Time Magazine and Global Warming

People send me stuff. Nigel Rios writes in with a great compendium of Time Magazine covers that illustrate the history of that magazine’s global warming coverage from the 1970’s to the present. It’s worth the click.

Full sized suitable for printing: large version 2576×1932 pixels

Of course this is all just fun and satire, but for those who didn’t get the spoof, there’s further reading. Check out this WUWT story on Time’s recent article about the December snows of 2010, where they were dead serious.

Time Magazine blizzard science sets low standard for green journalism

Happy New Year!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Timo van Druten
January 1, 2011 12:09 am

A picture tells a 1000 words!!

January 1, 2011 12:20 am

Poodle propaganda rags are rapidly dissapearing due to an enlightened public, educated through the internet. Let’s hope this one fades into oblivion soon. Bloggers rule now.

Nigel Rios
January 1, 2011 12:20 am

Hahaha. You posted it…
Happy New Year!
REPLY: Sure, why not, it’s a good spoof. -Anthony

January 1, 2011 12:21 am

Did I get first comment of the year? Or did some people sneak in before me?

Darell C. Phillips
January 1, 2011 12:22 am

The middle one reminds me of the “This is your brain on drugs” PSA.
These covers also might be good evidence to support “the theory of non-linear Time.”
Happy New Years.

George Turner
January 1, 2011 12:22 am

That’s hillarious!
We laugh at the Romans and Greeks for trying to read the future in animal bones and entrails. The Time cover shows we haven’t advanced any.

January 1, 2011 12:39 am

Proof that scientists have nothing to do with the Global Warming scare. It is all media’s fault. Eh?

January 1, 2011 12:41 am

Well that speaks volumes.

Honest ABE
January 1, 2011 12:43 am

[typo fixed thanks]

Mark T
January 1, 2011 12:51 am

Seems like I remember the ’77 issue…

Dave F
January 1, 2011 12:54 am

Omg, I almost cried laughing. Approaching the asymptote of global warming Zen.
Btw, from ‘Open Thread’ to now, that was a short break man! No wonder you are getting burned out! Forget to pay your electric bill for a month, and force yourself to take a real break, okay?

January 1, 2011 1:00 am

Circular arguements make my head spin… or was it the champagne?
Happy New Year!

David Ball
January 1, 2011 1:09 am

Time wounds all heels. No left turn unstoned. Great stuff, printed and on display. Thx.

Ian Holton
January 1, 2011 1:23 am

That is the way to start the new year with a good laugh!
LOL, that is one very amusing pic!
Thanks for that!
And a Happy New Year to all!

January 1, 2011 1:27 am

Upcoming Cover Story in 2050:
A new ice age. Global Warming is here. We told you so.

January 1, 2011 1:30 am

Happy new year Sir.
So if hot makes cold, then cold must make hot, ergo the colder it gets the higher the temperatures get…er, so the clutch of record lows set across the northern hemisphere, are a sign of higher global temps.
Glad I sorted that out. Gee willickers, the Ice Age must of been steaming hot, you sure it’s TIME? Sounds more like CRIME.
/Sarc Off

January 1, 2011 1:43 am

Happy, healthy and prosperous 2011 to you, Anthony, and lang may yer lum reek.
(Long may your chimney smoke.)

January 1, 2011 1:49 am

Hi Anthony, as an alternative caption may I suggest “Time’s Up For Global Warming”.
Regards Paul.

richard verney
January 1, 2011 1:50 am

As they say, every picture tells a story and the juxtaposition of these suggests that we have come full circle. Further those promoting warming, may well end up with egg on their face.
It is amazing how we have got ourselves in such a tis over approximately 20 years of warming from the mid 70s through to the late 90s. As Einstein commented: there are ony two things that are infinite in life, the extent of the universe and the depth of human stupidy, and I am not sure about the universe!

See - owe to Rich
January 1, 2011 1:56 am

Pigs flying – more signs of global warming.

January 1, 2011 1:57 am

So many statements to make:
“What goes around, comes around”.
“If you don’t like the weather, wait a minute. It’ll change”.
Just think. They like to compare today’s temperatures to at least 30 years in the past (climate). So a freeze 33 years ago compared to a freeze today.
Makes an anomaly zero, doesn’t it?
So it’s amazing that

January 1, 2011 2:07 am

Of course, the above post should read ” …..to you all, Anthony and the Moderators, and lang may yer lums reek.”
(Now I’ve made you all sound like the name of a pop group.
I’m going back to bed.)

January 1, 2011 2:08 am
January 1, 2011 2:09 am

So then when we get Global cooling we should get record warm temps then.

January 1, 2011 2:33 am

If global warming makes it hot enough the whole world will be covered in snow.

January 1, 2011 2:34 am

When you are HOT
you are COOL!

Alexander K
January 1, 2011 3:00 am

I enjoyed reading Time 40 years ago, but either my tastes and sensibilities have changed or it has become breathlessly and eagerly sycophantic of the latest non-science.

Chris Wright
January 1, 2011 3:19 am

At least they used the term ‘global warming’, which is a lot more honest than ‘climate change’, which can mean anything.
But in another way it’s sad. Clearly the good people at Time magazine are so taken in by the global warming delusion that they are incapable of realising just how ridiculous that front page looks.

Chris Wright
January 1, 2011 3:22 am

At least they used the term ‘global warming’, which is a lot more honest than ‘climate change’, which can mean anything.
But in another way it’s pretty sad. Clearly the good people at Time magazine are so obsessed by the global warming delusion that they are incapable of realising how ridiculous that front page looks.

January 1, 2011 3:26 am

AGW is the prohibition of our time.

January 1, 2011 3:41 am

Ah well. Move along, nothing to see here.

Martin L
January 1, 2011 3:45 am

The magazine cover for 2010 appears to be a fabrication: there is none of the usual date/publication information running along the top of the page and the “TIME” font seems inconsistent with previous magazine covers.
That said, it can only be a matter of time before something similar graces the front of the magazine.
REPLY: Note the tags, humor, satire. For some people that didn’t get the joke I added a link to our recent article on Time’s coverage of the December Snows, where they were dead serious. – Anthony

John Norris
January 1, 2011 3:45 am

So upon seeing this post my first thought was, “Hasn’t Time done the standard cuddly polar bear / dwindling ice thing on the cover?”
And they did a cute little penguin too:

amicus curiae
January 1, 2011 3:45 am

Thanks for the first chuckle of the Year:-)
the beauty of Hard print is?
such solid evidence of their idiocy.
after all we can’t trust the internet ..can we?
amazing how many quote that, when the same people IE media andso called? scientists also publish to the net, when journos have no idea at all about what they are covering, but they have a job with a named company, immediate absolution of the need to question it seems.

January 1, 2011 3:45 am

This is unfair on the poor dears.
Anyone can make a mistake, ……like,
Making Adolf the man of the year 1938
And for that matter the dear old uncle Joe man of the year 1939 (and 1942……..only three years after he also invaded Poland, so you see, full rehab is a possibility………..er……

January 1, 2011 3:59 am

Wow. So, I guess that time and ‘Time’ are both one-dimensional. Who knew?

Geoff Sherrington
January 1, 2011 4:12 am

If you spell Time backwards you get “Emit”.
Dark forces are at work. There is a parallel universe where Time goes backwards. (It started about 1990).
There, cold causes heat and heat causes cold.
Drink pure “Evian” water sold by “Natasha”.
Beware of trivia.
Eat this after your medication. Is it a blue pill night or a red pill night?

R. de Haan
January 1, 2011 4:20 am

Could it be that our honored members of the press, just like our political establishment, our educators, civil servants etc. have been brainwashed?
Times Higher Education – Weather forecasting and climate change …
U.S. journalists in Dominican Republic environment seminar …
Making Waves (Climate Change Seminar organized by Reuters)
And Met Office of course
This is only the top of ice berg:
Climate Change seminars are big business, 5,900,000 Google hits
journalist in Google = 735.000 hits
climate Change Seminar Government = 3,610,000 hits
Here is the Met Office web site
If we want to stop the AGW nonsense, we have to start with the seminar circus.
It’s big business

Phil Clarke
January 1, 2011 4:22 am

Time covers are here. http://www.time.com/time/coversearch. I can’t find the 2010 one in this database. Perhaps Nigel can tell us in which week it appeared?
Unless, of course it is a fabrication/mock-up. In which case this should probably be stated to avoid intellectual property/copyright/misrepresentation issues.

Peter Plail
January 1, 2011 4:22 am

I love these reminders of what experts were saying in the past – thanks for the graphic Nigel.
Also thanks to Juraj V for his link to a 1974 article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz0f9xPtGuL) which has a few wonderful phrases in it – I particularly liked:
“global climatic upheaval” which is so much more dynamic than the wimpy “global climate disruption” used today
“During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries.”
“Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”
“Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend.” So we should know how to counteract any warming since we have shown we could to it before.”
“Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic.”
“But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age.”
It it a wonderful testimony to the predictive powers of scientists.
Also a litttle OT, but in today’s Daily Telegraph, the resident weather forecaster, Philip Eden, has pointed out that 2010 was one of the coldest years in the last century in UK – coldest since 1986 and only 9 colder in the preceding 100 years.

January 1, 2011 4:29 am

How apt is the scecond picture,globull warming represented by cooking !!!…………
cooking the temp data, sums it up nicely.

