“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
– Ronald Reagan
Robert Kennedy Jr. is convinced that Virginia used to get a lot more snow before global warming.
Palin’s Big Oil infatuation
Los Angeles Times
September 24, 2008By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.
In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.
He was born in January 1954 after decades of very little snow. But shortly after he was born, snowfall spiked temporarily upwards. He assumed this was normal.
Shortly after he was born, temperatures in Virginia plummeted, and never recovered.
Ninety degree days are much less common in Virginia now than they were when he was born.
On this day in 1954, RFK Jr. was almost one month old, and the temperature in Fredricksburg was 78 degrees.
Today’s forecast is for record cold and record snow.
His selective memory from his childhood led him to exactly the wrong conclusion about the climate of Virginia.
Gaia has a warped sense of humor!
I wonder how Kennedy would react if confronted with this data??
Of course he would stick to his Global Warming assertion… Still… Wow… What a fool is Kennedy… His birth corresponding to this cooling, then warming cycle… Kennedy would never think to look at the actual temperature record as originally taken… He just goes by his own perceptions… His own experience … A teenie part of the actual temperature record..
Robert Kennedy isn’t any different than the rest of the progressive herd. He only notes the history that fits his own preconceived notions and supports his current political/social purposes or objectives, and ignores or denies all other if he can’t find a minority revisionist account that supports what he believes and wants.
Robert Kennedy, like Al Gore and Obummer think they will have a place in the new global Aristocracy once it is solidly in place. That is all they care about. If they have to sell their fellow countrymen into slavery? So What?. They deserve it for threatening their betters.
Welcome to Neo-feudalism and the New Dark Ages.
The New Feudalism: There is a specter haunting America — the specter of neofeudalism.
Hello, Steven G.!
Over at What The Hell Is That…they are fighting over you. Your side who posts here are being quite persistent in explaining the temperature record tampering scandal while the usual crew running that site claim any tampering is done in good faith and simply isn’t correct.
<a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/theory-on-the-pause-climate-science-has-exhausted-adjustment-rationales/Theory on the Pause
JFK Jr. believes that snow disappears when the world temperature rises a few tenths of a degree. What an imagination. He must also be impressed with his own dick when he finally finds it in the morning.
Here is one of your readers chastising the WUWT crew, talking about your work:
Neil February 16, 2015 at 5:31 am
Chip,
I understand the existence of the the adjustments, and I’m not ok with them at all. Goddard has shown a consistent warming bias in the adjustments made.
However: in this graph we’re shown two temperature sets: the adjusted and adjusted. It doesn’t look right; especially in light of the discussion. For a start, the first graph looks like one dataset is simply the other one offset. If we’re talking adjustments over time, Goddard has repeatedly shown a pivot point sometime in the 1960’s; ie. pre-1960’s data is cooled whereas post 1960’s data is warmed. I’m not seeing that effect in the graph; unless the graph is showing the absolute value of the adjustments – in which case it detracts from the argument because it’s not the adjustments that are the core issue, it’s the trend. If I have a time series of data and add 10 to every value, the trend remains the same. If I have the same time series of data and subtract 10 from every value before an arbitrary point, and add to to every value after that point, I’ve messed up the trend.
The second graph is slightly harder to comprehend; it seems to imply that all temperatures have been adjusted down. Again, this doesn’t seem to fit with our current understanding of the adjustments. The inflection point seems to have moved to around 1945; again this is at odds with Goddard.
Finally, the Tmax adjustment pattern. Why was 1930 and 1990 chosen? It’s not discussed. One could reasonably suspect cherry picking data. A better graph would be to do the adjustment calculation per year, then show that as a time series graph. You’ve a much better argument on systemic bias then, as you can demonstrate the pattern in the adjustments.
Throughout, I’ve referred back to Steve Goddard’s work. Not because he is the only or best reference source; there’s probably others that are better. Steve McIntyre springs to mind… but my statistics are not good enough to really penetrate his arguments. Goddard’s work is reproducible by the likes of me.
In summary, I’m not happy about the temperature adjustments process at all. Simply saying that standard and approved adjustment processes are run on the raw data is not good enough if those processes are hidden from people. And it is for that reason I’m skeptical of this work: There’s no way I can reproduce it to see how the conclusions were arrived at, and in the case of the last graph I’m downright skeptical of the conclusions because two years are compared against each other, with no discussion as to why they were chosen. I believe I’ve got a better analysis of the data I could perform… but without access to the raw data there’s no way to test.
If we’re going to castigate the likes of Dr Mann for hiding data and processes, we need to hold ourselves up to that same standard. And this work presented here, as interesting as it seems, doesn’t meet that standard and we, the AGW skeptical community, should reject it on those grounds.
Here is an interesting comment about the TOBY mess:
Konrad. February 15, 2015 at 8:50 pm
Ah yes, that would be Tom Karl’s pet rat TOBy. Nibbling on raw data since 1985….
TOB adjustment would be fine for two purposes, adjusting for time zones and changes in time of reading of old max/min thermometers (morning/night).
There is a little problem for NOAA’s little games and Tom’s pet rat. There is no excuse for attempting these adjustments using computer algorithm alone without using individual station metadata. NOAA in excusing these games go full “flappy hands”, claiming extensive station meta data exists. They do avoid directly claiming it is used for the TOB adjustments responsible for almost all “warming” in the US record.
Unless station metadata and only station metadata is used for TOB adjustment of individual station records, then the TOB adjustment should be treated as spurious.
When you investigate NOAA and the TOB question, all roads eventually lead back to Tom Karl and TOBy, an algorithm that does not use station metadata.
OK: Steven, I located the comment by Steven Mosher February 15, 2015 at 8:57 pm attacking you directly. I hope you have fun with this garbage:
‘I am glad that finally there is someone on WUWT who can put STOP and absolute STOP to the nonsense that people are deliberately falsifying the record.
Second. Evan gets a gold start for being the first person to agree that metadata is key and that it is also problematic.
Third. Kudos for recognizing that TOBS changes records. Please please please do everything in your power to stop the nonsense that skeptics spread about TOBS.
4th; It is my opinion that there is ONE and only one issue that has any merit: micro site.
Anomalies are a non issue, adjustments are a non issue, or they are mousenut issues. microsite ( and UHI) Are GOOD ISSUES.. with real science to be done. Hopefully that science (your stuff) can be done and published
so that the real issues can be addressed. But as long as some skeptics ( like this post) just throw dirt, Evan, your Good work ( I know youve spent a lot of time) your good work , will not get a fair hearing.
Sad to say but I think some people will just lump your work with the junk that other people sling out.
That’s not fair.
You really need to clearly and forcefully distance yourself from the stupid “hoax” charges and fraud chargers.. Anthony’s issue has been microsite ( and uhi) its a good issue and I hate to see you guys tarred with the same brush as dragon slayers and cherry pickers. You are doing good work and I would hope that people would listen to your experience ( esp about TOBS) and cut the crap so your stuff can be heard in a less polarized enviroment.
5th. Of all the people who have recnetly criticized adjustment codes ( without ever looking at them) Your criticism ( what if the majority is bad) is the ONLY one that I have found may have some merit. all other critcisms pick at the edges. odd ball cases. Your’s is one that deserves investigation. we know oddball cases exist in any statitical correction. my 9-5 job is All about data cleasing with stats.. there allways odd balls. The real question is are there SYSTEMATIC problems. your concern is about a systematic issue.
GOOD problem. tough problem.
6. Can we detect undocumented changes to stations? Thats an emprical question. I think I may be able to anwser it. we can disagree.
In summary. I know you have spent a huge amount of time looking at data. getting to know the facts.
the sources. the REAL problems. For that you get 100% respect.
in simple terms the more time you and Anthony spend calling out the bullshit arguments for what they are, the more credibility you’ll have when speaking about your good arguments.’
The only thing I have to know about the fraud issue is that the people doing the falsifying are Democrat progressivists. That they believe the progressive BS tells me that they are willing to lie about anything to push their political agenda. Also, everything is looked at through the lens of their political agenda. A large source of the anger so many academics carry around these days is that those of us who live and work in the real world know they are pedaling BS and choose to ignore them. It’s the one thing they can’t stand.
Perhaps it was climate change that drove Kennedy to heroin. I forget which excuse he used at the time though. One wonders what he opined on during those mind-numbed periods.
Michael Mann claims a hot pool of water of Cape Cod is responsible for a doubling in water vapor in the atmosphere causing all the snow.
Fortunately Joe Bastardi kills his claim effectively: http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-february-14-2015
Michael Mann is an incredible douche bag and a traitor to the principles of science and our civilization.
ALL of the progressivist scientists in the U.S. pushing AGW BS fall into that category.
“He was a leading figure in one of the biggest climate change marches to date.
But it seems Robert F Kennedy Jr was not so forthcoming when it came to questions about his own carbon footprint.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2765461/Robert-F-Kennedy-Jr-loses-cool-grabs-mic-reporter-pushing-carbon-footprint.html
I lived in the DC area in the 1960’s and have also examined the weather records. The 1960’s was the big anomaly, between 1957 and 1967, snowfall averaged close to 200% the long long term average. That decade was the outlier, not the rest of the record. What an idiot!