Compiled by Tom Scott
Please note that many of these quotes were taken almost verbatim from various sources, but I have made a effort to verify each before inclusion. (See at end for a partial list of sources)
Before getting to the climate quotes, I offer the following in order to provide a feel for the sociopolitical background in which modern climate science must operate. This article is not meant to impugn all who practice the art of climate science, but to provide the reader with some idea of the historical turmoil in the arena, some of the conclusions drawn by its practitioners, and the continuing pressures to create dire climate prognostication for self-serving and political purposes.
Two quotes from H.L. Mencken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
And three more quotes on knowledge and politics:
“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.” -Alston Chase
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” -Vladimir Lenin
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule.” -Saul Alinsky
And a little something to motivate all climate “heretics”.
“First they tell you that you’re wrong, and they can prove it.
Then they tell you you’re right, but it’s not important.
Then they tell you it’s important, but they’ve known it for years.”
-CF Kettering, Time Magazine July 11, 1969, pg 54.
Now, lets look into the motivational background of a few typical players in the green climate movement.
On their love for the human race:
Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” John Holdren, now President Obama’s science czar made this statement before taking on that role: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Thoughts on cheap power
Cheap power is the ultimate lever for multiplying human effort and productivity. The end of worldwide slavery can be directly tied to the advent of steam power, and the availability of cheap electrical power was a key enabler for the creation of a large middle class and the advancement of women’s rights, among many other profoundly positive sociological changes. What do key green players think about cheap power?
Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
-Presidential candidate Barack Obama, January 2008
With that background in mind, here are some quotes from before 1970, the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s. Recognize any of the players? Care to guess if the world has suffered any of the projected climate disasters?
Before 1970
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. -Washington Post 11/2/1922
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” –Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923
The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age -Time Magazine 9/10/1923
America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise – New York Times 3/27/1933
A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” -New York Times – May 30, 1947
Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. -New York Times August 29, 1954
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. -New York Times – January 30, 1961
Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.
-Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962 The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. – Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)
It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by
7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. -Presidential adviser Daniel Moynihan, 1969 (later Sen. [D] from New York 1976-2000)
From the 70s
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air
pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” -Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” -Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” -Kenneth E.F. Watt in “Earth Day,” 1970.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” -Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 1970
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” -George Wald, Harvard Biologist 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” -Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes -Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” -Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971
Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. -Los Angles Times – May 16, 1972
From the 1980s
[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” -James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988
U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP – entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect -Associated Press June 30, 1989
New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now -St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989
Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. -Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989
From the 1990s
“(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots… “(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… “The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands”. -Michael Oppenheimer, “Dead Heat” 1990
Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert – Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected “greenhouse effect,” scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990
By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. -5000 Days to Save the Planet – Edward Goldsmith 1991
“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years,” he said. – Dr Russ Schnell, research scientist at Mauna Loa Observatory, BBC November 7, 1997
From the 2000s
“But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.” -Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund, New York Times – January 2000
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. -Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” -Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia – Mar 20, 2000 Environmental refugees to top 50 million in 5 years –“There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change and other phenomena,” -UNU-EHS Director Janos Bogardi – United Nations University news release – 10/11/2005
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. -BBC Dec. 12, 2007
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. -National Geographic News June 20, 2008
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap… -Rep.(D) Henry Waxman, chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee, April 2009
Of course there is no land under the ice within 400+ miles of the north pole, and indeed the water there is about 13,000 feet deep. Mr. Waxman would seem frightfully ignorant for a man in his position. This was recorded during an interview with Tavis Smiley on his NPR TV show. Smiley is known to be very willing to assist Democrat causes, so it could be assumed that this quote could have been retracted before airing had Waxman made a timely request, or if Smiley himself had a clue how ignorant these statements were.
Although they would not admit it publicly, by now the IPPC crowd already knew that the climate had stopped warming. This is confirmed by “climategate” emails, made public in 2009.
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” —Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, Climategate e-mail, disclosed Oct. 12, 2009
Meanwhile, outsiders were also aware of the “pause” and were seeking information
through the Freedom of Information Act. So the climate science crowd began fighting back against such requests in an attempt to hide embarrassing data:
“…We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it…” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008 (AR4 was the 4th Climate Assessment report released by the IPCC in 2007)
Whats more, they were apparently engaged in a process of “hiding” previous warm
periods so as to accentuate the warming of the 1990s. The 1940s were particularly troublesome because the historical record indicated that a few of those years had been warmer than any since. That data has since been “corrected” by adjusting downward the 1940s temperatures. For example:
“…If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip…” —Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008
And yet, with record high CO2 levels and well over a decade into the “pause”, the public was stillbeing fed the notion that CO2 was the “control knob” for warming:
“…the global surface albedo [surface whiteness] and greenhouse gas changes account for practically the entire global climate change.” —Dr. James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, 2009
From the 2010s
And so, since about 2010, the global temperature readings have been relentlessly “adjusted”…. almost exclusively downward for data prior to about 1950 and upward thereafter. Meanwhile, much original data have been destroyed or redacted from public view:
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.” —Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, declaring that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011
But no worries…. after all they are (climate) SCIENTISTS so we should trust that everything they claim is perfectly accurate. And if we also need to bow down to a world technocracy headed by the U.N., then no worries, because (climate) SCIENTISTS told us that we must do so, or our children will die, and who are we to ignore their predictions? After all, I bet they are almost never wrong!
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” -Saul Alinsky
And finally, to regain some composure after all of that science-ish disinformation, I suggestreading this monologue from the late George Carlin:
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our
prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic… asshole.” -George Carlin
As noted, this article contains a compendium of quotes available online. Some sources include:
Revisiting Climategate as Climatism Falters -Steve Gorham — June 6, 2013
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm
http://www.climatism.net/quotes-on-climate-change-environment-and-energy/
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/global-warming
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“… FALL after a general decrease in temperature.”
In case you miss reading above where an uninformed commenter posed a Q to DBStealey:
Please see also my post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/friday-funny-over-a-centurys-worth-of-failed-eco-climate-quotes-and-disinformation/#comment-1807250
Yep. Salby is a serious scientist, and the author of one of the most widely acclaimed textbooks in climate science – I highly recommend his latest. He is not out to take a wrecking ball to the edifice he helped build, but he is unwilling to “go along to get along” when he sees the science being adulterated. The book is rigorous, highly advanced reading towards the latter part, and unafraid to identify both the strengths and weaknesses in the various theories.
PS: Good to see you here, Janice.
Oh, Bart! #(:))
And am I VERY GLAD to see you! After I left this thread to eat dinner, I prayed God would send someone (assuming D.B. was busy) or ones to help davidmhoffer fight the trolls/provide truth to prevent the trolls from misleading those who genuinely want to learn AND YOU WERE ON MY MIND! Yea!
Nice posts above (and by several others, including D.B. (wow! what a bibliography)).
Hope all is well with you — YOU rock!
Take care O Poster of Heroic Proportions,
Janice
Hi Janice sigh “the attack of the tolls.” I don’t think dbstealey really needed any help with this lot. They’re very unsophisticated. Fixed on one point. Bad strategy They have to know that the knowledge level here is very high. I really think they should have signed up for the debating society as undergrads. That is if they even attended a institute of higher learning.
michael
Hi, Mike,
Yeah, indeed. Nor did davidmhoffer need help, but, I thought it would be nice for him (since at the time he was the only really solid knowledge guy on the thread) to have a buddy.
They struck me as desperate windmill and or solar panel promoters madly flinging sawdust at the dike of l1es that is crumbling before their beady little eyes.
I’m so glad so MANY heavy hitters showed up, though, for there are the seriously searching silent readers who may otherwise be fooled by those fuddlers.
I don’t think we’ve met before — do I “know” you? Did you used to post as Mike MacGuire? I remember that guy (a meteorologist). Anyway, “Hi” and thanks for chatting a little bit!
Your WUWT Ally for Truth,
Janice
Half of all climate scientists and ecologists are idiots.
On second thoughts, I withdraw that statement; half of all scientists and ecologists are NOT idiots.
Robert Bradley Jr reviews: Doubling Down On Climate Alarmism
Al Gore…. The Gift….. 🙂
“Super Cereal” — South Park (youtube vid)
“… The End.” loloollloloolol
D. Socrates asserts:
Since the conditions that are happening today have no precedent in the geological record, your reference to such doesn’t help matters.
I really wonder if this guy is putting us on? I can’t believe he’s really that ignorant.
On the off chance that he’s serious, I refer Mr Socrates-Grouse to the climate Null Hypothesis: there is nothing happening now that has not happened repeatedly in the past, and to a greater degree, and before human emissions began.
The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore everything currently observed is normal. In fact, the extremely *minor* temperature fluctuation of only 0.7ºC, over a century and a half, is practically unprecedented. We are very fortunate to be living in a truly “Goldilocks” climate. Because normally, global T changes much more than that, and on much shorter time scales. And CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
Really, Socrates has to be fooling with us. No one can be that ignorant. It must be deliberate trolling.
Hi dbstealey, yeah trolls, poor ones. Seems you were their target. They ignored most others. What were they supposed to achieve? It took them time and effort they didn’t have a hope in h*** of getting anyone to buy off on their spiel. Bragging rights?
Anyway I went to sleep on the open thread. So Latin. Si vis pacem para bellum, your turn.
michael
PAX PROPTER VIM!
#(:))
EXCELLENT TEACHING, D.B.!
Your grateful student (many and many a time you have taught ME over the past 18 months or so),
Janice
Hi, ding! got me will have to look it up. I am new. A military history dropout. 5-1/2 years. I came out of a Technical school for high school.half the time in the trade the other half in classroom. After several years in the trade I went to college. Then back to Machine tooling. Also as a boy I became an amateur astronomer .I was brushing up on the sun a year and half ago when one thing after another led here. My wife finally let post a couple weeks ago. I think all of you can guess why.
PAX PROPTER VIM Peace through power. (smile)
michael
Welcome, Michael.
Formal education is NOT the controlling factor in what makes a scholar — you are obviously bright and with your thoughtful approach to analysis along with your technical aptitude, I’d say that makes you a de facto scientist. And you are always learning (unlike the fools above who only “delight in airing their own opinions” Proverbs something:something).
Glad you are here.
(personally, I don’t think “Morlock” fits… that would fit any of the cotton-headed trolls above)
How about Mike the Engineer? or anything with a more positive connotation than Morlock?
Your wife would agree with me! #(:)) (but, re: “let me…” don’t let her boss you around…. life’s too short to spend it on the end of someone else’s chain — “…. just walk beside me and be my friend.” Remember? :))
Pleased to have made your acquaintance,
Janice
” there is nothing happening now that has not happened repeatedly in the past, ”
Gee, so you think the dinosaurs had oil drilling rigs millions of years ago that extracted deposits of oil?
Wow, dinosaurs, with or without oil rigs, are not climate. We are discussing climate, in particular the astounding list of FAILED predictions by alarmist What do you think of them?
Was really interesting read. It makes you realise how incredibly determined vested interests have been in perpetuating the global warming scam. CO2 is like the criminal who has been sentenced for life for a crime he didn’t commit. The warmists are like the beaurocracts who engage in the cover up and using all the loopholes to avoid scrutiny. The academics and media and politicians are all complicit cause there jobs depend on the retrial never happening. It is incredible that the East Anglia emails did not stop the global warming cult in its tracks. It’s incredible that people still listen to Al Gore and Tim Flannery who make statements that continuously are wrong . Australia have 5 desal plants that are rusting .They were built because our dams would dry up and we’d run out of water. Within two years are dams were full and we had serious floods.
I really wish one major conservative government could conduct a proper debate. Then people would realise who are the deniers. Those who think that Climate is a natural thing which follows complex natural cycles or those who think that climate models are climate reality.
Warmists are the true deniers.
Yep. All the world’s institutions of Science are corrupt. We’ve heard that one before from the anti-Science crowd. By their own standard, they’d reject all findings of Science–relativity, DNA, plate tectonics, or Evolution. Dark Ages, anyone?
It is curious how Warren believes all the absurd predictions, which failed to happen, because some political leaders of Post Normal institutions support them.
You’ll probably not hear from Warren or David any more tonight as their moms have most likely sent them both to bed.
lol
I think…. they are out shoveling more coal into their windmill back-up power plants and shoveling snow off their solar panels. Bwah, ha, ha, ah, haaaaaaa!
Janice I have liked reading lots of your chats with many and various in WUWT land and I thought I would put in my 2 penneth worth for all these people who don’t like humanity (or for the PC crowd huperoffspringity)
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
I think it says more about those who see mankind as a disease than they would like to think about.
James Bull
PS Just had a week in Yorkshire and not one windmill working did I see, weather was cold and still. Only saw 3 on the journey back down south.
And another thought from yours truly. If they say they are doing this for the grandchildren but are wanting to remove most of the worlds population whose grandchildren?
James Bull
Personal to James Bull:
Why, Mr. Bull, how very kind and generous of you to say that to me. Thank you!
I enjoy reading YOUR usually pithy (and succinct, something I need to try to better emulate!) comments.
Yes, you make a powerful point. An irrational refusal to believe in God is the root of MANY an intellectual impairment. Atheists cannot, no, make that, WILL not bow the knee to God (pride and need-to-be-in-control, i.e., I GET THE CREDIT FOR ALL MY ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND I AM IN CONTROL, NOT YOU, is the main reason, but they also mistakenly think they’d have to stop having fun if they believe in God; they do not understand about grace… and that morality (for that is all God requires, not slavish devotion to a set of regulations) actually sets them free… . Therefore ANYTHING that appears to require that homage is AUTOMATICALLY (i.e.,. brain switches to OFF) rejected — out of hand. One cannot reason with them, for they simply will not allow it. Sad. Otherwise highly rational, disciplined, intellectuals, they think their minds are also informing them about God when actually, they are blinded by visceral emotion. And Satan laughs. HE believes in God, heh.
Hope you read this before I get snipped for “religion.” 🙂
Your Ally for Truth,
Janice
[Odd that. Usually, it is the males that get snipped for religion. .mod]
Reblogged this on jjreuter.
Thank you for the hearty laughs Tom Scott, I needed that.
All very interesting; however, one primary crime-solving technique is to follow the money. Where does the vast amount of climate funding go? If you think the oil companies spend more on lobbing than the alarmists receives from private foundations and government grants, loan guarantees, and tax credits, you are wrong by the proverbial mile. Note: The Koch Bros are 59th on the donor list.
Suggest you read the Senate EPW Commitee Minority Report “The Billion’s Club” for a different prospective. Want to see how the CAGW Alarmists are robbing the U.S. Treasury? See “Green Corruption Blog.Spot.”
Nice compilation – now set it to music and get it out for a Christmas hit record.
🙂
warrenlb, David Socrates and Brandon Gates – you’ve all contributed to the Friday funnies spot nicely (although it’s Saturday here down under). I had to chuckle at many of your statements. Willful ignorance, ad homs, baseless assertions, strawmen arguments and so on; it just goes ion and on. You should know that MANY scientists contribute to this site, and most visitors to this site actually learn useful things – but not you apparently.
‘MANY scientists contribute to this site’ Is that an example of DBStealeys ‘appeal to authority’?
Or perhaps you’re referring to non-Lord Journalism major Monckton? It’s always easier to avoid Stealeys accusation if instead of citing peer reviewed PhD Scientists one leans on the developer of a cure for Aids (sarc.) .
And it seems the evidence for that spike in T causing industrial era CO2 rise requested from DB is still missing in action. Stealey might check with one of those non-publishing Scientists posting on WUWT……maybe one of them has unearthed such evidence in his unpublished research.
Warrenlb asks:
No, it’s merely a response to your ad hom about skeptics.
No one (apart from you) mentioned a spike in T, but again not many visitors (well normal visitors) disagree that some of the source of some of the additional atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic.
[Note: Anthony has peer reviwed papers, so Warrenlb’s claim is bunk. See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/publications-and-projects/ -mod]
warrenlb objects to some “non-publishing” scientists being referenced here… but his interminable appeals to a multitude of corrupted authorities are constantly posted.
That is called ‘hypocrisy’.
Psychological projection is one of the major tools of the alarmist cult. They constantly project their own faults onto skeptics.
And as the moderator notes, Anthony is a published, peer reviewed author in the field of climatology. But warrenlb’s CV is… ?
How many papers has warrenlb published? My guess is zero, and that warrenlb is merely a high school graduate. Of course, he is free to prove me wrong any time.
+1
#(:))
Oh, brother! That “+1” WAS FOR xyzzy11!
xyzzy11,
You know what they say: when in Rome …
lol,
Your trolldom is exceptional and refreshing. You get an A for attempting to change the topic from “glaringly idiocratic things climate true believers say” to… anything else. I notice that when good lists of the lies, falsehoods, failed predictions, and plain bs by the climate consensus is on display it frequently inspires the best out of the trolls. It is sort of an aversion reaction I think: Instead of fleeing from the light, try to stomp it out or distract from it.
But your content is like it is with all trolls: absent. So succeeding at troll is to fail at discussion. Sort of sad. But failure is all the consensus has, since that pesky reality just won’t cooperate and give you a climate crisis.
Perhaps you can come and play more in the future? We need to see the full range of intellectual dishonesty and issue dodging more often. It is a good reminder of how empty the climate consensus really is.
hunter,
Thank you. It’s good to know I’m getting through.
You get an A for the coinage “idiocratic”. Unless it’s not an orignal. If it was a typo, then consider my response a spelling lame.
That is SO priceless. Say a bunch of nasty stuff about people and then get bent when the response is less than genteel. I’ll continue in the spirit of pithy aphorisms on this thread: People who live in glass houses …
This thread is running through my irony meter supply faster than a chicken through Ethiopia. I may have to double my next order.
Here we see the fallacious sweeping generalization. Why limit it to one ad hominem when pasting the entire opposition is so easy!
Far be it for you to consider checking whether there’s cotton stuffed in your ears.
Bawww. [hands hunter a kleenex]
That is one of the terrible conundrums on my side of the fence: we’re almost forced to root for disaster to win the argument. My turn for the broad brush: You guys are waiting for the barest hint of it, salivating practically. Look at you, just goading me to do it.
Dangit man, two irony meters in as many consecutive sentences. You’re getting costly. Here are some other howlers:
1) The vast majority of what you know about climate, and how to attack, it is because of original research consensus climatologists published.
2) The prominent contrarian researchers who publish original research (think Curry, Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and a smattering of others … throw Lomborg in there for good measure, I like him) are all lukewarmists. They don’t flat out deny the relationship between rising levels of CO2 and reduction of solar energy dissipation inside the system. Yet, the vast majority of WUWT commenters do, categorically. Why don’t you even listen to your own? Or do you not claim them?
Putting down the broad brush now. It’s fun to use at times, I understand the appeal. Unlike you I recognize that using it results in a vacuous and bad faith argument. How do you like the taste of your own medicine?
Brandon,
Explain for the good folks here at WUWT how latent heat goes both ways. You do remember saying that, don’t you?
Your point?
xyzzy11, Self-awareness is not your strong point I guess. Not unlike hunter just above you.
Brandon, when are going to explain your assertion that latent heat is a two way process? This is the third time I have put this question to you.
mpainter, In an apparently losing effort to keep conversations in context, I responded last night in line with your query: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/04/whither-the-weather/#comment-1807430
This is the second time I’ve posted that link for you. I realize there’s been a lot of traffic between us, but c’mon! 🙂
Brandon,
Just so you will be properly informed, it is a fallacy that latent heat is returned to the surface. Beware of what you swallow on the climateer blogs.
mpainter,
I learned about latent heat before the Internet existed.
Eco parrots, when they’re talking, don’t really know what they’re talking about.
From http://thevane.gawker.com/andrew-cuomo-slams-natl-weather-service-over-his-own-ig-1662362854
we have Gov Cuomo stating that none of us knew a major lake effect snow storm was arriving and blamed the NWS.
For those of us who live along the lakes and pay attention it was a very well reported forecast .
Months earlier our Governor also stated that tornado’s have never been seen in NY prior to this year. Must be Climate Change®!………. or it could just be another case of a yammering eco-parrot, mindlessly repeating stuff.
A politician not accurately reporting on science or appealing to the lowest common denominator of his constituents? That’s something new or newsworthy?
This is admittedly only the final straw that broke the camel’s back, however for me the election of Ehrlich as a fellow represents the final descent of the Royal Society. I believe it is a realistic indicator or the ideology of the RS hierarchy 🙁
The Malthusian/Ehrlich/eco loons/climate nutters are working hard to catch up with failed religious apocalyptics for most failed prophecies.
These are all great quotes and at the same time ‘bad’ quotes, if you see what I mean. How about starting with a ‘good’ quote to put all this nonsense in perspective. There was an excellent paragraph written by Richard Lindzen, which referred to how our children will look back in amazement at how we could have been so deluded, but after a quick google I didn’t find it, maybe someone else can dig it out.
But I did find an excellent summary written by Lindzen (his 2010 testimony):
https://billpeddie.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/testimony-professor-lindzen.pdf
It’s well worth reading.
Chris
Frightening that the serial failure, Ehrlich, is still a professor at Stanford University.
He is much more suited to roaming the streets, draped in a clapboard, proclaiming “The End is Nigh!”
What a raving lunatic
It seems that an enterprising journalist would pluck the low hanging fruit that is Ehrlich’s bizarre career of failure and deception and analyze him and the social context that has permitted him to thrive.
With reference to Paul Ehrlich’s comments about Great Britain we are not starving . Is this an example of a big beautiful theory being undermined by one little ugly fact. Nice collection of quotes though. Ray .
I’m amazed that the illustrious Professor Lewandowsky hasn’t got round to psychoanalysing Ehrlich.
What a goldmine of conspiracy theories, delusions of grandeur, narcissism and plain good old-fashioned lunacy he would find there.
Then again, he could find the same just by looking at a mirror.
I find this sentence from Hansen very interesting.
This first paper blames mostly everything except co2 for most of the warming.
This second paper blames albedo changes / soot for most of the warming.
In 2009 he tells us its albedo changes and co2 mostly.
It would seem that it’s not the climate that’s changing but rather the “settled science”.
Thank you for an excellent article. I tried to not let the somewhat erratic formatting deter me, but others may not be so patient.
I like the tried and true sciency sounding phrase…”Da proof is in da pudding”. We are told that rising CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously. The IPCC science explicitly says so. We are going on 18 years of no warming, some even argue that it has cooled slightly, all the while CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen during this time. And still the band plays on. A real scientist would conclude with this real world data, that CO2 is not the boogeyman its made out to be and maybe the science is wrong and we should look elsewhere or the very least re-examine the hypothesis that started this madness without the advocacy.
No, your analysis is wrong.
Rising atmospheric CO2 ppmv increasingly reduced the outflow of IR thermal radiation to space, and the earth warmed, according to T^4, in order to increase the amount of IR given off, to compensate. The fact that Earth has continued to absorb more and more heat energy is not in question. The question is where does the increased heat energy go, into the atmosphere or into the oceans and land. As it always does –about 90% into the oceans and ~3% into the atmosphere. Slight variations in that distribution of energy flows has a large impact on the temperature change of the atmosphere because air’s specific heat capacity is several times less than the ocean’s.
This reason, and the reason that major long cycle weather effects such as El Nino have multi year effects on atmospheric temperatures, is why the World Meteorological Organization defines 30 years as the minimum period of time over which Climate trends emerge.
Nevertheless, the troposphere still warmed over the last 18 years. it has not stopped as you say. 1998 was an exceptionally hot year due to El Nino, and cherry picking that year as a starting point in the only way you can claim no increase in global temperature– a statistical no-no, In fact, the last three decades were each successively warmer than the prior decade — and 2005 and 2010 are the hottest years on record ,,,and 2014 is on track to beat those records.
A real scientist looks at real data and does not conclude what you say.
Warren, what do you make of the combined temps since 2001?
Not sure what you mean. However, since more heat was absorbed by the Earths system, it must go to ocean’s, land, and/or atmosphere. I stated the effect on global avg temperatures over the period.
Since 2001, the combined surface temp is either flat or actually shows a fall (depends on which organisation you use in the combination). Now, we’re supposed to believe that CO2 is a massive force on our climate. Given that, how have surface temps managed to stay flat (or even fall) under this massive forcing since 2001? If the heat has decided to suddenly start going into the oceans instead, how does that happen, and why wasn’t it doing so prior to 2001? Mate, to me, a heating consultant, it doesn’t make any sense. If someone called me in – as their building wasn’t heating, despite their boiler running, then I would say either the boiler is not up to the job, or the heat is escaping. i have seen the physics explaining how CO2 works within the atmosphere, but something isn’t adding up. Despite this massive forcing, since 2001 we ARE in decline or at least flatlining.
And the increase in ocean heat content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
OHC is a lagging indicator.
“since 2001 we ARE in decline or at least flatlining.” The data I posted from NOAA shows both atmosphere and oceans warmed over the period. Doesn’t say what you say.
Warren, there were two question marks in there, so two questions for you:
1. How have surface temps managed to fall or stay flat despite massive CO2 forcing?
2. If the heat has gone into the oceans instead, how did it do that, and why wasn’t it doing it prior to 2001?
Thanks.
Warren, that’s being bordeline obtuse. I clearly stated that I was alluding to a combination of data, rather than just one set of figures from one organisation. Do you somehow bizarrely believe that using ONE set is better than using metadata? Please be so kind as to answer the questions using the metadata that you know full well is there (without cherry-picking NOAA’s!).
Complete tosh! The period of 30 years was decided upon in IGY 1958 because that was the amount of data they had at the time. It was and is entirely arbitrary.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/ipcc-still-delusional-about-carbon-dioxide/
This seems more relevant:
[Please stop promoting a blog that has never had one good thing to say about Anthony or WUWT. ~mod.]
This seems more relevant:
[Enough with the promotion of that blog. Comment there if you like. But she has forfeited her right to your free advertising. ~mod]
I like this analysis of Tisdales’s views on ENSO:
[Of course, you would like that ugly blog. Why are you trying to give her free advertising? ~mod.]
GO, ~MOD!
#(:))
You also like all the garbage posted by alarmist and their predictions. It is curious how Warren believes all the absurd predictions, which failed to happen, because some political leaders of Post Normal institutions support them. (That you call the post normal political leaders a consensus of scientist is sad.)
Dear Sincere David A.,
You give Warren too much credit. Lol, he doesn’t believe anything — he is just DESPERATE to keep his windmill (or solar panel) investment from tanking.
Keep up the excellent comments!
Janice
@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@
Warren: just sell. It is only going to get worse.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaa!
D1e windmills, d1e!
(and they are)
Okay warrenlb still trying earn that warmist scout merit badge perhaps shooting for the “Orden Pour Le Merde”?with poison oak leaves?
michael