January 1, 2011 4:33 am

Cooling climate change occurred in the 1970’s. Curious how cooling climate change correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes. As cycle 24 appears to be an interruption rather than a slow down of the solar magnetic cycle we will likely have a chance to observe cooling climate change. (There are cycles of these abrupt climate changes periods that correlate with the cosmogenic isotope changes. The cosmogenic isotopes are modulated by changes in GCR (galactic cosmic rays, mostly high speed protons.) GCR is in turn modulated by the strength and extent of the solar heliosphere (The solar heliosphere contains pieces of magnetic flux from the sun that are carried off by the solar wind. The pieces of magnetic flux deflect the GCR particles.) and the strength and orientation of the geomagnetic field. (The geomagnetic field orientation abruptly changes cyclically by roughly 10 to 15% and changes in strength by a factor of 3 to 5 cyclically. The orientation and the strength the geomagnetic field affects the GCR intensity at different latitudes on the planet.)
“An effect of increased cyclogenesis is to increase the meridional transport of heat and momentum and weaken the prevailing westerly zonal winds, as we see in Figure
7(d) for central western Europe. Thus increased cyclogenesis in the North Atlantic due to greater GCR flux during the Maunder Minimum may have contributed to the
reduced zonal winds and colder winters in Europe at that time [Luterbacher et al., 2001]. The main effect has been attributed by Shindell et al. [2001] to reduced solar UV during the Maunder Minimum. The quantitative study of the dynamical consequences of externally forced cloud and diabatic heating changes has received little attention so far, but the physical theory needed for numerically modeling such effects seems to be reasonably well established. Such models would provide a good test of the general scenario describe …”
Blizzard of 1977

Blizzard of 1978

Interesting that the Newsweek 1974 Cooling World article noted a scientists at the time had observed an increase in planetary cloud cover. High GCR causes both an increase in the area of cloud cover and an increase in the albedo and lifetime of clouds.
“1974 Newsweek Article Cooling World:
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

R. de Haan
January 1, 2011 4:34 am

The seminar circuit is self sustaining.
The journalists who serves the case of climate change best makes a good chance to be invited as a speaker at the next seminar.
That brings honor and serious money.
Richard Black is such an example.
These practices have undermined the journalistic independence of our media for a long time and they are beyond saving.
But when I look at the public comments that are left with warmist publications they are failing.
The general public knows what’s going on and people are a lot smarter than given credit for.
Mother Nature does the rest.

Alberta Slim
January 1, 2011 4:34 am

Time magazine is also famous for picking the tops and bottoms of the stock market over the years.
When the cover page shows how high the Dow is; that is the peak.
Also, when the cover shows a chart of the Dow and how low it is; that’s the bottom.
Another observation was that, if a CEO made the cover of time his career was over.
Or as mentioned above for Adolph.

January 1, 2011 4:35 am

More global warming for the USA

“Severe Arctic Outbreak Forecast for Mid-January”

January 1, 2011 4:38 am

Global warming research stuck in a loop? Its the MSM suffering some major trauma thinking snow is warming, bless em for their efforts hehe.
Happy new year one & all!

January 1, 2011 4:38 am

Time magazine mood swings.
The difference in spatio temporal continuity between the flagulation of one deceased quadruped and the next…or the previous one.

Phil Clarke
January 1, 2011 4:43 am

Ah – I speculate that Mr Rios took this story http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2039777,00.html and elevated it to a ‘mocked up’ cover story for ‘satirical purposes.
REPLY: Bingo, congrats as you are the first commenter to make this distinction – Anthony

David L
January 1, 2011 4:45 am

All that’s missing in the sequence is the frying egg and a comment that the intense heatwaves are due to global cooling… Then the circle will be complete! Maybe in a few years?

R. de Haan
January 1, 2011 4:49 am
January 1, 2011 4:51 am

Global warming, climate changes, Global cooling is nothing BUT big business. Great picture

January 1, 2011 4:51 am

Can I get a Poster? I mean of the story photo.

January 1, 2011 5:01 am

Here is the article that goes with the 2010 global warming cover:

January 1, 2011 5:12 am

There was another similar Time Covers Set of pictures produced about a year ago which showed 6 covers dating from around the early 1900’s talking about cooling, followed by one from the 40’s going on about warming, the 70’s cover as above with cooling and the 2000’s showing warming again, ie cycling on average every 30 years. Does anyone have a copy or link to this?

January 1, 2011 5:30 am

Sorry, folks, the third issue may be a fabrication. I can’t find the cover in the magazine archive: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601110110,00.html
Even if it is fabrication, it is a witty one, and it will prove prescient.

Pamela Gray
January 1, 2011 5:42 am

-4 in Wallowa County. If Joe Bastardi’s prediction comes true for an even colder January, our rivers and stock streams are primed already for almost an immediate freeze up. That means ice jams and extra hours spent watering cattle. However, in the old days when there was no electricity, this was considered a valuable resource. Icemen (who were more often than not loggers frozen out of the forests) would trudge down to the rivers with workhorse and wagon to cut ice blocks for icehouses. These icehouses -my ranch still has one, currently filled with wood- were filled with iceblocks surrounded by sawdust. The sawdust kept the blocks from melting. The icehouse kept produce cold till nearly the end of summer. With the present scheme to replace fossil and wood fuels with wind and solar, better sharpen that saw.

Warren in Minnesota
January 1, 2011 5:59 am

I agree with Martin L. There was no cover for 2010 for the Holiday Blizzard, but there was an article in the December 29 issue (at least on-line). The other two covers for 2001 and 1977 can be found in Time’s cover archive.

January 1, 2011 6:10 am

Hi mods and Anthony (and readers) – Happy New Year to all!
(Possible typo, 1st line/2nd sentence, to wit:
“Nigel Rios writes is with …”–> “Nigel Rios writes in with” )

January 1, 2011 6:10 am

Floods in Australia of biblical proportions.
Is this a first for the BBC no mention of global warming or climate change? Certainly BBC television news has steered away almost completely in mentioning climate change during the last two months, probably because they do not want to be a laughing stock.
Happy New year Anthony, contributors, moderators and posters.

January 1, 2011 6:22 am

sHx says on January 1, 2011 at 5:30 am :
Sorry, folks, the third issue may be a fabrication. I …

Literary (Poetic) license – “Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd”, also “produce a desired effect by deviating from conventional form, established rule, fact, or logic.” –
Anyone may apply for a license to do same here:

January 1, 2011 6:26 am

(HalfSarcOn)PT Barnum was the Master of Salemanship and every newsboy in the country who ever stood on a street corner selling a newspaper learned the Magic Art the first day. There’s nothing unholy or mean in ‘elaborating’ a little on a headline or about some story on the cover or inside. A kid’s gotta’ make a buck somehow. The kids at TIME are just trying to make a little profit. (HalfSarcOff)

Jack Greer
January 1, 2011 6:34 am

And then there are those who gleefully promote and roll-around-in media hype that was debunked long ago …….. when it fits their agenda … but when “People send me stuff.”, what can one do but post it?
The American Meteorological Society became sick of that too: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf
Happy New Year – same as the old year, evidently …

And you are still humorless as ever. Note the tags, humor, satire.
We aren’t talking about Wiki Warper Connolley aka “Stoat” we are talking about Time magazine and their coverage.
Read this, then laugh: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz0f9xPtGuL
– Anthony

January 1, 2011 6:38 am

Besides reams of meaningless, unconnected anecdotal stories covering a few years or decades, and 24 computer climate models that are always wrong, what proof is there that man has any measurable influence on the climate? (Please, don’t show me that discredited FrankenGraph called The Hockey Stick with its lone Yamal Penninsula pine cone bristle evidence).
6E8 years of CO2 and temperature data (Berner and Scotese), 10,500 years of GISP2 ice core temperatures, and 180 years of CO2 measurement (Beck 2007) prove that the climate has been significantly warmer in the past than it is now.
Normally, one fact is enough to kill any theory. In the case of global warming, there are nothing but facts that kill the theory. How many times do we have to endure watching the neverending attempts to resusitate this dead cat? Where’s the proof?

January 1, 2011 6:46 am

Time in the mid 1930s was a different magazine. Decades ago I was scrounging through some old magazines in the Denver Public Library and found a mid 30s Time Magazine with an article about the dangers of Joseph Stalin and Communism. The article nailed him for the evil man he was.
I wonder how many libraries are storing Time Magazine today.
Anyway they are free to print what they want but so are we to read what we want.

January 1, 2011 6:46 am

“William says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:33 am
Interesting that the Newsweek 1974 Cooling World article noted a scientists at the time had observed an increase in planetary cloud cover. High GCR causes both an increase in the area of cloud cover and an increase in the albedo and lifetime of clouds.”
Just the same thing has been observed since the late90s according to the Earthshine project.
However I don’t think cosmic rays are a significant contributor. At the same time the mid latitude jets became more meridional which vastly increased the length of the interfaces between air masses for more cloud production and a cloud nearer the equator increases the amount of solar energy blocked so there is a good explanation for varying albedo without invoking cosmic rays at all.
I would like to see that hypothesis investigated as a plausible alternative to Svensmark’s proposals.

January 1, 2011 6:50 am

Another case of “if it’s too good to be true …”. As others have noted, the 2010 cover doesn’t appear in the archive. However, yet another article of “green” voodoo on December 28 makes me applaud the poster.

Bruce Cobb
January 1, 2011 7:19 am

Well, as the song goes: “Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin'”
Into ignominy.
The above cover may be a fake, but the article itself isn’t.
The fact that the MSM have been complicit in the whole CAGW scarefest is both a travesty, and will prove their undoing.

January 1, 2011 7:35 am

Methinks shallow people constantly focus on weather and climate, climate and weather, with little or no understanding of the subject, the science, and the ramifications. Hence, they speak much but say very little.
“News” is a constant stream of information–typically focused on the here and now and generally lacking any context in Time.

January 1, 2011 7:46 am

Martin L says:
January 1, 2011 at 3:45 am
The magazine cover for 2010 appears to be a fabrication
I agree. And the pixels are too big, too.
REPLY: Note the tags, humor, satire. For some people that didn’t get the joke I added a link to our recent article on Time’s coverage of the December Snows – Anthony

January 1, 2011 7:47 am

Pamela Gray says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:42 am
As always, interesting and informative, but hopefully not prescient. Happy New Year!

January 1, 2011 7:53 am

sHx says:
January 1, 2011 at 5:30 am
Sorry, folks, the third issue may be a fabrication. I can’t find the cover in the magazine archive:
Here´s the article anyway:
Circular reasoning and asymmetric thinking indeed.
Ole Humlum at http://www.climate4you.com/ has some good remarks on groupthink and global warming, see under “Climate reflections”

January 1, 2011 8:04 am

Chris Wright (among other things) says:
January 1, 2011 at 3:19 am
“Clearly the good people at Time magazine are so taken in by the global warming delusion that they are incapable of realising just how ridiculous that front page looks.”
Well, for some of us, their ridiculous stance and advocacy of anything in support of AGW was way too much and may they be soon relegated to the dustbin of history and perhaps occasionally old copies found in garages stacked under the work bench along side of LIFE magazine.
If they are so taken in by CAGW, their stance on any other issue is so suspect one cannot trust their content and since I did not subscribe to a comic book; being a long time subscriber, my only way to retaliate was to cancel.

January 1, 2011 8:09 am

Jimbo, thanks for the links.

January 1, 2011 8:18 am

More Time climate covers and 100 years of alternating headlines here:

John F. Hultquist
January 1, 2011 8:31 am

The publisher offers a partial site (20 years ?) of covers, links to essays, videos, and graphics.

January 1, 2011 8:36 am

In the 1974 Time article “Another Ice Age” the author writes of a 2.7F drop in global temperature from the 1940’s.
GISS now puts that at about 0.2C.

January 1, 2011 8:41 am

Happy New Year Everyone!! I hope you all are enjoying this new year holiday!! Here in Florida we’re suffering with “local warming” today. It’s 77 degrees here, but please don’t worry about us as we can sweat through these hot winter days and survive. We’ve learned how to adapt to weather extremes like this.

Justa Joe
January 1, 2011 8:51 am

The aburdity of the last cover if in fact genuine says to me that Time (they’re broke BTW) follows the direction of their paymasters, and that’s not the subscribers. Uncle Sam, Uncle Soros, GE, or groups like the Tides foundation must be pumping money into Time.
REPLY: Apparently the spoof was too subtle. The cover is a satire, the news article in Time however is real – Anthony

Stop Global Dumbing Now
January 1, 2011 8:57 am

Darn Global Warming! It sent snow 15 miles north of me (2nd time in nearly 30 years) but not to me.
Happy New Year, all. Thanks for your hard work.

John F. Hultquist
January 1, 2011 8:59 am

Jack Greer says: at 6:34 am
. . . same as the old . . .

By your comment, are you saying there was not a consensus of researchers in the 1970s regarding climate change? That’s good, right? Because science is supposed to be the home turf of skeptics, right? But do I sense from your wordsmithing that you believe there should be a consensus now and that skepticism should be banished? Maybe you should be feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance about now.
A sense of humor will help to ease that pain.
Happy New Year – everyone!

Nigel Rios
January 1, 2011 9:20 am

To the ones that didn’t get it, of course it is a fabrication.
This is the original photo (it actually appeared on time.com):

January 1, 2011 9:38 am

GP says:
January 1, 2011 at 8:36 am
In the 1974 Time article “Another Ice Age” the author writes of a 2.7F drop in global temperature from the 1940′s.
GISS now puts that at about 0.2C.
Unprecedented warming…………..

Dave Dodd
January 1, 2011 9:38 am

ca. 1980, while gainfully employed by a medical products company, I remember the “bogey man” of the time was the loss of the Blue Whales. Greenpeace tearfully pointed out that there would be no lovable Blue Whales for our children to pet and admire. Very shortly thereafter a sign was posted in our electronics department showing a huge Cadillac, blowing a VW off the road, with a bumper sticker proclaiming: “Nuke the Blue Whales!” (There was also a picture of Qadaffy (sp?) with crosshairs on his forehead, but that’s a different thread) Since it’s now Polar Bears that our children will so tearfully miss, did the Blue Whales not survive? I’m perplexed!

