By Andy May
There is an excellent new post up at notrickszone.com on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s and the efforts to erase it from the record by the climate alarmists at realclimate.com. For some the scandal at Wikipedia over William Connolley deliberately posting false articles and altering factual ones on climate is old news. This is for those who missed the story. William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. “Fake news” is an old story, used extensively by radical climate alarmists and environmentalists. Indeed, Greenpeace seems to be based on the concept of fake news.
The following anecdote by author Lawrence Solomon is instructive. He tried to correct an article that stated Naomi Oreskes infamous 97% paper in Science had been vindicated and Dr. Bennie Peiser had conceded that she was correct. He had spoken with Dr. Peiser and confirmed he had said no such thing.
“Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.
Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.
I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.
Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.”
Connolley was hardly the only offender, Kim Dabelstein Petersen and many others are also guilty. Rewriting history is not their only offense. They also slander eminent scientists such as Dr. Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service; Dr. Richard Lindzen a former MIT Professor of atmospheric physics, and Professor William Happer a professor at Princeton. Many, many others like Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Judith Curry have also been unfairly slandered.
Probably fake news has been with us for a very long time, but thanks to the Internet it is produced quicker and debunked quicker these days. I get a sense of déjà vu when reading this Brittanica.com article on yellow journalism.
As noted in the notrickszone.com post William Connolley and his team tried to show that the global cooling scare of the 1970’s was a myth. They also tried to scrub Wikipedia of any mention of the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period. A perfect example of fake news, along the lines of the 97% consensus myths. They claimed only seven scientific papers of the period discussed global cooling, when there are 163 papers on the subject, including seven that claim CO2 is causing global cooling. These include an article by the CIA. A complete list of the papers can be found in the post, it is well worth the time it takes to scan the informative summaries at the end of the post.
William Connolley – The Orwellian climate crook, Who paid him to devote 24 hours a day to destroying historical facts.
That would be a very interesting “discovery”. !!
Connolley acted not alone. The Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy Wales personally picked up where he left off.
*cough* Soros *cough*
Indirectly at least. Fungible goods and Soros throws so much money around to so many Liberal causes it would difficult to say a single contributor was directly funnelled to Connolley.
I doubt anyone paid Connelley, he is a enviro-zealot crusader and failed Green party candidate in Cambridge UK and failed climate modeller who worked for a short time for British Antarctic survey where he failed to model ocean currents in the southern ocean.
Having failed to get democratically elected he set his sights on a campaign to corrupt WonkyPedia content with his fake version of climate science.
Due to similar political biases in WonkyPedia top management he was allowed to do this unsanctioned for years.
Global warming zealots have an small army of activists who know the WP rule book who are quite effective at corrupting the intended self-correcting functioning of WP. There is also no will at the top of management since they are also left wing oriented and are part of the crusade to “save the planet”. This is what makes WP worthless as “encyclopaedia”.
Greg: I don’t consider WP worthless. It’s a great place to start when looking for information, especially in an area one is not familar with. Of course, one has to jump from WP to real research and not just use the “easy answer” Wiki provides.
That’s only true for areas that aren’t controversial.
In areas that are controversial you are only likely to get sources that agree with the lead author’s bias.
Mark W: Yes, I understand that. But once I have sources, even if they are biased, I can research articles on both sides. Sometimes I have no idea where to start and Wiki at least gives me an idea of one point of view and sources of information. It’s surprising how often a link or an idea in an article or on a blog can send you to the information you’ve been searching for.
Greg
Here in British Columbia, Canada, we have a [one] duly elected Green Party member of the provincial Legislature, Andrew Weaver. Weaver is a former prof /climate modeler at the Univ of Victoria and the author of one of the most far out / far-off-the-mark models found in the multi model spaghetti graph in the 2013-14 IPCC report.
I don’t know whether his funding dried up, in any event he has been peddling his greenie eco babble in one of the champagne Socialist ridings around the university for some years now and got elected last time around. The very man-made CO2 biased CBC [Canadian Climate Broadcasting Corporation] features him as a “climate expert”.
@ Reality Check
WP is so error prone and subject to “gatekeepers” whims that it has been disqualified as a source information on anything by most self respecting university profs for quite some time.
In areas where I have some deeper insight there are articles still quoted as reference that have been either been shown as irreproducible and thoroughly discredited by subsequent research or actually retracted.
Wp is misleadingly useless and because demonstrably manipulated dangerously so, even as a starting point.
Tetris, one of the realities of the web as a whole is that is doesn’t differentiate between fact and fiction. WP is by objective measure is about as accurate as Britannica or any other encyclopaedia. There have been several investigations over the last decade or so, e.g.:
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1413/1331%26gt
Of interestin Chesney’s attempt is that the sample when partitioned into expert and non-expert readers found that “experts” tended to rate WP articles as more credible than non-experts.
You can find links to these and to articles discussing them independently of Wikipedia. WP is subject to interference, which is what Connelly was up to. Other controversial topics such as abortion and even Big Bang Theory experience similar interference from politicized, antagonistic groups. But, any other online source is liable to the same effects, and so too are printed sources. Worse, corrections to errors in printed sources are going to be more “stable.” They are permanent to that printing and for many topics, especially scientific topics, the error can be repeatedly cited.
Collective effort to correct Orwellian revisions/reversions?
1) Can these Orwellian revisions and reversions be corrected by collective effort to the Arbitration Committee?
e.g., Please identify others like William Connolley that have been systematically causing problems.
2) Enter the 2017 Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Election
See: Wikipedia ARBITRATION COMMITTEE Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016#Results
Thanks David,
I love the stage names of the candidates. That should lead to really accurate, unbiased postings and arbitration.
Wikipedia is asking for donations. Not interested.
yep, as long as clowns like connolley are allowed to continue their dishonesty, they won’t get a penny from me.
At least he didn’t have get to edit http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Global_Warming
If William Connolley AND Wikipedia were sued for libel by Dr Peiser, Dr Singer, Dr Lindzen, Prof Happer, and all the rest – in a single action – I would expect that that would make a sufficient impression to have this kind of nonsense cease.
I’m old enough to remember the global cooling scare in the 1970s.
It’s been known for awhile that Wikipedia has fallen prey to Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics (http://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-of-politics/), and cannot be trusted on any politicized subject. Check the sources cited on any Wikipedia article for trustworthiness, but what is worse is the information that is suppressed.
I always thought that 1984’s Iceman movie was part of that scare.
It was the global cooling scare that paid for the satelites.
Not really, but the depressing “Quintet”, from 1979, was clearly inspired by the global cooling scare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintet_(film)
“I’m old enough to remember the global cooling scare in the 1970s”
As am I. I had just graduated from college with a degree in geology. Time magazine cover story: “The Coming Ice Age.” (And many other articles too.)
And the “cause” was the same blamed for “global warming” at the end of the 20th Century.
The clowns who perpetrated all this nonsense will have a lot to answer for, IN HELL if not here.
I too was going to be a geologist in the 1970. But after a couple of years, my teachers talked me out of it. They said I took too much for granite. (ba-dum-bum)
People used to take me for GRANITE, but now i’m a little BOULDER…
Oh schist those puns are bad. It may take a couple of quartz to get them out of my head.
Come on guys, Connelly was only trying to be magmannamous.
grrr—-magmannimous
I’m having a rocking good time.
I remember the 1970’s too. And I remember that it was cold in North America, and people wrote about that. Some journalists tried to beat up a scare about going into ice age conditions. People also wrote (as they did before and since) about the fact that we are in an interglacial, and the ice age would return in a few millenia – articles that often get folded into the “ice age scare”. That was about it.
Ah Nick… blame it on the journalists…. as if the journalists made the story up on their own. I was in my 20’s in the 70’s and I definitely recall it being promoted and reported as a catastrophe in the making. We were all (at least billions) going to be dead by 2000 due to crop failures etc… unless we quickly abandoned fossil fuels. No Nick, the journalists were NOT the source of these stories. It was the same Progressives then as now… but there are just many more of them now with way more (insane amounts actually) money to promote their agenda.
“It was the same Progressives then as now”
You give not a skerrick of backing for that.
He will have my backing Nick.
“You remember”
Sure you do, and the rest of us who actually do remember the news and articles about “Global Cooling” are supposed to believe you?
Your claim is fallacious. Your spin and sophistry are no substitution for honest history.
As the article above notes; you, yes even you Nick Stokes, can check the entire list at Pierre Gosselin’s “No Tricks Zone”
“As the article above notes; you, yes even you Nick Stokes”
Yes, I did – see below. Have you checked? care to nominate a few that really really do support a “global c oling scare”? I couldn’t find them.
And yes, I do remember the “news and articles” about global cooling. They get trotted out time after time. There were, like, about dozen or so? In a decade?
I just had a thought, is Nick Stokes really William Connolley? He certainly has a lot of time on his hands?
LOL, Nick Stokes, you have to get up early in the morning before the grub Connelly get to erasing the past … 163 papers as identified above. Fool you, caught out by your own climate heathens.
“As noted in the notrickszone.com post William Connolley and his team tried to show that the global cooling scare of the 1970’s was a myth. They also tried to scrub Wikipedia of any mention of the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period. A perfect example of fake news, along the lines of the 97% consensus myths. They claimed only seven scientific papers of the period discussed global cooling, when there are 163 papers on the subject, including seven that claim CO2 is causing global cooling.”
“Nick Stokes December 25, 2016 at 9:56 pm
And yes, I do remember the “news and articles” about global cooling. They get trotted out time after time. There were, like, about dozen or so? In a decade?”
So do I in the UK however,it wasn’t that much of a deal back then. Living through very cold winters, power cuts, unemployment, strikes, political instability etc were more prominent in the minds of people and in the media. The real scare, of warming, began in 1981 with Hansen, and the media ran with it and have been since with fabricate data which has been exposed time after time.
And here ins Australia, the media are bleating about Christmas Day in Sydney being the hottest……….since 1945. It was hotter in 1945 Stokes even with all the fiddling of data.
IPCC misson statement:
“Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, …to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
As you can see, the IPCC was not set up to study 1) whether or not climate was changing. 2.) If it is, how fast and what is the natural component. 3.) If climate change is occurring much faster than can be explained by natural, then what are possible causes. 4) Is there a concern that must be addressed, and if so, how can it be achieved with the minimal cost to society?
The IPCC was set up and funded with billions of dollars to study and confirm only HUMAN INDUCED climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation. Clearly a political agenda from the get go. Right out of the gate, CO2 was the culprit and fossil fuels had to go. Nuclear energy was out, only inefficient, unreliable and expensive energy would do, right in line with UN Agenda 21.
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
Here is a link to a blog from a guy who has compiled a few articles.
A few dozen that is.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
I think most of us who were old enough to remember, do. It’s been proven over and over again and copies of articles posted that prove it. How they can pretend it didn’t happen is beyond me.
” 163 papers as identified above. “
And no-one can nominate a single one for discussion, that was actually a scientific paper predicting global cooling, and is not one of the 7 on Peterson et al’s list. Can you?
Nick,
I still have the late Stephen Schneider somewhere on tape, declaring the coming catastrophy of global cooling… Later he turned his voice towards global warming. Thus don’t blame only the journalists, some scientists were on the base of the cooling scare…
Stokes,
Asleep at the switch, 8 in front of you this time. Cover stories on the two biggest US “News” magazines, both “Time” and “US News and World Report” announced the coming Ice Age. Maybe you missed it Down Under, but I suspect you did not…
ATheoK:
“Sure you do, and the rest of us who actually do remember the news and articles about “Global Cooling” are supposed to believe you?”
You confuse sensationalist headlines with the mainstream science …. 45years ago (clue we’ve moved on a tad since then)
Makes a good story for the front pages is all.
Vis: Nathan Rao’s (UK Daily express) annual “coldest winter for 100 years” shtick every October, with this year a few more editions in December in time to be sensational for Xmas.
They see up to 10% more newsprint sold with that bollocks on the front ages….
From Paul Hudson (Regional TV Wx presenter and ex UKMO)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/756e3a7a-74c6-3e6f-8c6a-646ddc9f39d5
“When I worked at the Met Office some years ago, I remember the press office contacted a tabloid newspaper to ask why they continued to print such weather stories which invariably turned out to be wrong.
Their answer was very honest, straightforward and unapologetic.
Weather sells newspapers they said; admitting that each and every time they had a front page story on extreme weather, their circulation went up by around 10%.
Whether the forecast was right or wrong didn’t seem a concern, after all, the newspaper was only reporting on what was being forecast by the weather company in question. How did they know whether it would turn out to be right or wrong?
And one would assume that any small private weather company, in a difficult completely un-regulated sector which is dominated by the state-funded Met Office, is happy to get some free, valuable publicity.
So it’s a mutually beneficial process.”
Also:
The 70’s “ice age “scare”” was NOT mainstream…
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/03/globalcoolinglitreview.png
The word needs to get out:
Conservatives need to STOP donating to Wikipedia until they get there act in order.
” Cover stories on the two biggest US “News” magazines, both “Time” and “US News and World Report” announced the coming Ice Age. “
Well, if so, yes, I missed it, though I followed news pretty well. Time had a much quoted story June 24, 1974, but it wasn’t a cover story. The US news story I missed, if it happened. It helps to link.
Ferdinand,
“I still have the late Stephen Schneider somewhere on tape”
Surely if there was such a scare, we can find something in writing. In fact, Rasool and Schneider was one of the papers listed by Peterson et al. It said that if we quadrupled aerosols, we’d have an ice age.
Nick Stokes December 25, 2016 at 8:59 pm
“It was the same Progressives then as now”
You give not a skerrick of backing for that.
BBC 1974 ¨”Nigel Calder and the threat of ice” A series of special Horizon programs on the coming ice age with interviews of all the well known scientists of the day including HHLamb
Stephen Richards
“”Nigel Calder and the threat of ice””
So who were the progressives? Nigel Calder? Who later helped in the making of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”?
But also, what was the program actually about? Seems to me it was mainly about the geologic ice ages and their recurrence, with maybe a little scaremongering from Nigel.
“Nick Stokes December 26, 2016 at 2:19 am
…with maybe a little scaremongering from Nigel.”
Or Gore, Mann, Hansen etc? Right, I hear ya!
Nick
Your totally nuts, I grew during that period and not only was it in the news on a regular basis we were taught it in school.
The proof surely is that Connolley (talk about nominative determinism!) went to all that trouble to prove it wasn’t so.
Nick “Moonbat” Stokes claimed that it was just the reporters who caused the 1970s “new ice age” cooling scare. He is wrong yet again.
The universities were teaching it in the early 70s and I was there to hear the professor make the claims. Mostly it was all mankind’s fault of course.
I have a theory that WWUT pays Nick Stokes to say the most stupid of things just to keep the readership of the comments interested. My theory has as much empirical data supporting it as does the delusional CAGW theory.
Nice try, troll. Why do you persist in lying even in the face of facts?
@Stokes: care to nominate a few that really really do [did?] support a “global cooling scare”? I couldn’t find them.
Schneider for one. unless you are playing games with “do”.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/schneider-went-from-cooling-alarmist-to-warming-alarmist-in-just-four-years/
1977
Then in 1981 reverses himself by switching from Cooling to Warming. Any which way the wind was blowing.
Nick Stokes
December 26, 2016 at 1:53 am
Time had a much quoted story June 24, 1974, but it wasn’t a cover story.
The media of the day reported the coming ice age as a scientific consensus. I saw no articles that were skeptical of the claims. As a young man during that era, I was considering emigrating to more northern hemisphere southern directions for the sake of my future children.
@Latitude December 26, 2016 at 6:21 am
Beat me to it.l Here’s the Time article
http://amazing.deter.com/content/Politics/Time%20-%20Another%20Ice%20Age.pdf
What’s that saying?….forget the past and you’ll repeat it…or something like that
Here’s the post on WUWT from a few years ago…it’s a almost complete list
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
…and here’s the list from Popular Technology….that pretty much completes the WUWT list
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Latitude
Re the TIME magazine cover you linked to dated “April 9th 1977”: it’s a fake.
TIME magazine itself reported on this in June 2013: http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
Your link is a doctored version of a cover from 2007 which originally read “The Global Warming Survival Guide”.
I started my career doing engineering support for marine scientists of various sorts. They were willing to treat global cooling seriously. It was, however, way down their list of priorities. I never heard anyone arguing that it didn’t exist but, by the same token, nobody I knew thought it was worth researching either.
DWR54 ….well phooey
That’s what you get when you stuck with google, wiki, and the internet….fake news
Latitude
“That’s what you get when you stuck with google, wiki, and the internet….fake news”
_____________
My internet connection also allows searches in Google Scholar, etc. By the way, of the 116 references provided on the Popular technology list you linked to, I counted only 5 that weren’t from media outlets (those 5 include New Scientist, which is a science magazine rather than a journal).
Funny how most of the people who were actually alive at the time remember the global cooling scare.
Latitude & DWR54,
Here’s a link to a copy of a Newsweek article dated April 28, 1975.
http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Latitude & DWR54,
And here’s a link to the text of the Time 1974 article (and a later article about global warming in 2006 for contrasting beliefs).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts
Please CLOSELY follow the pea. Note how everyone says that the COVER is fake, thus distracting from the article and implying that the article is fake. However, if you search the Time magazine archive, the article is listed in the Science section of the June 24, 1974 edition (Volume 103, No. 25). The actual cover had a photo of President Nixon on the front, but the article was in that issue.
For those who are too lazy to check the Time magazine archive, here’s the link:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601740624,00.html
Now what do you have to say about the Time article?
Nick
As I have pointed out to William, in pre internet days research moved at a slower pace. As Budyko and Lamb observed in books from the early 1970’s the fear of cooling had retreated by then. The peak of the ‘scare’ was actually around 1940 to around 1970. Of course it is only by looking back that you can see a trend develop, so it would have been well into the 1950’s that research started to focus on the concerns of cooling with many more articles and books that had their genesis in the 1960’s. By the 1970’s concerns had tailed off and I am surprised if that many papers could be traced back to commencing after say 1972 or so.
You will be aware that this cooling showed up in the ‘Mitchells’ curves a ‘global’ temperature record that predates Giss.
tonyb
DAV,
“Schneider for one.”
Rasool and Schneider was one of the papers on Peterson’s list of 7.
To all,
The thinness of the story is shown by the endless repetitions of the Time and Newsweek story (and the widely circulated fake Time cover). And I still don’t have anyone prepared to nominate a single scientific paper for discussion that says there is cooling in the near future, and is not one of Peterson’s 7.
“Now what do you have to say about the Time article?”
Yes, the Time and Newsweek articles are the ones endlessly quoted. Two articles in a decade. And Gwynne, writing in Time, is certainly trying to play up the cooling angle, with the “Another Ice Age?” title. But in the article, he’s struggling to get supporting quotes. He has Kukla saying there is more ice. And this one doesn’t help him:
“Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service’s long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary.”
The best he has is climatologist Hare, who doesn’t really predict, but says the cold winters are bad:
“Warns Hare: “I don’t believe that the world’s present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.””
Likewise if you read the Newsweek article, you have an enthusiastic journalist pleading with scientists to give him a juicy quote. And they don’t.
Nick is on the right track in that journalism readily and easily obfuscates. Doom scenarios are especially popular in that it sells magazines and newspapers. However he surprisingly ignores that this doom obfuscation is the lifeblood of climate science.
Regardless, its not journalism that is the culprit here, it is politics. “Climate Science”, even if poorly realized and/or incompetent is still science.”Climate Change” is pure politics.
Was it scientists who changed global warming to climate change or was it political marketing experts? Since Nick likes to ask for specifics, perhaps he can tell us how many areas of scientific study has a huge marketing apparatus behind them as well as legal funds to silence journalists with uncomplimentary opinion as in the Dr Mann case.
Whether cooling or warming, it is irrelevant. Using overblown science to support grand political agendas is the same. It is a flawed unholy alliance between science and politics. Journalism just greases the skids.
Nick,
That was far from about it. Nixon’s national security assessment from the CIA concluded that global cooling was a threat, based upon the scientific consensus.
Chimp,
I assume you’re talking about the 1974 report from an agent who went out and talked to Kutzbach at Wisconsin, That report would have got nowhere near Nixon. It came with this caveat:
Nick,
As a student of Ehrlich and Holdren in the 1970s, before SS came to Stanford, I know for a fact that those now arch-Warmunistas were on the global cooling bandwagon. But don’t trust my memory. Read their own words:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
As for what Nixon knew and when he knew it, the CIA’s conclusions did reach his desk in intel briefs, after Kukla’s letter. These assessments led to WH action:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336
In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:
Dear Mr. President:
Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.
The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.
The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.
Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.
The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:
(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.
(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.
With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …
With best regards,
George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)
R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)
The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity looking into the threat of an ice age.
On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:
Changes in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.
Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.
As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:
There were also a number of short-term climate events of national and international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El Niño of 1972-1973.
A killing winter freeze followed by a severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive up food prices. Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late 1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein feedstocks.
The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S. Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric energy requirements for the region.
Nick Stokes
December 26, 2016 at 9:57 am
It was far more than two articles in a decade. As you must know. If you don’t, then read the link I just put up in another reply to you.
And it wasn’t just articles in general interest magazines, but plenty of papers in science journals.
Phil R
“Now what do you have to say about the Time article?”
_____________________
No one has denied that the Time article you refer to is fake, nor that many ‘media’ outlets ran big with the global cooling stories in the 1970s. I just pointed out that the cover of Time magazine as posted by Latitude above is a fake because, well, it’s a fake.
Nick: I don’t know what, if anything, you do remember but I can tell you right here right now my Geography professor was teaching about global cooling (with graphs etc) in the late 1950s. It was obvious then that if the cooling that began in the late 1940s/early 1950s continued we would be heading into a new ice age. So don’t tell yer granny how to suck eggs!
” my Geography professor was teaching about global cooling (with graphs etc) in the late 1950s”
So there was a 50s global cooling scare too? Actually that was about the time of my Geography classes. I think a lot of things are being folded into this “scare”. Yes, we were taught about Ice Ages, and told that we were in an interglacial. I’m sure that is still taught, and has been for over a century. But the claim here is that there was something special about the ’70s, when imminent cooling (not millennia) was forecast as warming is today.
Well, to be fair, the press is also mostly responsible for the global warming scare. In terms of reality over alarmism, they’ve turned a very minor contribution to a trace greenhouse gas into Armageddon.
I can’t read the whole thread but in case nobody else put the BSing NS in his place, one of those articles is in the October edition of the NOAA quarterly in 1974. It clearly shows that scientists were more concerned by anthropological global warming back then than warming.
That should have read AG cooling
It isn’t inly politics. I was reading an article on a frontline German fighter aircraft of WWII whose engine power was quoted in kW and BHP.
I noticed that they didn’t match. Clearly a typo or somesuch, so i cross checked elsewhere and corrected the figure for IIRC the KW figure. One digit was out of place.
imagine my surprise on finding a day later that my correction had been reversed by the original author.
Sigh. Are some people’s egos that fragile?
It is one of the defects of Wikipedia; ego. The other one is politics; Prime Minister John Howard had his Wikipedia entry defaced by Labor/Green hacks on a regular basis.
An encyclopedia without an integrity mechanism can’t be trusted. Which is a shame, because it has a really extensive series of articles on manga.
‘An encyclopedia without an integrity mechanism can’t be trusted.’
Define ‘integrity mechanism.’
Encyclopædia Britannica contains errors. Anything written by Man may contain errors.
“Gamecock December 26, 2016 at 3:20 am
Define ‘integrity mechanism.’
Encyclopædia Britannica contains errors. Anything written by Man may contain errors.”
True however, the printed version cannot be changed on the fly, Wikipedia can, and that is the issue. People rely on on-line content these days which can be manipulated in an instant.
“An encyclopaedia without an integrity mechanism can’t be trusted.”
I imagine that it would help if the identity of the editor was provided together with the changes.
‘People rely on on-line content these days which can be manipulated in an instant.’
There’s the problem: they need to learn to not rely on it.
All else is intrigue.
On controversial issues, Wikipedia could include 2 or 3 columns covering differing viewpoints on an issue.
Warmists are habitual liars – any lie is just the means to an end – cue The Internationale.
Allan
Is that the one that goes
“The working class can kiss my arse
I’ve got a bludger’s job at last
I’m out of work and on the dole
Lets hoist the red flag up the pole”?
yep. “TRuth is a bourgeois construct”. I’d love to know which commie came out with that first
The concept that the truth is a social concept seems to have grow’d like Topsy. link
The best reply to the idea that truth is socially constructed runs as follows:
FYI. The TV show “In Search of…” starring Leonard Nimoy covered “The Coming Ice Age” in season two episode 23. This was may 1978.
It is available on Youtube.
I like their disclaimer… “This series presents information based in part on theory and conjecture. The producer’s purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only one.” A theme throughout all climate science, I think.
On the contrary , climate science has only one cause, CO2.
A real scientist knows there may be multiple variables for any observed condition change, and seeks to find them all and how they interact.
Many of the older assembled collages’ representing possible science outcomes were introduced with that disclaimer or one very similar. Much like the “Outer Limits” or “Twilight Zone” episodes.
When the “Global Warming” charade began is when the fakers began pretending vague waffle words actually indicated anything definitive. Self delusional episodic fantasies. Their fake scare scenarios are never introduced with disclaimers regarding “This represents just one possible outcome of many possible outcomes”; instead the fakeries must be taken to court if anyone is to
Actually, disclaimers are sound scientific communication. The public in general, who have poor eye sight when it comes to subtle shading, whine endlessly about qualifications. The eternal “what do you really think?” But science is not about “truth.” It uses observation to construct explanation (the “facts”) of how we understand a phenomenon at a given point in time. I had the duty once of explaining to a civil engineer that the discussion on sample error was not there as AC, but as a warning that the trust placed in a study’s conclusion should be limited and that discussion of error was intended as fair warning that warning that things could really be far “worse.” Our assessment of “worst case” had been accurate, but the sampling results seemed to suggest that the situation was better than it proved to be. Laying out the study and then the costs necessary to have achieved a result closer to reality was an eye opener for him.
The representative of the federal agency we were both contracted to was completely indifferent to nuance. When reality hit the fan, he literally wrung his hands and wanted us to somehow take the blame for his poor reading skills. We could document that we had pointed out in writing that his preferred site was a bad choice (not recommended) and that while the “sampling” had very limited results, the land owner told a very different story. We explicitly stated that we placed more credence in the owner’s experience than in our sampling results, because the scale of sampling work had been limited in order to keep a federal agency from bursting into tears. .
At 20:35 in the video, Leonard Nimoy says, “If the polar ice melted completely, sea level would rise 180 feet.”
Just prior to that statement, they were talking about melting polar ice with nuclear energy or black soot to prevent the coming ice age from covering Canada and the Northern states with ice. So they were only talking about the northern hemisphere. But Arctic polar ice is floating ice and would not cause a rise in sea levels. Even if they included Greenland ice as “polar ice,” a complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would cause a sea level rise of only about 20 feet, not 180 feet. If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, however, sea level would rise by about 200 feet. But why would anyone consider using nuclear energy or black soot to melt the Antarctic Ice Sheet? What purpose would that serve? That part of the video doesn’t make sense to me.
It was not real science when presented that way. Television shows required scripting for actors and scenes. Just as they do today. Only today, the actors actually believe the crap they’re spewing and the shows are solely developed to cause people to send cash to feed the green blob.
Interesting article in the Aggus Press –
Talks about:
Outlawing the internal combustion engine
Rigid controls on marketing
Controls on all research and development
Number of children prescribed per family with punishment for those that exceed the limit
“We will be forced to sacrifice democracy by the laws that will protect us from further pollution.” – Dr. Arnold Reitze, 1970
… sound familiar?
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jjgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9KsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1371,2354081&hl=en
Should read “The Argus Press”
Interesting that the 1977 show In Search of a New Ice Age (video above) had Stephen Schneider (who would later become a lead IPCC author) pushing his ‘scary scenario’ of global cooling, and then a couple years later Schneider would switch his ‘scary scenarios’ to being about global warming.
Here’s Stephen Schneider in 1989:
One suspects that “being honest” doesn’t have a very high priority with Stephen Schneider.
It doesn’t sound like Stephen Schneider understands the concept of honesty. “Whatever works” seems to be his philosophy. The same philosophy the radical Left has. Honesty be damned.
I seem to remember that the claim of only 7 papers is from a peer reviewed paper. Shouldn’t that paper be retracted? Would be nice to see these propagandists have to eat their words. It would also be a great example to use to demonstrate the dishonesty of those pushing AGW.
“Shouldn’t that paper be retracted?”
The paper is here. Yes, it nominates 7 actual papers that foreshadowed cooling in some way. The complete list of pro, anti and neutral is in their Table 1. The cooling papers are:
McCormick and Ludwig (1967), Barrett (1971), Rasool and Schneider(1971), Hamilton and Seliga(1972), Chýlek and Coakley(1974), Bryson and Dittberner(1976), 7 Twomey (1977):
Could you nominate one paper that isn’t on the list and you think should be, and explain why?
Given that William M. Connolley is one of the authors, can you explain the self reference and how it invariably impacts validity?
Just more fake news.
Jesus christ, nick. The first sampled paper on the notrickszone.com post linked above makes a prediction of global cooling based on particulate emissions. Did you not read the article at all? Cimorelli and House, 1974.
Archer,
Yes, I did read the article, and commented on the first few papers in the list, including this one.
1. It was not a published paper, it was a master’s thesis.
2. It simply echoed a result of Rasool and Schneider, about quadrupled aerosols. R&S was on Peterson’s list.
3. Neither that or R&S predicted global cooling. They said that if aerosols in the air were quadrupled, there would likely be an ice age. That is true. They did not predict that aerosols would quadruple.
“Nick Stokes December 26, 2016 at 2:25 am
1. It was not a published paper, it was a master’s thesis.”
Refer to “Crispin in Waterloo December 25, 2016 at 9:11 pm” where you will find the correct answer.
“the correct answer”
If you claim it was published, give a citation.
“Nick Stokes December 26, 2016 at 2:51am”
This?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750020489.pdf
Nick Stokes: There are 285 papers summarized in the notrickszone.com post I reference. Go here: http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.FywBFzqb.dpbs
Someone was asking for one that said CO2 caused cooling, try paper 82 (Verma et al., 1984) or Choudhary and Kukla (1979).
So, according to that Connolley & Co paper George Kukla was neutral. Yet, according to Wikipedia, still;
“In 1972 he (George Kukla) became a central figure in convincing the United States government to take the dangers of climate change seriously.[1] Kukla and geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a historic conference, themed: “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?” Kukla and Matthews then highlighted the dangers of global cooling in Science magazine and, to President Richard Nixon.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kukla
Andy,
“Someone was asking for one that said CO2 caused cooling, try paper 82 (Verma et al., 1984) or Choudhary and Kukla (1979).”
Verma is not 70’s and it just quoting C&K. C&K is 217 on the list, but not a great supporter of the “cooling scare”:
“The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are being increased by the burning of fossil fuels and reduction of biomass. It has been calculated that the increase in CO2 levels should lead to global warming because of increased absorption by the atmosphere of terrestrial longwave radiation in the far IR (>5 μm).”
What they refer to is a special effect where CO2 modifies down SW to delay snow melting. I’m not convinced, but anyway, they are not talking about warming the climate generally.
I’m well aware of the list of 285, and I started working through the examples chosen here. I’m finding that they are not what is claimed, and the Verma and C&K inclusions are just further evidence. That’s why I asked for someone to actually pick one out, that isn’t on Peterson’s list of 7, that really does support the “cooling scare”.
Sajave,
“Yet, according to Wikipedia, still;”
A little irony there?
LOL, wasn’t the 97% some kid’s masters thesis? How did THAT get traction?
It is the power of WUWT to bring corrections to these mischievous and perfidious Wikipedia articles.
Thank you everyone, for your efforts on that site. Document everything. Make it available so the long sad story may one day be solidly documented by future historians. There is no doubt much more to come to light as the plans of the four horsemen of CAGW are undone by leaks and insiders.
Here is an earlier effort at documentation from right here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
Ultimately, time will tell. We may not all be alive to live it, but climate changes, and at some point, no one will think that it is still warming. Cold is to be feared, not warmth.
Different papers in the 1970s pegged worldwide cooling from 1940 to be from 0.3° to 0.6°C.
But here’s NASA’s 1999 chart of U.S. temperatures which shows at minimum 1.3°C in total cooling from 1935 to 1979:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia2/globalwarming158_03.jpg
Others showed sharp cooling from 1940 to 1975 in the entire Northern Hemisphere (64% of the earth’s land mass).
Without the warmist data manipulations I don’t see how all that cooling from 1940-75 could have been made up by the moderate warming in recent decades.
Conclusion: worldwide, the 1930s were hotter than now!
This figure clearly shows the cyclic nature of temperature. Global average temperature anomaly also present 60-year cycle varying between -0.3 to +0.3 oC [1880 to 2010] superposed on trend. Unfortunately, we spend lot on discussing the truncated part of such cyclic data series which lead misleading conclusions — it provides sensationalization. I raise on several occasions on this.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“Conclusion: worldwide, the 1930s were hotter than now!”
No they weren’t and that graph from the *sceptic* Steven Goddard, oops – Tony Heller’s site, of US temps pre homogenisation (look up TOBS, where temps max temps were recorded for 2 consecutive days due measurement and rest of the max therm during the early evening) – is not going to make it so my friend…..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig4_correction.gif
ToneB Your charts prove nothing. And your point about some chart that Heller put out doesn’t prove anything either.
We’ve seen just out of control data manipulation over the last few years. Egregious manipulations. And NASA / NOAA admits it! But their explanations for their manipulations are non-existent or sub-par. Add to those manipulations the incredible high levels or urban heat island effect, and the vanishing rural stations, the the massive loss of Soviet stations circa 1991 (stations where farmers were given fuel payments based on how cold the measurements were!).
ToneB, you are supporting a fraudulent science, a leftist POLITICIZED science. Politicized science is by it’s definition NOT CREDIBLE!
You’re a shill for the warmists and you are wrong. The totality of evidence suggests that, worldwide, the 1930s were hotter than today.
The usual : 1998 is now?
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy wrote: “Unfortunately, we spend lot on discussing the truncated part of such cyclic data series which lead misleading conclusions”
Excellent point.
Thanks for this good example of just how bastardized the surface temperature record has become:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig4_correction.gif
The graph on the right (b) shows the real global temperature profile, with the 1930’s showing as hotter than any subsequent year, and the chart on the left (a) is the one the promoters of CAGW produced/bastardized to remove the 1930’s-40’s heat blip (see Climategate scandal emails) to make it look like things are getting hotter and hotter and hotter.
Chart B shows we are not getting “hotter and hotter” rather we are at the high end of a normal cycle. We are not in unprecedented climate territory.
Chart A shows just the opposite. Which is what the CAGW advocates desire and why they drew this chart.
of US temps pre homogenisation…
roaring laughing!!…..and that would be the point moron
“The graph on the right (b) shows the real global temperature profile”
For heaven’s sake – it is clearly headed US Temperature.
A pity that Toneb didn’t read Eric Simpson’s comment fully, who states that “…here’s NASA’s 1999 chart “. Why Toneb chooses to describe it as “…that graph from the *sceptic* Steven Goddard,…” is known only to him. James Hansen uses those graphs also at
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Interesting that the graphs have different y-axis scales…
“For heaven’s sake – it is clearly headed US Temperature.”
That doesn’t change the fact that it represents the true global temperature profile much more closely than the Hockeystick chart.
You want to call it U.S., and I want to call it global, since similar temperature profiles exist in many countries besides the U.S. before NOAA/NASA got hold of them and changed them into Hockeysticks.
And you ignore the dishonest manipulation of the “1940’s heat blip” for political purposes as outlined in the Climategate scandal emails. The alarmist side conspired to change these numbers to conform to their CAGW theory. We have it in writing. So why should I accept their version of reality, the Hockeystick chart, when I have other versions to choose from which, imo, are more accurate and conform to the historical record? Answer: I *shouldn’t* accept an obviously manipulated set of figures. If you do, that’s your choice. I don’t know how you can have any confidence in any data you glean by starting with a stacked deck.
I remember well the winter of 1978, which seemed to add confirmation to the fears and rumors of global cooling. My family and I were living in Terre Haute, IN, where I was teaching music at Indiana State University (where Larry Bird was playing basketball–alas, I never saw him play). That winter got very cold, and we had at least one ferocious blizzard, with feet of snow and roaring wind; I lost a perfectly good car to that storm by trying to blast my way out of a snowdrift and blowing the engine instead. The state police mandated no driving on the Interstate highways (I-70 slices east-west through the southern end of Terre Haute, and it was littered with cars and trucks requiring rescue). I had to walk home from where my car died, and it was a forbidding task, with deep and drifting snow, a howling wind, and temperatures not far from zero F.
The mayor of Terre Haute, the year before, had sold off the snow removal equipment owned by the city; in light of recent mild winters with scant snow, he said, it made more sense to get the money out of the machines. Naturally, the press was incensed at this stupidity, as was the general public; at a press conference the mayor was asked several pointed questions about what he was going to do to remove the now unmovable deep snow. He said, “In His great wisdom, GOD has sent the snow. In His own good time, GOD will take it away.” (Capital letters denote pronunciation with deep feeling.) As can be imagined, at the fall election, the mayor’s office was taken away from him.
A week or two later, most streets were passable again. Of course, a single weather incident doesn’t make climate; however, the storm was at least an indication of something that could happen more often if the climate were to cool.
Chicago got hit by the same weather in 78 and 79. It cost the mayor at that time an election when he said on television that people should stop complaining about the snow and he didn’t have any problem driving to work. People realized that his alleys and path to work had been plowed when most major streets had not been plowed. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-the-blizzard-that-got-jane-byrne-elected-20141114-story.html
William Connolley and the Wikipedia wars are a perfect example why collectivism in its various forms does not and can not work. As for Wikipedia, because of Connolley and others like him, it can’t be considered an authoritative source of information, which is too bad considering all the time an effort that has been invested in it.
Pulling a “Connolley” is to gratuitously lie to further one’s obsession.
” They claimed only seven scientific papers of the period discussed global cooling, when there are 163 papers on the subject, including seven that claim CO2 is causing global cooling”
not really necessary to engage in paper count wars when even Hansen, NASA, NOAA, IPCC agree that Rasool&Schneiderman 1971 (that the aerosol effect of fossil fuel combustion overcomes the radiative forcing of added co2) was the standard theory of the relationship between fossil fuel combustion and climate until Hansen 1981 and Hansen 1988 that reversed Rasool&Schneiderman to claim that co2 radiative forcing overcame the aerosol effect and that therefore fossil fuel combustion causes warming and not cooling. This is now the current standard theory. Kindly note that Rasool&Schneiderman 1971 was written when temperatures where falling and Hansen 1981wad written when the cooling trend had ended and the current warming had begun. I know of no paper that said that co2 causes cooling.
“was the standard theory of the relationship between fossil fuel combustion and climate until Hansen 1981 and Hansen 1988”
Simply untrue. The Charney report in 1979 set out a definitive version of CO2 and its effects. It was commissioned at the highest level:
Here is what the Chairman had to say on submittin gthe report:
Not much cooling scare there.
I’ve underlined the reference to previous studies. That was the 1979 view of the “cooling scare” in scientific papers. What conclusions were reaffirmed? Charney’s last para:
Nick… I would agree there were scientists talking about CO2 causing warming. However, it is not beyond unreasonable to assume that the Progressives of the time (along with their scientist cohorts) were getting all the press and nothing was printed about the warming aspect . Once, it was observed that the global cooling was NOT going to pan out too well, they quickly switched to global warming in the late 1970s. Then with the infusion of the UN agenda and 100s of billions of dollars to show that CAGW is real and an immediate danger we are where we are today.
The summary by H.H. Lamb in his book “Climatic History and the Future”, states:
“It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between
forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight
cooling of world climate for a few decades to come, e.g., from volcanic or solar
activity variations: (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing
carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and
a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”
Yes. Here is Lamb 1974 after discussing geological ice age prospects:
“The question of whether a lasting increase of glaciation and permanent shift of the climatic belts results from any given one of these episodes must depend critically on the radiation available during the recovery phase of the 200-year and other, short-term fluctuations. An influence which may be expected to tip the balance rather more towards warming – and possibly inconveniently rapid warming – in the next few centuries is the increasing output of carbon dioxide and artificially generated heat by Man (MITCHELL 1972).”
That was right in the middle of this “scare”.
Ah yes, “The Charney Report”.
Sounds so important.
Again, reality is different.
“Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate”
What does “Study Group” and their report mean, Nick?
Virtually anything but an official report, definitely anything but actual research, discussion group is possible and may even be likely. Basically, yak sessions that rarely have actual science performed or viewed. It is a committee that meets, hopefully reads some research, hears opinions, reviews some papers and then the secretary types up a report.
There must be tens of thousands study groups and their reports each year. Without substantial effect, until some glazed eyes desperate CO2 emitting character tries to claim one small study group is more than a study group or more than multiple articles speculating about climate around the same time.
Then if one reads through the Charney report’s mimeograph little print job, 18 pages single sheet papers.
Along the way, one notices little details, such as the “General Circulation model of 1980” was one of the models reviewed. So, the Charney report was not issued in 1979, and perhaps not until 1981.
‘… “was the standard theory of the relationship between fossil fuel combustion and climate until Hansen 1981 and Hansen 1988”
Simply untrue …’ etc.
===============================
That is quibbling over dates and beside the point — the point being that whatever was observed was attributed by the likes of Hansen, Schneider etc. mainly to anthropogenic factors: global cooling = aerosols over CO2, global warming = CO2 over aerosols.
“Then if one reads through the Charney report’s mimeograph little print job, 18 pages single sheet papers.”
Not mimeographed. Printed and published by the National Academies Press. With 1979 on the publication page.
It was intended as the summary of the views of a bunch of top scientists about recent literature. And that is what they reported, in 1979. It wasn’t cooling.
alcheson wrote
“Once, it was observed that the global cooling was NOT going to pan out too well, they quickly switched to global warming in the late 1970s.”
And that fallacy is exactly what this kind of zombie myth is desperately trying to perpetuate: the raison d’etre of Andy posting this sort of tosh.
Since then this has happened –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2016_v6.gif
Tony:
“alcheson wrote
“Once, it was observed that the global cooling was NOT going to pan out too well, they quickly switched to global warming in the late 1970s.”
And that fallacy is exactly what this kind of zombie myth is desperately trying to perpetuate: the raison d’etre of Andy posting this sort of tosh.”
In a nut-shell.
In order to promulgate doubt.
Vis: *they got it wrong before … ergo they’re wrong now.*
Despite the fact that it’s 40+ years ago.
POLITICS
Everyone should read the Charney Report. It is a relatively easy read.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf
What is the most amazing fact is just how LITTLE climate science has advanced since this report. I mean not a single thing has changed at all since this report. It is like the Gospel According to Hansen and not a word of it can be changed for centuries.
I would also like to know how Hansen got Manabe pushed aside after this report. I mean he just disappeared as an authority on the topic ever since.
And then, so little advancement in the science. We have spent something like $200 billion on basic research since then. We have spent $500 billion on climate science satellites and other observation instruments. We have spent more than $1.0 trillion on green energy projects based on it.
WHERE is the new science? Where is the proof? With that kind of money, there should be something better than just more theory and antiquated models by now.
We have wasted $2.0 trillion.
“Since then this has happened –”
Please show how that graph indicates an ongoing catastrophe.
Mr. Stokes – hat’s is off to you for sticking to your guns and hanging in there. In the following quote, I see a case of the tail wagging the dog, “If the CO2 … is indeed doubled and remains so long enough for the atmosphere and the intermediate layers of the ocean to attain approximate thermal equilibrium …”
I would like to see some solid science on the effectiveness of DWIR affecting those ocean layers, for that is what your quote implies – infrared radiation can greatly influence ocean temperature down to the intermediate layers.
Well, one millimeter of the surface, yes.
Bill Illis
December 26, 2016 at 2:57 am
I agree. People should know that the report’s now “canonical” ECS estimate of three degrees C per doubling was nothing but the average of two total WAGs, without any actual observational basis.
And now almost 40 years and billions of dollars later, the IPCC hasn’t improved upon that pathetic excuse for “science”.
Chad Jessup,
“infrared radiation can greatly influence ocean temperature down to the intermediate layers”
I wrote about that here. It can, because it only has to maintain surface balance. Using rounded Trenberth average numbers (exact values don’t matter), the sea absorbs 160 W/m2 sunlight, which comes back to the surface (nowhere else to go). It loses about 100W/m2 in evap and convection. And to stay at 15°C, it has to emit 400 W/m2 upward IR.
That is a lot of heat loss. It would cool very rapidly, if it weren’t for the 340 W/m2 downward IR. This doesn’t have to penetrate the surface. It just has to maintain heat balance. The heat flux just below the surface is upward (that 160 W/m2). And if down IR rises to 341 A/m2, the surface has to warm to get rid of that extra 1 W/m2.
In fact IR could be absorbed, just as it is emitted. But it doesn’t have to be. On average, the flux is up.
Rasool and Schneider changed their opinions well before 1979. In that 1971 paper they mention warming due to increased CO2 but an 8 fold increase needed to warm the Earth by 2 degrees and so not going to mitigate the effects of aerosols, according to their modelling. Schneider changed his mind in 1974 to more warming due to a positive feedback and the effects of aerosols found to have been exaggerated. He wrote in 1976 that both were important and he advocated for adopting policies that are resilient to future changes in climate.
Just a coincidence that a 60 year cycle had become evident in the data?
For papers that claim CO2 causes cooling see paper #82 here: http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.FywBFzqb.dpbs
Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page.
I think you should post a link to the Wikipedia page in question. You should include the date range of the edits that are in dispute. Then we can independently check the History log.
I looked at some of that. Here is one of the pages as edited by Solomon. I couldn’t see the claim about a Pieser backdown, or its retraction. He seems to have been on about other things. I couldn’t recognise the account here.
I looked at some of that. Here is one of the pages as edited by Solomon. I couldn’t see the claim about a Pieser backdown, or its retraction.
15:40, 1 May 2008 Vanished user 47736712 (talk | contribs) . . (8,171 bytes) (-752) . . (→Science and society essay: removed mention of peiser as per discussion) (undo)
“I think you should post a link to the Wikipedia page in question. You should include the date range of the edits that are in dispute. Then we can independently check the History log.”
Exactly:
Third hand quote waving has no weight … except here of course.
Toneb,
For the FOURTH time, stop hand-waving and answer my question.
“Since you claim to know exactly how much CO2 affects the climate, and exactly the role it has in the environment, you should be able to tell me what the Temperature (all other things being equal) would be for a given amount of CO2.
You should be able to say, for example:
At 200ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 22.321 degrees C
At 205ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 22.548 degrees C
At 400ppm CO2 the Temperature would be 25.896 degrees C
If you cannot give me these amounts, it means your claim to know the effect of CO2 on the Climate is scientifically proven to be invalid.
Can you show me this a chart like this?”
I say it again….
Hand-waving is what prophets, politicians, and authorities do when they can’t answer a question that threatens their claims of expertise or veracity.
Hand-waving is when you answer a simple question with a complicated or abstract response to mask the fact that you either don’t know or you’re lying.
Hand-waving is when you answer a simple question with a personal attack or dismissive language.
And a Hypocrite is someone who excoriates people for doing something they do themselves.
Freedom:
“Hand-waving is when you answer a simple question with a personal attack or dismissive language.”
No, it’s when someone merely asserts something as fact, without providing supportive evidence.
No attack necessary.
“And a Hypocrite is someone who excoriates people for doing something they do themselves”.
No, again, a hypocrite is “a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”
“excoriation” is not required.
An example here is the promulgation of the UAH Sat Trop temp data series as being the “Gold standard” because the GISS surface temp data series has been “adjusted”. Err, we now have V6.0(beta5) of that.
Also often seen by “certain” *sceptics* – the holding of two diametrically opposed views in the mind at the same time.
An example that would be that simultaneously CO2 is vital for life as it greens the planet and gives rise to life….. but it is also an insignificant “trace gas”.
Can’t you admit that you just don’t know?
Freedom:
“For the FOURTH time, stop hand-waving and answer my question.”
Sorry – I didn’t know you’d asked one.
““Since you claim to know exactly how much CO2 affects the climate, and exactly the role it has in the environment, you should be able to tell me what the Temperature (all other things being equal) would be for a given amount of CO2.”
I don’t claim “to know exactly how much CO2 affects the climate” – The IPCC doesn’t beyond between 1.5 and 4.5C per 2x pre-industrial CO2 concentration.
All I do is search out the source of the science that is being “post-truthed” on here and link/quote it.
“tell me what the Temperature (all other things being equal) would be for a given amount of CO2.”
All that can be used is the Forcing= 5.35ln(400/280) equ.
(NB: the full treatment needs a line-by-line calc by comp)
– very computationally expensive, and compared with a Narrow Band Model (NBM) and a Broad Band Model (BBM) they are within a few percent of the LBL calculations.
So:
5.35xln(1.4286)
5.35×0.357
1.9 W/m^2
Now:
The SB Stefan-Boltzmann) equation shows the energy radiated from any “body” at a given temperature (in K):
Total energy per unit area per unit time, j = εσT4
ε= emissivity (how close to a “blackbody”: 0-1), σ=5.67×10-8 and T = absolute temperature (in K).
Take the solar incoming absorbed energy of 239W/m2 and comparing the old (only solar) – and new (solar + radiative forcing for 400ppm CO2 values), we get:
Tnew4/Told4 = (239 + 1.9)/239
where Tnew = the temperature we want to determine, Told = 15°C or 288K
We get Tnew = 289.008K or a 1.008°C increase.
And where are we at the current 400ppm?
Around 1C above pre-industrial, is where.
Freedom Monger: No, he cannot. That is a required characteristic of global warming believers. They CANNOT, under any circumstances whatsoever, be wrong.
Thank you Toneb,
But I’m afraid most of your answer might as well be in Chinese. I’ll have to re-post it later to the open forum and ask for help from the other scientists here to explain what you’ve said in a language I can understand.
However, I am glad to see you admit that you don’t know exactly how much CO2 affects the climate, and that you rely on the IPCC as your Authority.
Now, I have relatives in town, but I look forward to engaging you in discussions after the new year.
Have a Happy New Year.
“Now, I have relatives in town, but I look forward to engaging you in discussions after the new year.
Now, I have relatives in town, but I look forward to engaging you in discussions after the new year.
Have a Happy New Year..”
Freedom;
Thankyou, for at least showing a light behind the words.
Uncommon on here.
Whether it makes difference to you is not why I’m here though.
Like I said, I just want to shine a light on what the peer-reviewed science says.
Few of us are doing it here.
“Have a Happy New Year.”
And you and other denizens to.
Stephen Rasey – December 25, 2016 at 7:18 pm
“DUH”, ….. what’s da matter with ya’ll, ……. da cat’s dun got your “recall n’ reasoning” abilities and buried them in the litter box, …. did it? Surely you had some at an earlier time in your life, right?
How’s come none of you questioned what Lawrence Solomon attested to, as per this quote by the author, ….. to wit:
Quoting Andy May
Iffen “changes” that were made to correct, per se, “junk science” errors in Wikipedia articles ….. “were gone in a twinkle, …… just what makes ya’ll think, …. no, ….. just what makes ya’ll actually believe, …. that there should be, and would be, a record of the aforesaid activity in Wikipedia’s History log?
HA, for ”corrections” to be un-done “in a twinkle”, me betcha a cold 6-pack of beer that a site Administrator at Wikipedia “installed” a per se “Anti-Change App” on its Server that is “running 24/7 in the background” and when changes are made to articles that the App software doesn’t approve of, the App re-instates the old verbiage and “clears” the History log of said activity.
And it wouldn’t require the genius and expertise of a “climate modeler” programmer to code such an App.
Cheers, Sam C, ……. the ole computer designing dinosaur.
The group that changed the posts to eliminate mentions of the LIA, MWP and other anti-consensus comments did use administrative tools to protect what they had done. They also barred over 2000 people from making any Wikipedia changes at all. See here: http://www.wnd.com/2009/12/119745/
Andy:
Could you link to a first-hand account/evidence of your/their assertion (“getting rid” of the MWP/LIA) please?
I note that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily
“WND (WorldNetDaily) is an American news and opinion website and online news aggregator. The website has been described both as politically conservative and “fringe” and far right.[3][4][5][6][7]. It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah with the stated intent of “exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power”.[8] The website publishes news, editorials, and opinion columns, while also aggregating content from other publications.
Coz – I don’t see any there.
There is a link to a page (http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543” that says…
“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Not proof. Where’s the full email??
Who was the “a leading scientist”, pray?
My parents grew up with those 1960-1970 winters in North Dakota and remember them well.
Entire houses being buried in drifting snow. Having to go in and out via second story windows. Some people having to get out of their house, walk up the drift on the other side, and dig DOWN to the chimney so they could have heat.
My Grandfather used to leave the bucket on the tractor raised before a storm in case they had to crank start it to move snow. After some storms, the only way they found the tractor was the bucket sticking up out of the snow.
Often, equipment would get buried and lost until spring. Some storage buildings would drift so bad you had to abandon them until spring or, if you were lucky, they would drift so you could still get into it as well as sled from the top of the roof.
That was not a fun time I am told.
And history is repeating itself today. ND and my home province of Manitoba are in the middle of one of those massive blizzards. 30-40cm of snow, 60-90km winds and -20c temps since 5pm today, and expected to continue all night. Our expected 15 family members is down to 5. We’ll be eating turkey and ham for a month! Merry Christmas Nodak, and everyone else – especially Anthony and his elves.
During the severe winter weather of the 1970s in the Dakotas, my uncle’s cattle would lose their tails because of complications from the build-up of frozen urine and feces on their tails.
For any who like to read more and argue less there is a good novel that relates a blizzard in the north-central USA. I’ve forgotten the year of the blizzard and have given my copy away to a friend that raised sheep – one of the subjects of the novel.
The author died recently.
Ivan Doig died at his Seattle home in the early morning hours of Thursday, April 9, 2015, of multiple myeloma.
One of the books in the series that he wrote is titled
Dancing at the Rascal Fair
Merry Christmas!
Growing up in the 50’s, 60’s I remember the same type of jet stream pattern as we are experiencing today. A lot of people made a ton of money buying calls on orange juice futures. Expect freezing weather in Florida.
During the early 80’s, I can remember driving from Tampa to Orlando, I can remember driving past mile after mile of dead orange groves. All killed by cold weather.
Nodak, my wife grew up just outside of the Peg in a “place” called Dugold in the 60’s, She has pictures that show just that. And.It is, to me, amazing people even survived some of those winters, outhouses, coal heating, no gas, electricity interrupted every other day. It sure shows the spirit of those folks, And now these days I wonder how long some young folks would live for a few days without the Net, let alone electricity or heat or would have to use an outhouse. They take so much for granted it is scary!
The efforts of the WC and his co-conspirators have made Wiki one of the LEAST reliable sources of anything to do with climate, and quite a few other subjects.
It really is a pity, because Wiki COULD have been a useful resources, but is now only worthwhile for TRIVIAL PURSUIT.
I hope the owners realise the DAMAGE that the WC has done to their reputation.
“he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age”
As usual, fact-free. The LIA has an extensive page of its own at Wiki, and has continuously for many years. Here is a 2003 page as edited by William Connolley. It mightn’t say it exactly as you would have, but there is no suppression. The MWP also has an extensive page which has been growing continuously since 2004.
In reading the link you provided to the LIA, seems they are definitely trying to get rid of the MWP and LIA by basically minimizing it to the point of insignificance. They numerous latest reconstructions they overlay onto the Temperature plot only show about a 0.2C difference between the MWP and the LIA. How is that not trying to get rid of it??
“How is that not trying to get rid of it??”
How do you know they are wrong? You seem to start from some given value that everyone has to adhere to. It’s just so. Then what is it? How do you know?
I do not know they are wrong… but when the early, original data was collected and analyzed for historical sake only, it agreed with observations in the literature. Newer data, collected when many billions of dollars (current and future) are at stake on the MWP and LIA being historically insignificant, which does not square with the written literature, seems to be much more likely to be suspect.
“Nick Stokes December 25, 2016 at 9:40 pm
How do you know they are wrong?”
How do you know they are right?
Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.
https://youtu.be/u1rj00BoItw
” a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.”
He could never produce the email. Or say who the scientist was. Unverifiable.
Nick Stokes – December 25, 2016 at 9:40 pm
Nick, why the ell do you keep asking others “to do” what you yourself refuses to do? Do you just assume the other people are “WRONG” ….. simply because they disagree with what your beloved mentors claim is factual science?
So, Nick, …. testify, …. tell us exactly why you think and/or believe your mentors are always 100% right, ….. 99% correct beyond any doubt?
Tell us Nicky, ….. “How do you know they are NOT wrong?” How do you know, Nick S, ….. how do you know?
Just a “consensus of opinions”, ….. yours included, …… RIGHT?
No science based facts or evidence needed, ……. RIGHT, Nick?
Fer shame, fer shame ….. and fer sure, ….. there is absolutely no difference in the mindset of the Bible believing Creationists …… and ….. the IPCC believing CAGWers.
It looks like there’s on one good reference in Climategate to this claim, and that the supposed claim came from Jonathon Overpeck. He doesn’t remember ever saying something like that:
sl:mail$ cat 1206628118.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: trenbert…,”Jonathan Overpeck” …
Subject: Re: Fwd: ukweatherworld
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:28:38 +0000
Cc: mann…, santer…, “Susan Solomon”
Peck et al,
I recall meeting David Deeming at a meeting years ago (~10).
He worked in boreholes then. I’ve seen his name on several of the
skeptic websites.
Kevin’s idea is a possibility. I wouldn’t post on the website
‘ukweatherworld’.
The person who sent you this is likely far worse. This is David Holland.
He is a UK citizen who send countless letters to his MP in the UK, writes
in Energy & Environment about the biased IPCC and has also been hassling
John Mitchell about his role as Review Editor for Ch 6. You might want to
talk to John about how he’s responding. He has been making requests under
our FOI about the letters Review Editors sent when signing off. I’m
sure Susan
is aware of this. He’s also made requests for similar letters re
WG2 and maybe 3.
Keith has been in contact with John about this.
I’ve also seen the quote about getting rid of the MWP – it would seem to go
back many years, maybe even to around the TAR. I’ve no idea where it came
from. I didn’t say it!
I’ve written a piece for RMS [popular journal Weather on the MWP
and LIA – from a UK
perspective. It is due out in June. I can send if you want.
I’m away all next week – with Mike. PaleoENSO meeting in Tahiti – you can’t
turn those sorts of meetings down!
Cheers
Phil
At 23:15 26/03/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>Hi Jon
>There is a lot to be said for ignoring such a thing. But I understand the
>frustration. An alternative approach is to write a blog on this topic of
>the medieval warm period and post it at a neutral site and then refer
>enquiries to that link. You would have a choice of directly confronting
>the statements or making a more general statement, presumably that such a
>thing is real but was more regional and not as warm as most recent times.
>This approach would not then acknowledge that particular person, except
>indirectly.
>
>A possible neutral site might be blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/
>I posted a number of blogs there last year but not this year. I can send
>you the contact person if you are interested and you can make the case
>that they should post the blog.
>
>Good luck
>Kevin
>
>
> > Hi Phil, Kevin, Mike, Susan and Ben – I’m looking
> > for some IPCC-related advice, so thanks in
> > advance. The email below recently came in and I
> > googled “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
> > period” and “Overpeck” and indeed, there is a
> > person David Deeming that attributes the quote to
> > an email from me. He apparently did mention the
> > quote (but I don’t think me) in a Senate hearing.
> > His “news” (often with attribution to me) appears
> > to be getting widespread coverage on the
> > internet. It is upsetting.
> >
> > I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any
> > record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive
> > search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I
> > assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long
> > ago, and that he’s taking the quote out of
> > context, since know I would never have said what
> > he’s saying I would have, at least in the context
> > he is implying.
> >
> > Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually
> > ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can
> > imagine that it could take on a life of it’s own
> > and that I might want to deal with it now, rather
> > than later. I could – as the person below
> > suggests – make a quick statement on a web site
> > that the attribution to me is false, but I
> > suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
> > a fake email. I would then say it’s fake. Or just
> > ignore? Or something else?
> >
> > I googled Deeming, and from the first page of
> > hits got the sense that he’s not your average
> > university professor… to put it lightly.
> >
> > Again, thanks for any advice – I’d really like
> > this to not blow up into something that creates
> > grief for me, the IPCC, or the community. It is
> > bogus.
> >
> > Best, Peck
> >
> >
> >>Reply-To: “David Holland” …
> >>From: “David Holland” …
> >>To:
> >>Subject: ukweatherworld
> >>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:39:10 -0000
> >>
> >>Dear Dr Overpeck,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I recall David Deeming giving evidence to a
> >>Senate hearing to the effect that he had
> >>received an email including a remark to the
> >>effect “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
> >>period”. I have now seen several comment web
> >>pages attribute the email to your. Some serious
> >>and well moderated pages like
> >>ukweatherworld would welcome a post from you if
> >>the attribution is untrue and would, I feel
> >>sure, remove it if you were to ask them to. I am
> >>sure that many other blogs would report your
> >>denial. Is there any reason you have not issued
> >>a denial?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>David Holland
> >
> >
> > —
> > Jonathan T. Overpeck
> > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
> > Professor, Department of Geosciences
> > Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
> >
> > Mail and Fedex Address:
> >
> > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
> > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
> > University of Arizona
> > Tucson, AZ 85721
> > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
> > fax: +1 520 792-8795
> > http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/
> > http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
> >
>
>
>___________________
>Kevin Trenberth
>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
>PO Box 3000
>Boulder CO 80307
>ph 303 497 1318
>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email …uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
Not only is the MWP and LIA almost nonexistent in most of the reconstructions on the graph, the graph even has Mann’s superimposed thermometer data on top of proxy data to make the fraudulent Hockey stick.
Samuel C Cogar said:
“Nick, why the ell do you keep asking others “to do” what you yourself refuses to do? Do you just assume the other people are “WRONG” ….. simply because they disagree with what your beloved mentors claim is factual science?
So, Nick, …. testify, …. tell us exactly why you think and/or believe your mentors are always 100% right, ….. 99% correct beyond any doubt?”
This started with:
“They numerous latest reconstructions they overlay onto the Temperature plot only show about a 0.2C difference between the MWP and the LIA. How is that not trying to get rid of it??”
then:
“How do you know they are wrong? You seem to start from some given value that everyone has to adhere to. It’s just so. Then what is it? How do you know?”
Well, that’s a fair question. How is a plot that shows about a 0.2C difference between the MWP and LIA “trying to get rid of it”
If you don’t know the answer, then how do you know that it is “trying to get rid of it”?
Philip Schaeffer = December 26, 2016 at 7:01 am
Well now, Philip Schaeffer, iffen three (3) weeks previously, that very same graph plot was showing a 0.2009C difference between the MWP and LIA …… then you can bet that someone is “trying to get rid of it”.
For the past 30+ years, every proxy graph of surface temperatures of the past 2000 years looks similar to this one, to wit:
Which one can plainly see there is a 01.0C difference between the MWP and LIA hi-low temperatures…… which is 0.8C greater than the difference stated above.
Of course now, Philip S, …… those persons with a “vested intere$t” ……… will select the LOWEST temperature of the extremely warm MWP …… and the HIGHEST temperature of the extremely cold LIA …… and then proudly claim there was only “a 0.2C difference between the MWP and LIA temperatures”.
Samuel C Cogar said:
“Well now, Philip Schaeffer, iffen three (3) weeks previously, that very same graph plot was showing a 0.2009C difference between the MWP and LIA …… then you can bet that someone is “trying to get rid of it”.”
And we’re right back to it’s changed in a direction I don’t like so they must be trying to get rid of it.
You haven’t explained anything yet. You’ve just told me it changed, and you think they did it to try and “get rid of it”
OK, nothing achieved yet, lets go on.
“For the past 30+ years, every proxy graph of surface temperatures of the past 2000 years looks similar to this one, to wit:
Which one can plainly see there is a 01.0C difference between the MWP and LIA hi-low temperatures…… which is 0.8C greater than the difference stated above.
Of course now, Philip S, …… those persons with a “vested intere$t” ……… will select the LOWEST temperature of the extremely warm MWP …… and the HIGHEST temperature of the extremely cold LIA …… and then proudly claim there was only “a 0.2C difference between the MWP and LIA temperatures”.”
Yet again, you tell me it’s changed, and then jump straight to “so therefore they are trying to get rid of it”
Where is the bit in the middle. You know, the bit where you explain how the change means you know they made the change to “get rid of it”. The bit with actual science in it. Seems to have gone missing.
Wikipedia tells you *when* an article has been modified, but it doesnt tell you *what* has been modified.and* by whom*. You have to dig deeper if you want to know. I call it non-transparency politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
I just read his Wikipedia entry. It looks like a whitewash.
Well … Is it not so!
Wikipedia gets money from the “Greens” the “Alarmists” the “Fraudsters” ha ha of course!
“There is an excellent new post up at notrickszone.com on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s…”
Except Andy, if you actually go and start reading the list of “285 Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence papers” it turns out that’s not what they are saying.
Beat up in an echo-chamber. Talk about re-writing history and fake news; notrickzone and shills like Dellingpole are masters.
Tony:
I’ve read through the summaries (Parts 1,2,3 in the post) and I have no idea what you are referring to. There are 163 articles on global cooling, not seven. What am I missing, you are not clear.
I looked at a sample of about 20 and they were making the most oblique references to global cooling if at all and reveal anything but a “Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’”.
Consensus in cooling? That is just a zombie lie to sow doubt. But if you repeat that sort of propaganda often enough then you get this (from above)
alcheson December 25, 2016 at 8:54 pm
… Once, it was observed that the global cooling was NOT going to pan out too well, they quickly switched to global warming in the late 1970s.
and this from below
Peter Morris December 26, 2016 at 8:40 pm
…..I was genuinely confused when I first encountered the gloabal warming hype in the early 90s in high school.
I didn’t realize it at the time, but those early propaganda pieces were what planted the seeds of doubt.
They always think they’re too clever by half.
…but I’m onto them…
Some people start to uncritically believe it…which is what you presumably set out to achieve: doubt in modern day climate science consensus.
tony m: Use of the term “shills” is a hallmark of fake news.
The name Dellingpole is a hallmark of fake news.
I thought that was Brian Williams.
Some of the references to Peiser is spelled Pieser in the text …
Fixed, thanks
As it happens, Wiki has an extensive article on the “global cooling scare”.
Nick, you forgot to mention it contains much of the same nonsense mentioned in this article:
“This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community …”
” … did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions”
The last one references the paper that put forward these lies. It is that paper that needs to be retracted and this Wiki page needs to be rewritten to reflect the truth.
Of which Connolley made 33 edits or reverts in the most recent 250 edits going back to 28 March 2015.
Here is a link to the cumulative revisions from 13 August 2003 to 18 May 2006. (the oldest 250 edits, of which Connolley made 78)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_cooling&type=revision&diff=53882578&oldid=1449061
Yes, WC has a view, and you disagree. So what is wrong with the actual article.
Its propaganda BS.. like most of WC’s stuff.
That is what he does !!!! And you know it, despite your desperation to defend him.
“Nick Stokes December 25, 2016 at 9:23 pm
Yes, WC has a view, and you disagree.”
He was banned from editing climate change related articles for 6 months for re-editing articles with false information. It’s on record. That is conclusive enough for me that he is simply an alarmist shill spreading misinformaton via Wikipedia (Which is provably inaccurate on many other subjects).
WC was editing information put there by the SCIENTISTS who actually wrote the original articles.
That is seriously SICK.. and Nick CONDONES this.
That is seriously SICK !!!
“He was banned from editing climate change related articles”
Interestingly, that fact didn’t appear on his Wikipedia entry.
See how slippery the troll is. Very entertaining. Constantly avoiding the actual issues, always trying to create a diversion.
IIRC, it’s a violation of Wikipedia rules to create encyclopedia entries about your own work. Something about bias, being too close to it, and not being able to write well for people unfamiliar with the field.
Lotsa Wikpedia abuse all around….
FFS nick. Stop trying to look your most stupid. You are better than that
That is an unwarranted assumption, if one looks at the record.
Hunter:
It is – but this is the home of “unwarranted assumption”.
And:
“if one looks at the record.”
Almost never happens here.
I say again, UNLESS one of the few to try to drag most threads out of the rabbit-hole here, and to be looked at critically turns up. Nick Stokes being the main one
OR:
You could have a 100% fan-boys mutual appreciation society here.
Ever noticed that people have to expose their views to both sides of the argument to view it critically?
And the odd expert in stuff does that.
Such as ….. (with Willie Soon mentioned in the OP)…..
Who in the “It’s the Sun stupid” type pieces, destroys the counter-factual and Sky-dragon slaying, err, talk.
Such as ….. (with Willie Soon mentioned in the OP)…..Leif Svalgaard
Nice try, troll. You only make my point- you pathetic trolls are too dishonest to deal with contra-facts that disturb your pathetic fundamentalist religious beliefs in climate change.
“Nice try, troll. You only make my point- you pathetic trolls are too dishonest to deal with contra-facts that disturb your pathetic fundamentalist religious beliefs in climate change.”
Sir:
Can I point out (not for the first time on here).
That a “Troll” is not someone who posts something that you disagree with, but someone who is argumentative just for effect.
If you disagree with the science I post then please provide your own (Blogs don’t count – as science isn’t done here).
Your response may be par for the course for some on here and it no doubt impresses a good number of them.
But it doesn’t gainsay anything I post …. or Nick …. or Leif …. or Griff – and a few others who can be bothered to see your type of response.
Oh, and “religious belief” requires no evidence.
It would seem your “belief” doesn’t either.
I don’t “believe anything” just follow and post the science.
Science gives us the evidence with which we can be confident.
That’s all we have other than the “b” word …
That OK?
Toneb,
What “science”?
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever in support of the failed conjecture of catastrophic anthropogenic climate alarmism (CACA).
As I’ve asked before, please present what you imagine to be such evidence. There’s a Nobel Prize in it for you, since neither IPCC or anyone else has yet managed to produce a shred of valid evidence in support of the baseless proposition that man-made GHGs will cause catastrophic consequences. So far they have been beneficial for plants and other living things.
Chimp:
“As I’ve asked before, please present what you imagine to be such evidence. There’s a Nobel Prize in it for you, since neither IPCC or anyone else has yet managed to produce a shred of valid evidence in support of the baseless proposition that man-made GHGs will cause catastrophic consequences. So far they have been beneficial for plants and other living things.”
No there’s no Nobel going because the science is established my friend (hint: start with Tyndall ~150 yrs ago).
If you came out of this rabbit-hole you’d realise that.
And there’s a word for wilfully ignoring the consensus science ( probably by not even reading it as inhabitance here precludes it).
Keep reading my posts my friend and maybe follow my links sometime.
Toneb,
Just as I thought, you can’t defend the phony “consensus”.
I’m sure that over the past 45 years I’ve read a lot more scientific papers relevant to climate than you have. If you imagine otherwise, then by all means show me wrong.
That CO2 might be a “greenhouse” gas is far from sufficient evidence to make the case for catastrophic man-made global warming. So far, one more molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules has been a good thing. Two more molecules, for a doubling from 300 to 600 ppm, would be even better.
Once again, please make the case for the failed conjecture of Catastrohpic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism. You won’t because you can’t.
@ Nick Stokes, Re: the “Little ice Age” I grew up in Europe in the 50’s to 70″s in Europe part of my education was ( as it seems to be forgotten in today’s K -12 grades) was history, geography and their links but also a big chunk of art as in the history of artists and their works. Of those many of them cover that period and the paintings depict winter scenes that were in fact a picture of what was happening. And frankly it was bitterly cold. Combine them with actual written history Nick there is no doubt the Little Ice Age happened as did the Roman Warm period as agriculture in England proves ( grapes grown etc). I wonder why, Nick, you base all your “theories” on Wiki as Wiki is so easily manipulated by literally anyone. The hard proof of those times are on canvas and in books that cannot be rewritten by anyone. Please go visit some museums, real libraries with real books and get out of your basement. By the age of 15 friends and myself and family had travelled all across the EU and by the time I was 18 I imigrated ( by myself) to a new country. Get out my boy and really see the world before you form an opinion.( BTW it wasn’t as pretty as I hoped but looking back I am happy I did)
+1 asybot
In Canada. CMOS (Canadian |Meteorological and Oceanographic Society) was showing a film (name something like – The Coming Ice Age) about 1976. Today, CMOS will not print any article that dares to criticize Human caused warming.
The Coming Ice Age – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0894213/
“They claimed only seven scientific papers of the period discussed global cooling, when there are 163 papers on the subject, including seven that claim CO2 is causing global cooling. These include an article by the CIA.”
Watch the pea there. They didn’t claim that seven “discussed global cooling”. They were more specific:
“Our literature survey was limited to those papers projecting climate change on, or even just discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales from decades to a century. While some of these articles make clear predictions of global surface temperature change by the year 2000, most of these articles do not”
They are talking about prediction by scientific papers. But most of the counter papers cited are just discussing the observed cool winters of the 1970’s mainly in N America. That undoubtedly happened, and was discussed, but that is not an ice Age scare.
I looked through their list. The first obvious point is that the “article by the CIA” was not a paper, or even an article. I was a report by an agent who had been talking to a scientist with eccentric ideas. But of the rest, NTZ lists 35 sample papers only. I looked at the first few:
1. Cimarelli and House. This isn’t a paper, but a master’s thesis. The quote from it is actually just the conclusion of Rasool and Schneider:
“[A]n increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age.”
That conclusion is true, then and now. But particulates have not quadrupled, nor are likely to.
Angell and Korshover, 1978
Just says it was cold, as it was.
Schultz, 1972
Just says that armadillos, which had been moving north, have receded a bit.
Wendland, 1977
Just says it has cooled around Florida. No ice age scare.
Nelson et al start out with an apparently sweeping, but rather general statement.
“Concern about climatic change and its effects on man has been increasing.”
True. But then all they follow up with is discussion of some cold years in Indiana. No Ice Age scare.
Douglas 1975
was one of the journalists’ beat-ups.
and so on.
“1. Cimarelli and House. This isn’t a paper, but a master’s thesis. The quote from it is actually just the conclusion of Rasool and Schneider:”
A Masters thesis is a peer reviewed publication. In those days, in five copies at least.
The CIA did indeed commission assessments on global cooling, just as they do for everything else. They also commission them on warming and are probably far more accurate than the junk science peddled by the BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera and the Guardian.
https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/8983
Yes, that is the Douglas beat-up that I referred to. Journalists have to find stuff to write about.
When C/AGW was ramping up in the the early 2000’s, that was a hot topic that there were no ” peer reviewed ” papers on global cooling. They were also saying it was never published in any science journal, rather it was the popular media that was making the event. Unless you have the actual printed version, it is becoming harder to assert such things existed as C/AGW is systematically changing the history to fit their narrative. And further use of nitpicking and word usage as Nick Stokes uses to downplay the significant cooling during that time as only limited to North America. Perhaps he doesn’t know or doesn’t remember that prior to the Soviets going into Afghanistan, wheat harvests in the former Soviet state had failed. (Sarcasticly) I’m sure that was because of global warming.
The problem is of course that the cooling wasn’t that deep and had a profound effect. With a serious cool down, like a LIA, the results are catastrophic. Which is a major concern since all of the offical effort is now centered on AGW and none towards finding the real causes of climate change.
The effort to eliminate or minimize those 2 time periods is that they happened in absence of dramatic shifts in the production of co2. C/AGW cannot show how that occured. The effort is now centered on minimizing the temperature extremes. The next argument is that the MWP wasn’t as warm as the current warming period. The MWP was indeed warmer. And valleys filled with ice during the LIA are gone now. I suppose that’s due to the idling SUV’s.
Thanks for the Science News link.
I imagine if one were able to get an index of the articles that appeared in Science News in the 1970’s there would be a lot of articles referring to global cooling.
I read the weekly Science News religiously from the early 1970’s up through the 1980’s when they switched over to reporting on global warming, and the global warming hype, without any proof, got to be too much for me and I had to cancel my subscription. I did that with Scientific American, too, at the same time, and for the same reason.
They both lost their crediblity by pushing the global warming narrative. I would get angry every time I read an unsubstantiated global warming claim. I didn’t see any reason to pay someone to get me angry on a weekly or monthly basis by foisting off speculation as confirmed science.
http://wermenh.com/climate/scinews.jpg
I don’t recall there being many articles in Science News. I recall talking with Dad about the topic, he read mainly Scientific American (RIP), and Science, I think they had articles too.
One of the claims about how the Ice Age would begin entailed snow not melting some summer. A while after that I flew across the country in March and decided that wouldn’t be a problem unless all the trees were completely covered, and that from what I could see, it seemed rather unlikely, at least outside of the tundra.
It was when the Keeling curve came out soon thereafter that everyone jumped on to the global warming bandwagon and I started pointing out that “At least nuke plants don’t release CO2” to all the anti-nuke folk around.
“I don’t recall there being many articles [about global cooling] in Science News.”
I wouldn’t say there were a lot, but there were some. There certainly were not as many articles on global cooling as there have been on global warming in later years. I would guess at least ten times as many global warming articles, once it became the thing to do.
In the later years of my Science News subscription (late 1980’s early 1990’s, don’t remember right now) it seemed like there was at least one global warming article every issue, and sometimes more than one. It drove me nuts. And I didn’t have a stake in the argument, I didn’t care one way or the other (although I definitely prefer being warm:). All I wanted was the truth. I cared about being presented with some evidence so I could say to myself, “Ok, yeah, that’s the way it is.” I’ve never seen that kind of evidence. Not to this very day. It’s still speculation on top of speculation.
You’re making yourself look silly, Nick. You KNOW WC has adjusted Wiki in line with his climate orthodoxy. You KNOW he was editing contrary opinions. You KNOW he was banned for doing so. Yet in spite of all that you continue to defend the indefensible. Whatever; it’s your reputation you’re trashing.
What the troll “knows” is a very flexible concept.
“You KNOW WC has adjusted Wiki in line with his climate orthodoxy. You KNOW he was editing contrary opinions. You KNOW he was banned for doing so.”
He was banned for six months, is my understanding. Does he get to return to do more of his adjustments after the six months is up? Why not a permanent ban? That would seem to be appropriate for someone who has done what he did.
Yes, it’s as flexible as the selective memory of pathological criminals who have there DNA all over the poor victim, but claim their ‘innocence’ with a straight face – albeit, with very small pupils.
So articles that say it’s hot should be ignored.
Articles commenting on the movement of wildlife should be ignored.
Articles saying it’s hot in Florida should be ignored.
I’m seeing where a great deal of what is called “global warming” is really to be ignored. I feel better now—I can watch the news and ignore all that nonsense.
Nick,
Comment from Chimp at December 26, 2016 at 3:00 pm that I haven’t seen you address yet.
Re this paragraph;
William Connolley and Kim Dabelstein Petersen slander eminent scientists.
This is the problem with Singer, Lindzen, Happer, Soon, Spencer, Christy, and Curry. They have had an abiding and on going chance to kill the global warming fraud, smother it dead in WIKIpedia (which is about it’s only consistent redoubt remaining).
Why haven’t our ‘heroes’ sued wikipedia into oblivion?
All they would have to do is exert their own individual fundamental rights to in turn save the world entire from the newest would be oligarchy.
Damn you.
I’m not interested in their mealy mouth.
Only one reason makes sense. They’re in on it.
Wikipedia cannot be sued for slander.
Defamation published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or the like is slander.
Defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures is libel.
I checked this with Wikipedia.
Defamation published in some fleeting form…
There is nothing more fleeting than a global warming entry at wikipedia.
Wikipedia has gone way over the line in defamation for years and got away with it because nobody is willing to make a stand in court against their crowd sourced bullying.
For one reason, the American constitution protects “freedom of speech”. It won’t matter in court if it’s true, just that an American wanted to say it.
Defamation is a tort. It’s private citizen versus private citizen/private company/private foundation/government entity.
The government’s role is to observe the nasty lie, then decide how much the dirty lie cost. And since we are talking about the global warming fraud that cost could be well into the billions.
In America you are free to speak, but defamation will cost you.
Besides, wikipedia is an international entity. Peiser and Connolley are Brits.
I am given to understand in your more primitive kingdoms/serfdoms that restrictions against the underclasses acting up are more extreme, their freedoms more notional than in America.
Sometimes ‘stuff’ happens: http://www.blacklistednews.com/Climate_change_expert_sentenced_to_32_months_for_fraud%2C_says_lying_was_a_%E2%80%99rush%E2%80%99/55976/0/38/38/Y/M.html
climate expert is lying fraudster shocker 😉
Two or three years back I received an email headed “A personal message from Jimmy Wales” addressing me by my first name, signed by Jimmy Wales and requesting money for Wikipedia.
I sent a reply to Jimmy Wales saying that I thought the benefits of Wikipedia were outweighed by the harm resulting from Connelly’s activities.
I received a reply from a minion stating:
– Jimmy Wales does not receive personal emails.
– The Connelly issue had been dealt with.
I found the actual reply I received:
Mr. Wales does not have an active role in administering Wikipedia.
We are aware that there has been substantial coverage of global warming and
Wikipedia and also administrator William Connolley. We note that the coverage is
very one-sided, and fails to indicate that Mr. Connolley was stripped of his
administrative privileges over three months ago as part of several sanctions
against users involved in the behaviour mentioned.
Yours sincerely,
Joe Daly
—
Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org
—
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are
not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation.
That doesn’t sound bad. It seems Wikipedia is recovering from its Connollitis infection.
Even if WC is cut down to writing one article per day, this makes 365 articles p.A. to spoil the broth. And I bet he has dummy identities.
I think Connolley’s access was restored after a few months, with some restrictions. By then I had given up on Wikipedia for controversial topics so there’s more you could delve into. It’s good for math, radioactive decay chains, and lists of tropical storms.
[citation needed]