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!
More Time climate covers and 100 years of alternating headlines here:
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/climate-change-alarmism-timelin/
The publisher offers a partial site (20 years ?) of covers, links to essays, videos, and graphics.
http://search.time.com/results.html?N=46&Ntk=NoBody&Nty=1&Ntx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial&Ntt=Global+Warming
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.
WUWT?
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.
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
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.
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!
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):
http://www.time.com/time/today-in-pictures/0,31511,2039872,00.html
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.
WUWT?
============================================================
Unprecedented warming…………..
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!
Happy New Year .
>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.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12
And it you look at HadCRUT from 1937 to 1997 the warming trend is negligible
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1937/to:1997
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.
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
Dave says:
There’s no limit to the nonsense that comes from circular reasoning. Its all in the head and not in reality, thankfully.
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.
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 …
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. 🙂
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.
http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/01/happy-new-year-an-ice-age-is-coming/
Just an observation that made me smile…
On this Time cover they seem to be making off with that tree in Yamal…
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/time-cover2.jpg
The RealClimate folks have been kicking this “cold weather contradiction” around extensively, and their comments/discussion are a hoot! Please see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/
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??
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.
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.
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!