P Walker
January 1, 2011 9:42 am

Happy New Year .

January 1, 2011 10:11 am

>It is amazing how we have got ourselves in such a tis over approximately 20 years of warming from the mid 70s through to the late 90s.
Not really. According to satellites, all the warming occurred in one year, in 1998, when we stepped up about .25C.
And it you look at HadCRUT from 1937 to 1997 the warming trend is negligible

P Wilson
January 1, 2011 10:20 am

1977 must have been “more signs of global warming” (sic) too according to 2010’s reasoning: Big freeze.
2001: Global warming: It was global cooling thus, since if warming causes freeze, then heating is global cooling
2010. The compromise. global warming cooling.
Even if we enter a bitter ice age that lasts thousands of years, in the near to remote future, its all global warming and Anthropogenic c02 causing runaway greenhouse blistering temperatures that are associated with ice ages.

January 1, 2011 10:22 am

If people don’t expect you to make satire on a whim, even if it comes with a sign, their behavior to what you make will seem rather autistic (which, ironically, statistically, seem to become all too true when conversing with the overly educated bunch.) :p

P Wilson
January 1, 2011 10:28 am

Dave says:
There’s no limit to the nonsense that comes from circular reasoning. Its all in the head and not in reality, thankfully.

January 1, 2011 10:39 am

This 6-minute video shows some excerpts from the popular press (Time, Newsweek, Science Digest) as well as the scientific press (Science) about the gloobal cooling alarm in the early 70s, some of whose proponents are now global warming alarmists.

Tim Clark
January 1, 2011 10:44 am

Jack Greer says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:34 am
And then there are those who gleefully promote and roll-around-in media hype that was debunked long ago …….. when it fits their agenda … but when “People send me stuff.”, what can one do but post it?

I ask you sincerely to make a New Years resolution to enjoy life. However, I admonish you not to smile outdoors in the current cold environment, as your cheeks may crack.
The American Meteorological Society became sick of that too: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf
Happy New Year – same as the old year, evidently …

January 1, 2011 10:51 am

Thanks Nigel,
Those that “did not get it” have agreed to post something they find comical as an olive branch gesture suggesting they actually do have a sense humor and in the future will lighten up slightly from such serious posturing. A new year resolution perhaps. 🙂

Warren in Minnesota
January 1, 2011 11:04 am

Note the tags, humor, satire. For some people that didn’t get the joke I added a link to our recent article on Time’s coverage of the December Snows – Anthony
Apparently the spoof was too subtle. The cover is a satire, the news article in time however is real – Anthony

I never look at the tags and did not know of them. I now see that they follow the advertising, are before the comments, and in a gray font which I thought was meant to be skipped. So I always skip the ad and jump to the comments. I would expect spoofs at the beginning of next quarter and not the new year.

January 1, 2011 11:05 am
Ulric Lyons
January 1, 2011 11:18 am

On this Time cover they seem to be making off with that tree in Yamal…

CRS, Dr.P.H.
January 1, 2011 11:19 am

The RealClimate folks have been kicking this “cold weather contradiction” around extensively, and their comments/discussion are a hoot! Please see:
There are some real gems, here’s but a sampling:
“Regarding comment #9 by Lazarus, it seems a solution would be to make the title more specific to something like “Cold local winters in a warming world” or “Cold regional…” or “Cold European and eastern U.S. winters…” (needs a bit of work). We could just as accurately write “Unusually warm Arctic winters in a warming world”, as such unusual cold in Europe and eastern U.S. is often coupled with very mild temperatures in parts of the Arctic.
Deniers will still spin it but it’s a little more difficult when some ambiguity is removed and it’s made clear what this particular analysis is referring to.”
LOL!! What on earth are they talking about??

January 1, 2011 11:35 am

The sun as a moderator of GCR is no doubt important, but may not be the whole story. It is likely an error to assume the GCR flux at the heliospere is constant. Cosmogenic isotope levels vary dramatically have attained levels in ice cores >10k y ago that are far above the amounts produced during the Little Ice Age, for example.
The Sun plays a role, but a minor one if perhaps the GCR flux could increase 10-100x as our solar system passed through a higher density ‘current’ of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are known to be anisotropic, and that seems to be reflected in dramatically different cosmogenic isotope levels seen in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores of the same age.
In a story on the IBEX mission, ScienceDaily writes, “galactic magnetic fields had a far greater impact on Earth’s history than previously conceived” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016112630.htm). SD also reports on IBEX imaging galactic field near the sun acting like a mirror (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100112171811.htm).
OK, warmistas, put that in your pipe.

January 1, 2011 11:52 am

sHw says: “It is all media’s fault. Eh?”
Yes, to a considerable degree. The theory that man-made CO2 will lead to catastrophic warming depends on positive feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere. The growth of AGW as a social and political phenomenon depends on the positive feedback mechanism provided by the MSM.
An environmental scare starts with scientists identifying a potential danger. Green activists promote a simplified version to the mass media, in which the danger is emphasised and any uncertainties are ignored. The media see a good story so they don’t look too closely into whether it is actually credible. They publish a sensationalised version of the simplified version because apocalypse always sells. Global Warming Will Doom Us All!
The first media stories create public interest in the subject and thus a demand for more stories. To meet this demand the media need to find new angles to cover, so they try to link the alleged danger to every bad thing that is currently happening in the world or which could happen in future. Global Warming Causes Everything!
But when every MSM outlet is promoting the same scare story the only way to stand out is to be more sensational than the rest. So the scale of the alleged danger gets exaggerated more and more. The media promote the activists and scientists who make the most scary predictions while ignoring anyone who takes a more cautious view. Icecaps Gone By Tuesday!
So the mass media acts as a positive feedback mechanism that turns a concern raised by a few people into a global panic. But every scare story is eventually tested against reality. If the alleged danger does not materialise the public will start to discount it. By this time the politicians will have created a plethora of legislation to address the threat and/or appease the media. Many of these measures will impose new taxes or restrictions on the public, so public attention will gradually shift from a danger that has failed to materialise to government policies that are affecting them right now. Global Warming Will Double Your Energy Bills!
Eventually the scare collapses. A majority of the public becomes sceptical about it and the media and politicians are forced to follow out of self-interest. There is also a limit to how long any mass media craze can be sustained before there is simply nothing left to write about it. After a while a new scare is created. Oceans Turning To Acid!
But this feedback mechanism only works when a small number of media outlets dominate public debate, forming a cartel of conventional wisdom. It is a product of a particular set of circumstances found in the United States and elsewhere in the Western world in the second half of the 20th century. The emergence of internet-based new media means that scare stories can now be effectively challenged before they gain momentum. Global Warming is the last great scare of the MSM era.
I therefore predict that the scale and intensity of environmental scares will steadily decrease as the power of the old mass media declines. But the Y2K bug scare and the irrational optimism of the Dot Com boom were driven by the same positive feedback mechanisms. So the decline of the mass media should hopefully lead to a general decline in panics and manias of all kinds.

January 1, 2011 12:39 pm

Will this be the year when Hansen et al pops up shrieking “I C E A G E !” that’s what we meant all along, just look at what we said back in the hippie decade, the whole warmist stuff was just a clever ruse (like masquerading rising CO2 with warming when it was obvious rising CO2 gave rise to colder climate) and we meant anthropogenic ice age all a long.
Bow before our feet. Give us the daily power. And trust in us to do the right thing, yet again. But this time invest heavily in our new and approved clean green coal Gore power!

January 1, 2011 2:33 pm

I find it particularly interesting that not only has the concept of global warming come full circle to explain the current successive cold and snowy northern hemisphere winters, that one would associate with cooling, but that the current use of the term “climate change” is now associated with AGW in main stream media.
Here is a link that many on this site will find very informing
This link will take you to the National Academies Press page of the NAS. The first document listed is a research report to the Academy prepared by a special task for the NAS empaneled specifically to report on the scientific basis of “Abrupt Climate Change”. This site allows you to skim or read sections or even the entire document on line.
If you start on page 24 you will discover that the period of abrupt climate change studied is the “Younger Dryas” abrupt change from warmth to ice age conditions at about 12,800 years ago and the abrupt warming that then occurred about 1,200 years ago. This time frame is discussed in detail based upon multiple paths of correlated evidence from greenland ice cores, isotopic evidence, ocean cores and others. You might want to check out page 30 for a discussion of the biological evidence line that actually gave this event its name (i.e alternating layers pollen from the arctic Dryas plant with levels of peat).
The fascinating point here is that in 2002 the NAS used the term Abrupt Climate Change to mean the abrupt change from an interglacial warm period to that of glaciation, and then abruptly reverse again, as evidenced by analysis of ice corings and other indices. Today the term’s meaning has been reversed. On top of that, I doubt if any of the climate scientists who are using this term today are even aware of the 2002 NAS study and explicitly documented report.
Incidentally, this was one of the first scientific documents I read when I started researching climate issues. I say scientific, because it is based upon analyses of many different sources of data collected over the last 80 years or more, in other words, by documented scientific research.

January 1, 2011 2:42 pm

that’s 1200 years later – not 1200 years ago.

January 1, 2011 4:08 pm

Could have added a 4th TIME cover (real one, at that), the one from 12/24/79, titled “The Cooling of America”.
The idea (and the satire) remains. TIME is going through a cooling/warming cycle.

