on a smaller scale.

          I wonder why the people leading this impeachment campaign do not make this comparison.

    • It seems that whenever we run across a “bad guy,” we always try to stretch the laws to capture behavior that may be unethical, but certainly wasn’t intended by the authors of the law to be illegal conduct.

      You are exactly right that such an interpretation would open up all kinds of conduct to criminal liability. I saw one example regarding the Obama birth certificate. Suppose John McCain had solicited Kenya (or whatever country was supposed to be Obama’s birthplace) to investigate and provide any birth certificate for a “Barak Hussein Obama” born in that country on the date of Obama’s birth. Suppose, for the sake of this argument, that Kenya or wherever complied and produced exactly that, “proving” Obama was not born in the USA.

      Would that be an illegal campaign contribution vis a vis foreign interference? As a further but unrelated thought experiment, would the Democrats have alleged that such a document, because it was “fruit of the poisonous tree,” was irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility to be President?

      This whole affair is an exercise to see how absurd the Democrats can be while getting away with it, and to run any and every “Trump committed high crimes” theory up the flagpole hoping the nation will salute one of them. And the media is giving every theory “legitimacy” in hopes of assisting the Democrats in getting rid of the Evil Orange Man.

      I just hope we’re not so collectively stupid we let them get away with it.

      • In regard to your hypothetical re the Obama birth certificate, the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in a civil case, which any contest of presidential qualifications would be.
        I join you in your evaluation of the Democrats’ strategy, and in your hopes that we the people will overcome our collective stupor and begin to reclaim the republic. As my dad used to say when it was time to correct an untenable situation, “This has gone on long enough!”

  9. As I ponder the snowiest month of October and single day accumulation on record in these parts…

    (bolds/caps mine throughout)
    Dr. David Viner, Senior Research Scientist/ Climate Research Unit (CRU)-East Anglia University, U.K. (of ClimateGate infame) in 2000: ”Within a very few years winter snowfall will become ”a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

    5 of the 6 snowiest winters in the U.S. (’03, ’08, ’10, ’11, ’13) quickly ensued.

    Tipping Points are issued, come and go, and just like the nutcase Preachers, the nutcase Alarmists simply reissue, and Lefties (most, not all) follow along glassy eyein’ lock steppin & unquestionin.’

    In 2001 global warming meant fewer major snowstorms with SOME SCIENTISTS EVEN PREDICTING THE END OF SNOW, but in 2015 global warming means more major snowstorms.”


    “Some scientists are now saying global temperature rises will lead to more massive snowstorms like the one that covered Boston in several feet of snow this week (mid March 2108) — a complete turnaround from what climate scientists were saying just a few years ago.

    “In 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) reported that ‘milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.’

    “The IPCC doubled down on this claim in 2007, saying that ‘a growing number of case studies of larger settlements indicate that climate change is likely to increase heat stress in summers while reducing cold-weather stresses in winter.’ ”

    That mean Alarmists were against more snow before they were for it?

    “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra

    The Global Warming That’s Here And Worse Than The Models Predicted is like VISA, it’s everywhere you want it to be!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.