Ten Years Since RFK Junior Blamed The Lack Of Snow On Sarah Palin

Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled.

  • RFK Junior, 2008

Ten years ago, Robert Kennedy Junior said the lack of of snow in McClean, Virginia is due to global warming, and said that it was Sarah Palin’s fault.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

McClean is expecting another foot of snow to bring in the Spring.

McLean, VA 10-Day Forecast | Weather Underground

The Washington Post now says that all the snow they are having is caused by global warming.

 Rapid Arctic warming and melting ice are increasing the frequency of blizzards in the Northeast, study finds – The Washington Post

There has been no trend in snowfall since the year 1900 at the closest USHCN station to McClean, and four of their ten snowiest winters have occurred since the year 2000.


Everything climate alarmists believe is based on superstition, and they change their story as the weather changes. But just like the 16th century, they still blame weather they don’t like on witches.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Ten Years Since RFK Junior Blamed The Lack Of Snow On Sarah Palin

  1. Psalmon says:

    Arctic Temperatures are below normal…so now it is COLD in the Arctic with “extreme winter weather” in the US. Does gravity cease to work at this point where the lines cross?

  2. feathers says:

    Snow in Northern Virginia is and will always be highly variable. 1997-98 virtually no snow at IAD, 2009-10…73 inches at IAD.

    We typically get 8 weeks of winter between the last week in November thru 1 April. When those weeks will occur is a total guess. BTW, “winter” to Northern Virginians is daytime highs <= 40 F and lows in the mid-20's and below.

  3. Robertv says:

    That’s why they don’t longer teach history because it would take the power away of those in power showing their only goal is to have more power to enslave.


    Jordan Peterson: Millennials learn social justice, not Communist history, doomed to repeat it

    It has NEVER been about climate.

  4. Douglas Hoyt says:

    151.1 inches of snow this winter so far in Syracuse NY compared to a 123.8 inches winter average. More snow to come.

    See http://goldensnowball.com/#incart_highlight

    All locations are at or above average snowfall.

  5. Mark Fife says:

    I have lived just outside of Atlanta my entire life. I was born in 1962. Growing up, we never had snow other than the occasional snow flurry. Christmas time was often pretty warm. It wasn’t until the late 70’s that I saw my first real snow. I remember winters being pretty cold for a while.

    I was curious about that so I did some research on snow totals for Atlanta. Based upon that history, Atlanta sees a period of snow activity every 24 years or so. We are currently in just such a period with last year being the highest in total inches.
    Granted, my data probably only includes major snow events so the actual totals are probably off by a small amount. Light snow or snow that just didn’t stick did not make the list. However, here in the south one inch of snow is always a major event. So I doubt I missed very much.

    My point being the entire premise that RFK Jr’s recollection of weather represents some kind of credibility towards the AGW theory is pretty much a load of penguin poop. Cycles of weather patterns are the norm. No doubt, if you had good records, you would find similar patterns where ever you look.

    I think maybe we can excuse some dumba$$ politician or greenie activist for not knowing what they are talking about. There is no excuse for the so called scientists and meteorologists.

    • Robertv says:

      The whole point of the climate question is if the zone where the heat/cold is produced is growing/shrinking and are humans (co2) to blame for that.

      A snow storm or a heat wave are just weather provoked most of the time by a changing jet stream behavior bringing the snow,cold,heat from the place where it is produced to a place where it can’t be produced. And again are humans (co2) to blame for that?

      • Mark Fife says:

        One of the interesting facts I have gleaned from pulling and analyzing data from various source, such as the GHCN, is the most consistent part of the record is the absolute temperature range. Other than Antarctic records, that is. The highest and lowest temperatures recorded each year don’t change much at all. So I would say you are right. It is more a question of temperature zones and how stable they are.

  6. Winnipeg boy says:

    It sounds to me like JFK Jr. didn’t understand the weather too well, but he took off anyway.

  7. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Off topic, but here is a paper that shows the climate sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide is very small:


    • Mark Fife says:

      Just my opinion, but the climate sensitivity to CO2 is probably zero. It is a non factor. I base that opinion on two factors.

      No, a cooler atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface. Not by radiation any more so than by conduction. There exists no juggling of the existing equations and formulas for the transmission of energy by radiation whereby that scenario can be shown to happen. It cannot.

      Because the conductivity of air is extremely low, air is a great insulator. Most insulation works by trapping air. That is why you don’t compress fiberglass insulation, doing so ruins it as an insulator. Heat is transferred away from the earth’s surface by convection. Without convection we truly would be getting warm! Convection pushes energy up. Hence CO2 does not trap surface heat. It doesn’t stop convection. Convection is the main driver of atmospheric heat transfer.

      The next key factor is atmospheric pressure. Because temperature rises and falls in a direct relationship to the atmospheric pressure at a given altitude. With convection and atmospheric pressure, what gets hot down here soon cools off up there. When what is up there cools off it falls back towards here.
      Rising and falling air masses speak of an enormous amount of energy being transferred vertically. Convection is the primary means of transfer of heat in the atmosphere. As we know from thermals, vertical wind shears, and other such things that transfer can occur extremely quickly.