January 2, 2011 2:26 am

Geoff Sherrington says:
January 1, 2011 at 4:12 am
“If you spell Time backwards you get “Emit”.
Dark forces are at work. There is a parallel universe where Time goes backwards. (It started about 1990).
There, cold causes heat and heat causes cold.
Drink pure “Evian” water sold by “Natasha”.
Beware of trivia.”
If you spell Evian backwards you get “Naive”, and Natasha backwards gives you “Ah-satan”. Dark forces indeed.
Happy New Year to all!

Les Francis
January 2, 2011 3:16 am

That would be the same Time Magazine that named
Adolph Hitler: “Man of the year for 1939”
Josef Stalin “Man of the year for 1942”.

matt v.
January 2, 2011 8:04 am

Although some regions are colder than others , the pattern of general cooling is global and started already a decade ago.
PDO has gone negative and cooling since Sept ember 2007 [probably for the next 20 -30 years]
AMO has peaked and has started its decline again since July 2010. It is anticipated to go negative or cooling by 2015
SOI has been high positive [around +20] since July [predicts cold weather 5-7 months later]
AO and NAO are now more frequently at higher negative levels [AO had record monthly low of -4.266 in Feb 2010 and nearly -5 in December 2010]
Solar activity continues low at near minimum levels
Most Global mean temperature anomaly data sets show recent dropping anomalies in 2010
Ocean SST’S are dropping
Ocean heat content rise has leveled off for the last 6 years [major decline in the North Atlantic Ocean heat content]
Europe and Asia have had three cold winters in a row [new low record colds set 2010 in many regions]
European annual temperature anomalies [land] have been dropping since 2007
UK [CET] annual temperatures have been dropping since 2006[4years]
2010 was the coldest year [[8.83 C] for Central England UK since 1986 or in 14 years [8.74 C]
UK Winter temperatures have been dropping since 2007[4 years]. Last two winters were record cold in UK
North American annual temperatures have been cooling since 2006
Canadian winters have been cooling since 2001[El Nino winters excluded]
US had one of its worst winters in 2010[15th coldest since 1895] despite an El Nino
Record snow or new cold temperatures set in December 2010 in
Sweden had coldest December in 110 years,
UK had coldest December since in 120 years
Germany had coldest December in 41 years
Armagh, Ireland had coldest December since 1881 or in129 years
Similar cold records were set in Norway, US just to name a few others
2010 had the 2nd most snow extent for Northern Hemisphere since the1978/1979 winter [2008 had the 3rd highest since 1967]
2010 had the highest winter snow extent since 1967 and the extent has been climbing since 2006
5 of the11 highest snow extents for Eurasia have happened since 2003[2003 was the2nd highest since 1967]
La Nina cooling for the next year or more ?
Nino3.4 SST anomaly [-1.5 C]
No global warming for a decade now or since 2001[ per hadcrut3gl ]
No statistically significant global warming since 1995 [per Prof Jones CRU] 15 years

January 2, 2011 10:09 am

Amazing, Nobel Peace Propaganda Prize material! Climate Science has demonstrated that if you work hard enough on Journalists Parrots, they will change their tune! Worldwide “Justice” soon to follow!

January 2, 2011 10:20 am

HaHa, “Global Justice” soon to follow. I’m [not] amazed I blew that one!
[Right the first time. ~dbs]

Mark Samson
January 2, 2011 1:16 pm

The 1977 Time article is not about global cooling, or anything other than one particularly harsh winter. So, technically it has no point being in the “circular reasoning” gag, but one over-analyzes a joke at one’s own peril. Also, it is pretty well known that the criteria for Time’s “Man [or Person] of the Year” has nothing to do with one’s moral standing or popularity; it has everything to do with one’s impact on the world, whether for good or ill.

January 2, 2011 4:02 pm

OT slightly – I just saw a gem on CNN. One of the female anchors – Hala Gorani I think – did a short interview with US meteorologist Jeff Masters, on “why global warming is causing colder winters”. He was giving it the open fridge door and leaking cold from the Arctic narrative (low Arctic sea ice etc..) by Skype link, when his Skype link froze and the viewing millions watched his frozen rictus grin for about 10 seconds before the interviewer cut it mercifully short.

January 2, 2011 6:40 pm

Warren in Minnesota says:
January 1, 2011 at 11:04 am

I never look at the tags and did not know of them. I now see that they follow the advertising, are before the comments, and in a gray font which I thought was meant to be skipped. So I always skip the ad and jump to the comments. I would expect spoofs at the beginning of next quarter and not the new year.

I bet you’ve never checked out my Guide to WUWT (see link in the top right area of this page). The index page for the guide includes a link to http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/categories.html
Some of us find the categories useful enough to take note of. One of my favorite categories is ridiculae.

January 4, 2011 11:12 am

4chan has a response:
NOTE: The link above goes to an anime site, not something we normally allow, but in this case the response is contained in the image, not the post, so I’ll allow it. Just click the image link to avoid all the anime crap – Anthony

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights