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!

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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
Oxco
January 1, 2011 4:51 am

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

Gaylon
January 1, 2011 4:51 am

Can I get a Poster? I mean of the story photo.
HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!

latitude
January 1, 2011 5:01 am

Here is the article that goes with the 2010 global warming cover:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2039777,00.html

David
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?

sHx
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” )
.

Stacey
January 1, 2011 6:10 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12102126
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.” –
http://www.enotes.com/literary-terms/poetic-license
Anyone may apply for a license to do same here:
http://www.rogerjcarlson.com/LiteraryLicense/LiteraryLicense.asp
.

Pascvaks
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 …

REPLY:
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?

Olen
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.

RockyRoad
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

roger
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!

GregM
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:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2039777,00.html
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”

BillyV
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.

kramer
January 1, 2011 8:09 am

Jimbo, thanks for the links.