      Consider this question. Once a mass of air which has been heated by the surfaces rises to a point where it reaches a state of equilibrium between contained energy, temperature, and pressure, what happens? Does that energy stay in place? The answer of course would have to be no. All matter which is not at absolute zero temperature emits energy in the form of light. The only question is the rate or emission. A gas mixture with low emissivity would emit energy slowly. A gas mixture with high emissivity would emit energy faster. Clearly, adding CO2 to a gas mixture made primarily of oxygen and nitrogen would increase the emissivity of the gas mixture. Would it not follow any gains to the system as a whole by radiant absorption at the bottom of this energy conveyance system would be offset by higher losses due to emission at the top?

      Again, this is just my opinion.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      DH, Holmes paper contains several grave conceptual flaws. You want details, see my debunking of it over at WUWT. Another Sky Dragon in disguise. In sum, Earth has had 4.5 billion years to cool since the last time gravity did any heating work on the atmosphere.

      • Douglas Hoyt says:

        It is not gravity doing work. It is the conservation of energy in the presence of a gravitational field that leads to the vertical temperature gradient.

        • Douglas Hoyt says:

          Just to be clear the pump analogy for the Loschmidt effect is totally bogus. It is a straw-man used to try to discredit the work of Holmes and others.

          If you have and atmosphere and it is in a gravitational field, conservation of energy requires that a temperature gradient be produced. The higher the molecules are, the more potential energy they have along with a correspondingly less kinetic energy. less kinetic energy means a lower temperature. The lower the molecules are, the less potential energy and more kinetic energy; hence they have a higher temperature. This holds whether there are so-called greenhouse gases are present or not present.

          It doesn’t matter where the energy comes from, just so long as it is present in the atmosphere.

          • Douglas Hoyt says:

            Above corrected for typos:

            If you have an atmosphere and it is in a gravitational field, conservation of energy requires that a temperature gradient be produced. The higher the molecules are, the more potential energy they have along with a correspondingly less kinetic energy. Less kinetic energy means a lower temperature. The lower the molecules are, the less potential energy and more kinetic energy; hence they have a higher temperature. This holds whether there are the so-called greenhouse gases are present or not present.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Gravity is ALWAYS acting on the atmosphere,

        It creates a downward force… ALWAYS.

        That downward is resisted by the air beneath, in the form of kinetic energy. The more air on top, the more kinetic energy is required to resist the gravity force of the air above.

        The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself. The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, greater KE, thus greater temperature.

        The units of KE are …

        The units of “work” are …

        • Robertv says:

          We are lucky compressing the oceans doesn’t have the same effect otherwise the heat would not be able to sink to the bottom.

          • menicholas says:

            Compression is not the same thing as pressurization.
            Water is for all practical purposes incompressible.

      • Mark Fife says:

        This is a Wiki quote, but it is accurate.

        “The pressure-gradient force is the force which results when there is a difference in pressure across a surface. In general, a pressure is a force per unit area, across a surface. A difference in pressure across a surface then implies a difference in force, which can result in an acceleration according to Newton’s second law of motion, if there is no additional force to balance it. The resulting force is always directed from the region of higher-pressure to the region of lower-pressure.


        In the case of atmospheres, the pressure gradient force is balanced by the gravitational force, maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium. In Earth’s atmosphere, for example, air pressure decreases at altitudes above Earth’s surface, thus providing a pressure gradient force which counteracts the force of gravity on the atmosphere.”

        Technically speaking, that pressure gradient is what causes hot air to rise, which of course is work. Force of gravity is what creates that pressure gradient.

        This is an interesting quote from a Phys.org.

        “Although we crust-dwellers walk on nice cool ground, underneath our feet the Earth is a pretty hot place. Enough heat emanates from the planet’s interior to make 200 cups of piping hot coffee per hour for each of Earth’s 6.2 billion inhabitants, says Chris Marone, Penn State professor of geosciences. At the very center, it is believed temperatures exceed 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than the surface of the sun.


        For all this, however, Marone says, the vast majority of the heat in Earth’s interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. ‘The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth.’ ”

        Pretty interesting stuff.

  8. czechlist says:

    RFK Jr. personifies “white privilege”.
    Arrogant, self absorbed, inherited wealth, private schooled, progressive, drug addled,know-it-all NIMBY hypocrite isolated from the real world his entire life.
    He thinks climate began at his birth.


  9. I wish Satan would take up cudgels for nuclear energy. At least he had cojones.

  10. Anon says:

    Hi Tony,

    Just a couple of thoughts here:

    1] Okay, lets assume, for the sake of argument, that Arctic warming is causing increased snow fall and decreasing temperatures in the North Eastern United States.

    So, as the Arctic heats up, the Northeast gets colder and snowier.

    Now, lets go back a fifty decades to a time when the Northeast was experiencing similar cold temperatures and blizzards. Was that caused by high temperatures in the Arctic? No, it was caused by low temperatures in the Arctic.

    So, as the Arctic cools down, the Northeast gets colder and snowier.

    Now, combining both statements: If the Arctic is warm, the Northeast is cold and snowy and if the Arctic is cold the Northeast is cold and snowy.

    I think Goldilocks is about the only person who could sort this out.
    2] If you are going to claim that cold snaps in the Northeast are not indicative of global temperature and most of the global temperature record is based off of weather stations located in North America, it would seem to me the climate change folks just invalidated the North American temperature record upon which they rely to prove that the Earth is undergoing a carbon dioxide driven warming? (ie: If we should not believe the temperature record now as indicative, then why should we believe it was indicative in the past?)

  11. stpaulchuck says:

    “no amount of science and technology will ever overcome fear and superstition” – anon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *