2017 One of Hottest Years on Record, Except That it Wasn’t

by Steve MacDonald

Percent-Of-Days-Above-950-Vs-Year-1917-2017-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations_shadow-1024x953NOAA and NASA have made it their annual New Years resolution to announce that the previous year was one of the hottest on record. In the case of 2017, it too was one of the hottest (EVAH!) and accomplished this (magically) by having significantly fewer “Hot” days than most of the years that preceded it.

It doesn’t even manage to stay above the downward sloping 100-year trend line for the percentage of hot days recorded at all HCNS stations since 1917.

That’s because you’re all too stupid to know that “hot” days doesn’t mean what you think it means. So shut your traps plebes and let the “experts” get on with the fleecing.

Leave a Comment

  • mrwonderful

    All this post does is show that anyone can cherry pick any data to support any thesis. Picking some arbitrary number like “95 degrees” means nothing. According to that graph and your magic number of 95 degrees – if we had 30 days between the months of December and February where the temperature got above, say 50 degrees – that would be inconsequential. Yet, having 30 days over 50 degrees during the winter would certainly be unusually warm, wouldn’t you say?

    • Tom Ford

      Not in LA.

  • John swaney

    Science denial from an idealogue, color me shocked!

  • Bruce Currie

    As usual, you’ve relied on work by denier/liar Tony Hiller. The posted graph was made treating data recorded over the last century as if sitings didn’t change, time of day the data was recorded didn’t change, and the kind of instruments used to record temp data didn’t change. But all these things did change–hence the need for adjusting the temp record. Hiller’s phony claims, and your repeated reposting of them, are lies, plain and simple. For an accurate picture of the temperature record, read this:https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/hottest-year-on-record/

Previous post:

Next post: