Hottest Year Ever Update

We haven’t had snow in the DC area during April since 1944, but snow is forecast this weekend. Experts say it is the hottest year in the history of the planet.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Hottest Year Ever Update

  1. stephen says:

    It snowed in early April 2007…
    but still-long after the advent of catastrophic AGM…


  3. Andy DC says:

    That chart is basically correct. I have lived within 10 miles of Laurel most of my life and never remember more than an inch of snow in April. I guess it can snow here in April, but more than a coating is very rare.

  4. When a person says it’s the hottest year in the history of the planet, and 3/4 of the year hasn’t even happened yet, then we know that person is a fecoceph.

  5. Eric Simpson says:

    Well this is consistent with it being the hottest year on the planet because hot causes it to be cold. Proof is when you put the flame to some hot cereal and you it heating up but their pockets of cold and even small ice crystals that develop.

    To prevent global warming from causing all of us to freeze to death we need to immediately cut CO2 output to the bone! As our current Science Czar to the US president has said: “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren

    He also said: “A billion people could die from global warming by 2020.” -John Holdren 1986.
    We’re right on track for that. We better get to it and cut CO2 to zero today or within 4 years many us will be dead: frozen to death because of global warming.

    More proof here:
    “The kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” -John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, 2014

    • gator69 says:

      <i<He also said: “A billion people could die from global warming by 2020.” -John Holdren 1986.
      We’re right on track for that.

      Not quite. At present about 7 million innocent humans needlessly die each year from starvation. I say needlessly, because if we focused on saving them instead of this leftist fantasy of CAGW, they could all be saved. So actually we are up to about 200 million so far, that have been sacrificed upon the altar of the Trillion Dollar Climate Change Industry.

  6. mogur2013 says:

    That means nothing, Tony. Cherry picking is not good scientific method. Seattle is predicted to exceed the historical high temperature Thursday. So what? That is weather, not climate. Snow on your patio is not rigorous scientific info. It is hyperbola.

    • Are you saying that the predictions of DC cherry blossoms in February due to global warming were incorrect?

    • Hoax moderator says:

      So the AGW cults government puppets and “scientists” saying that “There can be no debate and the science is settled!” is a good scientific method?

  7. mogur2013 says:

    [hyperbole] Sorry, typo. But it is also a simple anecdote, the antithesis to scientific inquiry.

  8. mogur2013 says:

    To defend the hyper-sensationalistic press is to say that we abandon all efforts to be critical.

  9. bleakhouses says:

    Here in suburban NYC we have had snow every month October through April. There was a warm patch in Nov-Dec but there were very cold patches before and after as well. Not to mention the record setting snow and the past 2 incredibly brutal winters. I have to say it is clearly a sign of CAGW; I will be heading for higher colder/warmer/dryer/wetter ground in or about 2020.

  10. ST says:

    stevengoddard – you say you’re a scientist and critical thinker and still make claims like this? …….and continuously make weather vs climate arguments? Hmmmm enough said. If your readers like this kind of thing oh well – apparently to get readers you are just doing what you accuse everyone else of doing – creating hyperbole to draw clicks and get support. I wish there were serious arguments made here for the case against made- made global warming.

    • stephen says:

      “Hmmmm enough said. If your readers like this kind of thing oh well-”
      What we readers really enjoy is: out of some 400 posts a year on this subject-littered with facts , and substantive responses from actual scientists and others-occasionally a moron is flushed out with an assumed “gotcha!”…that would be you sir.

      • ST says:

        So that’s your only point? Your facts – and they truly are facts – prove nothing in the absence of method. As you are well aware of, there is no “real science” here. I’m a bit disappointed – when I first started reading I thought there might be and was looking forward to the discussion.

        • You just proved Stephen’s point. Why should he make any other?

        • I assume by scientific method and “real science” you mean this imposing and methodical approach. Am I right?

          Oh, and do you consider John Holdren’s pronouncement scientific? I mean, “real scientific”? We know he must be using the method. I’d be more than a bit disappointed if he was not.

          After all, he’s the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

          And since you are looking forward to the discussion, what do you think about the debate method of Al Gore, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jagadish Shukla and the rest of RICO 20?

        • ST says:

          There’s plenty of bone-headed points made form each side that defy logic. Anyone who believes otherwise cannot be taken seriously. What other method would you propose?

        • There’s plenty of bone-headed points made from each side that defy logic.

          So, ST, you chose to sidestep the questions with a meaningless platitude. Of course people make bone-headed points. I am talking about actions at the highest level of the U.S. government. I’m talking about the President’s scientific advisors making a mockery of the scientific method. I’m talking about the methods deployed by federal agencies spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer money.

          Anyone who believes otherwise cannot be taken seriously.

          Huh? What in the world were you trying to say? Who cannot be taken seriously? Anyone who doesn’t believe that people make bone-headed points? That doesn’t even rise to the level of meaningless platitude. Against whom do you think you are arguing there? I know plenty of Progressive nitwits in Boulder but not even they say things like that.

          What other method would you propose?

          What a silly rhetorical question. If I didn’t know that you post here regularly I would give you the benefit of doubt but that is not the case. You know very well that nobody here argues against the scientific method. You know that Tony Heller and the readers of this blog are disgusted by the disregard of the scientific method in completely politicized, government-financed and promoted climate “science”. We may disagree in specific cases but drop this bullshit. I have never heard you say a word against that but here you come to grandstand against a self-financed critic and whistleblower because “all data for and against need to be considered”.

          And since you skillfully avoided the question about proposals to use the RICO statute against climate skeptics, I will ask you again:

          You think that using the coercive powers of the federal government against the opposition in a scientific and policy dispute is:

          A. Just another “bone-headed point”. A triviality.
          B. A legitimate application of a law designed against the mafia.
          C. Wrong. Fascist. Absolutely unacceptable.

        • Neal S says:

          These are like snowflakes that individually are not convincing, but when you gather enough of them together, you can get an avalanche. So which snowflake is the most convincing? Not any of them mean that much by themselves. But there are just so many such snowflakes! It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to ignore the whole bunch.

        • ST says:

          Not true – an avalanche doesn’t prove anything without method and without looking at all of the other avalanches in the world along with all of the other phenomena. It is always good to understand where the preponderance of evidence is but this blog doesn’t do that. All data for and against need to be considered. To do otherwise is biased.

        • gator69 says:

          There is no “data” that supports AGW. There are models, artifacts, and claims that support AGW, but no “data”.

        • stephen says:

          …more rhetoric, no science-you validate my previous statement

  11. ntesdorf says:

    Any more of this ‘Global Warming’ and people in the north east of America will not be able to get out their doors for snow. It must be a large Gore effect.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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