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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Forget about correcting Wikipedia. It’s become thoroughly corrupt. Post on Infogalactic instead.
I wanted to mention Infogalactic as well. I think that’s it’s a worthwhile endeavor and chipped in. If nothing else, it’s good to have competition to keep organizations honest.
Does that ever really work? As far as I can see, very little keeps organizations honest when big money or fame becomes involved. Searching for various opinions and sources is the only way to get anywhere near the truth, if it can be found at all on the internet.
Well fwiw there’s the lyrics to the chorus of The Clash’s London’s Calling released in 1979…
The Ice Age is coming, the sun is zooming in,
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin,
Every time that it plays I point out that it disproves global warming… When the same progressives and hysterics where screaming then about how we had to find a way to warm the planet up.
*hysterics were ….
Good track, well done! And that was after the heatwaves of 1976.
Played on ‘Theme Time Radio Hour with your host Bob Dylan’ (a real Nobel Laureate) so it must be true.
Bob’s been a bit doubtful ever since the ‘Newport Incident’ as far as the left are concerned. Another mark of his genius of course.
It’s worth noting that the first paper to use the term “Global warming” was written in order to explain the lack of cooling as had been predicted from the camp century cycles.
So, in its early incarnation CO2 “caused” global warming was just an excuse to explain the lack of global cooling.
It therefore seemed likely that when the predicted global warming did not materialise, that the charlatans would naturally find an excuse – and they did in “the ocean’s ate my global warming”. This tells us all we need to know about this fake news subject.
It’s not just Wikipedia articles on global warming which are “fake news” – but the entire subject is fake.
The global warming due to CO2 thing was mainly a product of Hansen’s scamming as he attempted to get money through grants applications. He claimed he thought man’s emitted CO2 would be burped up to the tropopause and concentrate there, and thicken the tropospheric blanket, warming the earth. When reporters reminded him that more refractory blanket between a fire and object means cooling, he said he was too smart to talk to dumb reporters and started hiding.
Anybody who says different wasn’t paying attention to the scam. I was. I was going to go to work in N.A.S.A. in atmospheric radiation so I paid careful attention to politics around N.A.S.A. Theoretical climate people like Hansen were openly mocked by the era’s six or seven primary paleo climate people. They ALL agreed – as anyone does who reviews the cycles – we’re set up – and LATE – for glaciation.
” he said he was too smart to talk to dumb reporters and started hiding”
Really? Got a link or did you just overhear the conversation?
We were set up for glaciation until humans dumped 2000Gt of CO2 into the air.Glaciation has been postponed.
I am not aware that the NSIDC produces a daily sea Ice “AREA” series.
They do produce a daily sea ice “Extent” series but those two values as of yesterday add up to 18.341 million km2 (which would be near the top of your graph).
Please provide a source for the data of this chart (or is this some home-made Wipneus version again).
The total global sea ice extent area is only 15% below normal which is not that unusual I think.
More fake news/graphs.
Tony, please apply at once for Noble prize! You *know* we were headed for glaciation until eeeevil humans interfered. Wow it’s amazing- blog level climate change kook knows the secret to glaciation. But your extremism lets you show your inner misanthrope….not a pretty sight. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
Tony
I’m going to bookmark your graph and check it in 4 or 5 years. My instincts tell me it will look dramatically different. Reversion to the mean and all that.
Bill Illis December 26, 2016 at 5:17 am
I am not aware that the NSIDC produces a daily sea Ice “AREA” series.
They do produce a daily sea ice “Extent” series but those two values as of yesterday add up to 18.341 million km2 (which would be near the top of your graph).
Very disingenuous of you Bill since it’s well known that area is lower than extent.
In fact both Arctic and Antarctic extent are both ~2.5 Std Dev below average, which definitely constitutes ‘unusual’.
Please provide a source for the data of this chart (or is this some home-made Wipneus version again).
The total global sea ice extent area is only 15% below normal which is not that unusual I think.
Wipneus’s calculation always tracked the CT area data very well when CT was working so no reason to suppose that it’s not working now, especially when the NSIDC ‘extent’ is following a similar abnormal trajectory. After all Wipneus uses the pixel data from NSIDC to calculate ‘area’.
His method and data can be found at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/global-sea-ice
Bill Illis on December 26, 2016 at 5:17 am
Download the north/south csv daily extent and climatology files from
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
e.g. for the period 2016-2007 into your PC, build monthly time series out of that, and create your own plots.
And then I’m sure you won’t come back here with your “fake news/graphs” claims. Because you’ll see the same stuff.
To simply pick up one day with 18,341 Mkm² sum extent and compare that to the 21,611 of the daily climatology: that has no sense.
Bindidon December 26, 2016 at 9:54 am
I started doing that about 8 years ago. I know full well what is in that directory.
The data actually goes back to 1972 but you never see that.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0192_seaice_trends_climo/total-ice-area-extent/esmr-smmr-ssmi-merged/
Graph is found here: http://neven1.typepad.com
Original source of graph apparently cannot be linked to here.
Bill Illis on December 26, 2016 at 10:13 am
I started doing that about 8 years ago. I know full well what is in that directory.
Than why do you speak about fake news/graphs? If you knew that so “really” as you pretend, you should look at the same stuff!
… but you never see that.
Aha. Typical WUWT “specialist” guessing. Redundancy as usual.
You’re loosing my time, Bill Illis… Thanks.
Reality check December 26, 2016 at 10:20 am
Original source of graph apparently cannot be linked to here.
It certainly can be, I gave you the link to the website describing the process above, and from there here is the link to the most recent plot:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/j74789h
Phil: I was referring to the neven1 link. I had tried both on this page and the test page to post said link, but the comment simply vanished—no notice of being sent to moderation, nothing. I have no idea why, besides this is a computer and I’m using the internet, all of which can be very iffy. Sorry if I bothered you with my comment.
The 23rd of November 2015 I visited a symposium at the KNAW, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam. The symposium was on the occasion of the Erasmus Prize for the Wikipedia Community.
I remember one of the speakers of the Wikipedia Community talked about the webpage that of all Wikipedia web pages was most changed: the web page of Climate Change. A compilation of successive rewritings was shown.
And I wandered why this one was the most changed web page. First, I suppose some people think to ‘do well’ from fear that ‘the end is near’. Those are the people who are made scared by the organized attempt to show a one sided picture about ‘what science says’. See comment above: alcheson December 25, 2016 at 10:54 pm
The other reason are well organised attempts to change the opinion. And it even could be so that people working in those organisations think they are doing well because they are convinced about the same fear ‘that the end is near’. It makes the one sided work of the IPCC, the self-proclaimed ‘highest authority of climate science’ even worse.
Bill Illis yes it is a Wipneus home made version, ie not a real NSIDC chart. Jim Huntt has it listed as such on his blog Dec 14th.
Arctic sea ice has made another dip recently which is surprising as the satellite reconstruction shows some areas of rapid infilling.
Tony McLeod may be Jim Hunt under an alias or just a confrere.
Lol, no relation
@ur momisugly angech: If you look at that ‘blib” angech, compared to the other years it seems actually similar but just a few days later than usual I might have to look at what the weather was like in previous years compared to 2016 but it looks like every year seems to have that slow down for a few days right around this time.[( Arctic Sea Ice Extend 15% or greater ( Nansen) or the the other two graphs by Nansen as well] it is part way down the Sea age page on WUWThttps://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
References from 1970 about the coming ice age (including short video “The Coming Ice Age” voiced by Leonard Nimoy):
“During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Like Nick Stokes some of us are old enough to remember the 70’s ice age scare.
There were no other competing climate scares at the time other than the ultimate heat death of the universe predicted by Lord Kelvin.
The William Connolly’s of the planet cannot wipe away well remembered facts.
His attempt to do so is counterproductive and only adds to the disconnect between the public and the self appointed ‘experts’.
How many Brexits and Trumps will it take to make the fake alarmists return to reality?
“His attempt to do so is counterproductive and only adds to the disconnect between the public and the self appointed ‘experts’.
How many Brexits and Trumps will it take to make the fake alarmists return to reality?”
If the “self-appointed experts” are not. Then who are?
Certainly not those posting lead articles here.
Would it be Tyndall, Arrhenius, Fourier et al, who laid down the empirical science dating back to before the beginning of the 20th cent.
And which we don’t need models for.
Just because this blog exists because of the ideological (read political) bias of 99% of denizens who read conspiracy and fraud or incompetence into every nuance, when human-nature and common-sense explains all.
Denizens are not the “public”.
Far from it.
This is the post-truth world now.
Select what you believe in and make a blog that like-minds can flock to and cheer each other on to the echo.
This is an extreme end of the spectrum of views and the “public” you talk of is not going to change the science just because those here don’t like it.
Try reading the science at source
Which is what Nick, I, Griff and a few others who can be bothered with the reflexive vitriol, link to.
Oh, and before you chime up.
I voted for Brexit.
The science speaks for it’s self.
It doesn’t need a bias.
If you don’t read *it* here that is.
Toneb: The science does speak for itself and it’s not saying what you believe it is.
“Toneb: The science does speak for itself and it’s not saying what you believe it is.”
I don’t “believe” anything.
Do you “believe” there is no GW?
And if you do, have you been direct to the rea science?
I follow the science.
And it don’t get talked off/linked to here unless by the 1% of people who can be arsed with having that kind of response. (hand-waving – but I thank you for being polite).
Everything BUT everything that can possibly be linked to AGW is reflexively rubbished here (“from the dept of ….”).
Just as it is impossible to get every Wx forecast correct, it’s just as impossible to get every one wrong.
So it’s all wrong? not just climate but all other Earth sciences as well?
Corse it is, stands to reason dunnit (sarc).
Applies here in spades.
That you don’t see it is the problem.
Not the science.
Quote me some science that doesn’t come via a blog, PSI or some dodgy Korean journal.
The “science” says what it says.
That’s how it works.
Sorry denizens here don’t like it.
And to resort to conspiracy ideation of fraud to explain it (that when refusing to believe it’s happening) is beyond bizarre.
Toneb
You just dont get it do you !
I was studying Physics in the 70’s and quite frankly did not give a monkeys about any climate alarms, ice age or not.
I simply report that among our circle if the climate trend was occasionally discussed it was in terms of global cooling.
You seem to imply that my experience is not somehow valid
Were you there?
Instead the climate fakers now shamelessly want to deny other peoples life experience.
Give it a rest, you are becoming ridiculous.
“Toneb…
you seem to imply that my experience is not somehow valid
Were you there?
Instead the climate fakers now shamelessly want to deny other peoples life experience.”
Excuse me – and just where did I do that pray?
“Give it a rest, you are becoming ridiculous.”
Well crikey – that’s a shock to me!
I am on WUWT aren’t I? (sarc)
Toneb: Yes, I have been directly to the real science—as in the journal articles, internet classes (the class was pro warming), etc. I don’t dispute that the global average temperature of the earth, as calculated by scientists using the anomalies of change from a thirty year global average, using varying numbers of estimated, adjusted and measured temperatures as inputs is increasing. I dispute the significance of that fact, the dire outcomes predicted and the actual reasons for the increase. I dispute that a trend line in any way represents reality and the temperature will increase based on that line.
You seem to be convinced your sources are the only sources out there. They are not. Plus, often the studies don’t say what the abstracts do and the conclusions on AGW are extraneously tacked into the abstract to make it look like agreement is occurring. Abstracts are often used in the so-called consensus studies, which means the studies are flawed from the beginning.
A theory is not useful if it cannot predict, if that was the intended purpose of the theory. The AGW models were designed to predict and fail in most, if not all, cases. Any field with near perfect failure rates is not really science, no matter what the field. Other earth sciences do not all claim to predict, so that problem does not exist in those areas.
I have no idea what PSI means and “dodgy” Korean journal. I would assume from your tone “dodgy” means disagrees with you. That’s not really scientific, so I see no point to answering that. If you want to define “dodgy” for me…..
Yes, the science says what it says and it still doesn’t say what you believe it does. You can repeat yourself over and over, it won’t change that. I don’t believe in conspiracies, so whatever you’re referring to in that last statement is inaccurate (I have to ask—do you believe the fossil fuel conspiracy statements put forth by several notable warmists?)
I see nothing bizarre in believing in what the science actually says, having read it and researched. To do otherwise would be bizarre.
To answer your question further, I don’t believe in global warming and I don’t disbelieve it. There is insufficient data at this point to tell. I’m not sure there’s any way to tell, since science cannot predict the future of a chaotic system. In the beginning, AGW was fairly honest about that, but as time went by, they seemed to try to completely distance themselves from the theory.
” do you believe there is no GW ? ”
That’s a throwback that is 20 years old linking the belief that co2 is causing the slight warming that has occured, primarily since the 70 s. The argument is the cause. There have been warming periods and cooling which is unexplainable by co2 levels. That is what most of us are saying. The history and data has been changed, minimized, and disregarded in an effort to support C/AGW.
The models have failed in every regard to co2 causing the observed warming. That is in spite of no let up in the production of co2. The observed temperature is far below the projected increase.
As a comparison and contrast between today and the cooling period during the 1970’s, there were no skeptics about global cooling. Contrary to the revisionism that is being carried out today.
The extremists are not going to easily return to something they do willingly, and profitably, left. Look at the trolls defending AGW, no matter the evidence. Are they ever amenable to facts?
By extremists, do you mean the world’s oil companies? Like BP, who says “Why are oil and gas companies calling for more action on climate change? This year many of us have increased our advocacy on this issue. And last month, companies responsible for a fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply in the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) threw their support behind a new global agreement at the forthcoming UN talks in Paris.”
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/bp-magazine/observations/why-we-want-to-act-on-climate-change.html
Well, if you’re silly enough to believe that because you heard a lot about something on TV, that it must have been a widespread belief amongst experts in the field, then you aren’t much of a skeptic.
Actually, I’m skeptical on the assertion that CAGW is a widely held belief in the scientific sector NOW.
And the science backs up your skepticism.
MarkW said:
“And the science backs up your skepticism.”
What science would that be? If there is some good science showing that CAGW isn’t a widely held belief in the scientific sector now, I’d like to see it. And, are we talking about scientists in general, or just those who actually study and publish on issues of climate?
The entire CO2 thing is a moronic joke.
If 40% of the Earth’s botany wasn’t missing due to environmental destruction there’s be no CO2 to count in the first place.
Or does anybody here think that half the Amazon being MISSING doesn’t explain a 7ppm per year rise in CO2?
You think it’s the Amazon being burnt that causes the Keeling curve?
?w=720&h=415
The complexity in that ” half the Amazon being missing ” also underscores the point I’m trying to make concerning the sinks of co2 are getting bigger despite reductions in the obvious sinking capacity. How is it that the sinks today can sink the entire amount of co2 produced in 1965 plus 50% more? Then there is missing co2 that isn’t being accounted for. It isn’t in the atmosphere, and if that amount is ending up in the ocean and land, then the sinks are anywhere from 19 to 30% bigger . You can see why NOAA had to adjust the co2 record in the last year. 0.58 ppm/v is a small number until it comes to accounting for co2. By raising co2 for 2005 from 2.52 to 3.10 ppm they’ve magically accounted for 5 to 8 BMT . They also by the stroke of a pen, eliminated any relation between co2 following temperature, it also eliminated the peak to peak increases in co2 associated with solar cycles.
I’m not disagreeing with you Prj, this is a can of worms that isn’t going away. … also. Sometimes when I go back to reread some of my comments, it looks as if some things are incoherent. In a previous post about rewriting the history of global cooling, I brought up the LIA and the MWP. a paragraph in there vanished. It looks like I jumped from one thought to another without any reference.
Wow pr, why don’t you rejoin the real world.
I was working in atmospheric science in 1976-77 at an Australian University. I remember the Stephen Schneider article about the coming ice age and wondering if we could do anything about it. Orbital mirrors, scattering soot at the poles etc. The Saturn 5 production line had not long been shut down.
Also, science fiction writers generally follow the science of the day. Poul Anderson wrote” The Winter of the World ” in 1975 and John Gribbin ( usually a science writer) and Douglas Orgill wrote ” The Sixth Winter” in 1978 or so.
Yep, there was global cooling scare about then. Interestingly in the 1990’s Poul bought into the global warming conjecture in his later works.
Mike,
” I remember the Stephen Schneider article about the coming ice age”
I’m not sure which article you mean, but his 1971 paper with Rasool is the one usually quoted here. He quite soon decided that was wrong. Here is a 1975 paper putting the emphasis right back on CO2 warming, which was the mainstream even then.
Nick,
Wrong again. The consensus in the 1970s was not for warming, but cooling. Including the opinions of characters now CACAlarmists.
SS didn’t jump to the warming alarmism bandwagon until the 1980s. Your quotation doesn’t say what you imagine it does. It just shows that SS wasn’t sure of what could happen. Even in 1977, he was still on the cooling alarmism bandwagon:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/24/stephen-schneider-went-from-cooling-alarmist-to-warming-alarmist-in-just-four-years/
And of course the nuclear winter bandwagon. But if you asked him the right questions, he’d admit that we really didn’t know what the effect of soot would be. In public, with Ehrlich and Sagan, he pretended a lot more confidence than scientifically justified.
“Wrong again. The consensus in the 1970s was not for warming, but cooling. Including the opinions of characters now CACAlarmists.”
No it was NOT.
You confuse media prominence with the consensus science…..
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/cooling_70s.gif
Toneb,
You cite William Connelley? Thanks for the laugh out loud!
I cite the 1974 CIA paper on environmental and climate risks, the conclusion of which was that scientific consensus was the danger of continued cooling.
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/environment/potentialtrends.pdf
Or, for just some relevant material:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/40th-anniversary-of-cia-warning-about-global-cooling-induced-extreme-weather/
It wasn’t just the media. They only reported what scientists were saying at the time, including, as noted, those who later jumped on the warming bandwagon.
“Your quotation doesn’t say what you imagine it does. It just shows that SS wasn’t sure of what could happen.”
He’s sure enough that he says we’ll have to be careful with fossil fuels. He’s unsure of whether it will be bad or very bed.
Here is another Schneider paper from 1974, abstract:
He’s already recommending solar, water and wind power to mitigate global warming.
Nick,
Please read what SS said in 1977. He was clearly still on the cooling bandwagon.
You are apparently unaware that, strange as it might seem now, coolists also advocated “renewables”, just like warmists do now. Some coolists however did hope that more CO2 in the air would help counteract the dangerous global cooling they feared would continue indefinitely.
Dunno how old you were in the 1970s, but I was in college and grad school then, and one of my profs was Paul Ehrlich, so I well remember the global cooling consensus. It was just one of the many dooms predicted by the prophets thereof then, many of whom switched to forecasting doom from warming. Including SS.
Nick,
I guess I’m most amazed at how you seem to be able to interpret…ah, never-mind. Not worth it.
” Even in 1977, he was still on the cooling alarmism bandwagon”
The link leads to a review of his book “The Genesis Strategy”, where he is recommending stockpiling food. And the reviewer picks out what he says about the present being historically a warm period, and it could be worse. But the reviewer does remark, perceptively
“Although he properly emphasizes what is important—food, weather, his own proposals—he also tries to talk about everything, all the time. “ And so he also says:
“One form of such pollution that affects the entire atmosphere is the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas…. Human activities have already raised the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 10 percent and are estimated to raise it some 25 percent by the year 2000. In later chapters, I will show how this increase could lead to a 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) average warming of the earth’s surface.”
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a digitised book, so one just has to look up what other people quote.
“The Sixth Winter” IIRC made it into the Pournelle, Niven Flynn 1991 novel “Fallen Angels” also. That was science fiction, right?
Stokes is full of it.
Scoundrels for certain. About 9 years ago, certain folks were editing the Wikipedia page on water vapor, attempting to make it a non-gaseous entity after I had posted Fourier Transform Infrared Absorbence Spectrographs of both water vapor and carbon dioxide, showing how the former completely masks the latter.
The claim then was water vapor isn’t a gas but an aerosol of particles. After I proved all atmospheric gases can be condensed, the topic shifted to permanent gases..regardless of the fact carbon dioxide’s critical temperature is a quite confortable 31 °C and as such, it isn’t a cryogenic species.
Yes, for quite some time, Wikipedia had water vapor as a non gas phase of water. Which is why reputable professors reject this site as a credible source.
And who destroyed Wikipedia’s reputation?
More than anyone else, it was William Connolley and his band of history re-writing comrades.
I mean it had the potential to become the world’s greatest information source in history (but now almost nobody uses it at all and they are always on the verge of shutting down). It has turned into the “fake information site.”
Way to go Connolley.
There have been others, such as a number of leftists who try to whitewash the history of communism.
Um, I don’t think [it] had a chance to become anything great. It was always destined to illustrate the “tragedy of the commons” by the nature of its operation. They’ve removed all mention of the communist roots of Jamestown Colony from that entry.
Mr. Stokes,
It doesn’t matter what you think happened, or when, or by whom. You and your colleagues are about to experience a Securities and Exchange Commission style audit, where EVERYTHING has to foot and tie to the original data.
It will not be fun for your team, and all that the auditors will be asking is “Show me the data, and show me the calcs.” and you will fall from your perch like ripe mangos.
Yes indeed. Show me the RAW data and also show me how you complied with the Quality Assurance Plan. <~~~ Both required by federal law when using taxpayer funds.
It will not be fun for your team, and all that the auditors will be asking is “Show me the data, and show me the calcs.” and you will fall from your perch like ripe mangos.
Shall we interpret this as a claim from your side Nick Stokes would produce flawed output out of questionable data?
Show me a plausible reason for your claim, GlennDC! You aggress here the reputation of an honorable person.
I’m no warmist but I respect the work of others and expect the same from people like you.
“I’m no warmist”
Now that’s funny.
“…tried to show that the global cooling scare of the 1970’s was a myth…”
No doubt their contention is that it didn’t receive as much media attention (as if it would even be possible for it to have ever been as propagandized as the current boogeyman), so therefore it wasn’t a “thing”.
Nick~ your claims of a ‘handful of new articles’ are specious at best- there are dozens of articles from the US, Canada, the UK and other nations. The FACT that several US government organizations and the White House itself spoke up about the potential for another ice-age pretty much negates what you choose to believe.
Just as Trump- with the help of most Republicans and, I would not be surprised, some Democrats- is about to negate every socio-political aim you and your were hoping to accomplish with the AGW scare.
+1
Seems most didn’t see this happen the other day as it relates to purported fake news. Step one is now in place on who decides what is fake. Interpret that any way you like and then think of what the government has done to help you in the past…….
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law
Bonus read for today 🙂
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-25/heres-where-you-absolutely-dont-want-be-when-it-all-turns-ugly
Anyone notice a global trend recently, and it ain’t in the temperature of the troposphere?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_TURKEY_SOCIAL_MEDIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-12-24-09-57-30
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-25/israeli-ministers-approve-facebook-law-against-web-incitement
https://www.rt.com/news/371552-germany-fake-news-defense-center/
I am sure this is all being done in an effort to support free speech. SARC/
Domestic propaganda and disinformation seems to be ok, then. The larmist A’ss will love it.
A map of places not to be in a nuclear war would look a little different, however.
You can edit wikipedia based on primary information.
For example I tried to change the personel information about berkeley esrth..The had it wrong. But with no source to cite the change could not be made. So I had to change our Web page first… then I could cite that Web page as an authority. .
Wikipedia is not primary research. You can’t cite your conversation with Pieser as evidence.
“Wikipedia is not primary research. You can’t cite your conversation with Pieser as evidence.”
But it’s ok to make up Peiser’s beliefs without a cite. Good job Mosher.
FAKE NEWS!
It is everywhere.
I recall this article at WUWT: An earlier posting about fake news.
William Connolley has unwittingly supplied a cornucopia of incredulity to the entire CAGW movement. Mr Connolley, for that I extend to you unending gratitude. He and Dave Souza at wiki, among others, made wiki flypaper for the CAGW obsessed and permitted wholesale dismissal of the entire website by we skeptics.
Because wiki allowed it to happen I made my own edits, 100s, randomly, in 100s of articles.
One way of com batting fake news is to proliferate “news” with fakery such to discredit the main stream media and make the public lose trust in it. We are pretty much there. Few people believe the news now.
Obama has responded to this by creating a truth department (law S. 2943) as one of his final acts and as putz president.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law
Now we officially have an Orwellian government. Officially!!
If this means https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5181/text it’s not even close to the deniali5t libel at barackobama.com. In any case, Obama seems to load a cannon before handing it over to Trump.
This is just the latest incremental implementation of the totalitarian state.
Snuck it in, at the end of his term, over the Christmas holidays. Hopefully, Trump immediately erases it. I speculate that the “truth Department will be seen as a Trump creation, and the NYT &left will protest it anyway…. eventually. If Trump uses it, he will be justifiably seen as a fascist.
“Snuck it in, at the end of his term, over the Christmas holidays. Hopefully, Trump immediately erases it.”
This is bizarre. Yes, Obama assented to a law. But it was a law originated and passed by a Republican Congress.
Margaret Thatcher and Richard Nixon sprang the man-made climate change trap for everyone to see. Leftwing falling into it was perhaps predictable, but witnessing their veterans clinging to the cheese in the garbage truck is priceless. At least to those in the 50’s and beyond. Thanks Andy for documenting this milestone for the future generations. Looking forward to the sequel.
“Margaret Thatcher and Richard Nixon sprang the man-made climate change trap for everyone to see. ”
Can’t help but see a parallel with Joseph Atwill’s account of how the Flavians invented Christianity as a means to pacify the Jews, only to have it, to their horror, take hold in Rome instead of Judea. If true it certainly explains why, in an otherwise pantheistic society which tolerated religious diversity, Nero was in such a panic over its spread and committed such atrocities in a futile attempt to stamp it out. Also, why Constantine decided to embrace it, Obama-like, as a way to gain popularity with the believers.
Starting religions, is a game which can take unexpected directions.
It really is weird the what people can make themselves believe.
Do you have any evidence to back this claim of yours, or do you just hope that if you spread enough lies, it will be enough.
I seem to recall, but I can’t immediately show a solid reference, and I could be wrong, but I remember Maggie Thatcher used the specter to coal-mined coal power as a threat to humanity in the 1980s. She exploited this “story” to beat the trade unions into submission and she successfully smashed the labour party in the process. If this is true then I am happy for it. She didn’t author the story, but she popularized it.
Feel free to correct me… I am busy having a late Christmas dinner.
Apologies. Didn’t realise this was an issue over here. Thatcher’s speech at the UN in 1989 http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
When did Nixon spring such a trap? Nixon did nothing to curb CO2 emissions, while fighting real pollution.
His Loony Lefty aide Moynihan warned of global warming, but was ridiculously far off the mark. His September 1969 memo read that it was “pretty clearly agreed” that carbon dioxide content would rise 25 percent by 2000. In fact, CO2 went from 320 in 1969 to 365 in 2000, a gain of only 14%
Moynihan wrote, “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” Today we know that a 25% increase in CO2 won’t raise average global temperature by even one degree F, let alone seven degrees.
Nixon’s science advisers were worried about global cooling, not warming.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38070412/ns/politics/t/nixon-administration-debated-global-warming/#.WGF2erkgs2E
Even in HadCRU’s cooked to a crisp books, GASTA has gained only ~0.8 degrees C, or 1.4 degrees F, while CO2 has risen over 25% since 1969.
Moynihan may have overestimated CO2 growth. But he’s clearly saying that 1969 opinion was worried about warming, not cooling. And as for Nixon’s sience advisers, your link says:
“Moynihan received a response in a Jan. 26, 1970, memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.”
Nick,
You’ve already been showed here that Nixon was warned about global cooling by Kukla, who stuck to global cooling to the end, unlike his colleagues who swayed with the funding breeze.
More importantly, Nixon’s CIA presented him with the consensus on global cooling threats. Did you miss my link to that effect.
That one adviser thought that it was worth looking into a temperature rise only supports the fact that, contrary to your baseless assertion, the consensus was for cooling. But back then scientists were willing to consider alternatives to the prevailing orthodoxy, without suffering dire career consequences.
Missing a question mark.
For evidence of the 1970s consensus on global cooling, look no farther than the seminal 1975 global warming paper by Bowcker, the “Father of Global Warming”:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460
“Abstract
“If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.”
Note that here in the early 21st century planetary temperature is still well within limits of the past 1000 years, even in a Super El Nino year. It was warmer not only in AD 1016 than now, but in 1116 and 1216. During the Great Famine year of 1316, I’m not so sure. By 1416 the Little Ice Age was underway. Natural global cooling made 1516, 1616, 1716 and 1816 colder than now. But recovery was in train by 1916, although that was toward the end of natural multidecadal cooling cycle within the Modern Warm Period.
Yet another typo.
Boecker, of course.
Cold fingers.
Chimp December 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Yet another typo.
Boecker, of course.
Cold fingers.
Or maybe Broecker?
Really cold fingers. It’s cold outside.
Yet I had no trouble typing his name correctly while searching.
Chimp,
“More importantly, Nixon’s CIA presented him with the consensus on global cooling threats. Did you miss my link to that effect.”
As I noted, there was no way that report went to Nixon. It was a junior officer who had been told to find out something about climatology. The document warns:
And FWIW, there is another reason it never got to him. He resigned Aug 9th.
Nick,
The fact remains that the climate change which concerned Nixon was global cooling, not warming. The CIA report came late to the game of “consensus science” in 1974.
Your baseless assertion that only two periodical articles reflected the then consensus is patently false. It was the official US government consensus, based upon the opinions of the majority of “climate scientists” of that day, most of whom later switched to global warming when that view became the well funded consensus. But not Kukla, to his credit.
Wikipedia is even spinning (disappearing the history of) the phrase Fake News.
Go to this link and read about the history of Fake News during 2006 and 2007: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fake_news
Then try to find any reference to the serious issue of state sponsored video news releases (VNRs) in the Wikipedia page on Fake News: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website
For most, 1984 is a cautionary tale; for WC, it’s a training manual.
Yes, Wikipedia is Orwell’s new “Ministry of Truth” and WC is playing Winston Smith.
“Yes, Wikipedia is Orwell’s new “Ministry of Truth” and WC is playing Winston Smith.”
No, Winston was reluctant, and eventually saw the light. No evidence WC was/is reluctant or ever will be.
You know that there is a new wikipedia in town. It’s Infogalactic, starting as a fork from La Wik. But no lefty gatekeepers.
We could start the Rectification of Names with respect to climate.
Looks like the 30s and 40s were warmer in the Artcic, according to NASA:
Sorry, here’s the one from NASA’s site (a bit washed out):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
Jeff Alberts on December 26, 2016 at 9:47 am
#filehistory
Looks like the 30s and 40s were warmer in the Artcic, according to NASA:
Maybe Jeff Alberts should have a somewhat closer look at the graphs he publishes at WUWT (and btw at their real source as well).
Don’t you see that the graph ends just at the year 2000?
When looking at the source
you see that it was published in… 2003.
We are now in 2016: that means
– the inclusion, in the NASA/GISS data sources, of a big amount of measurements done by stations not present in their sources in 2000
– the improvements made in the exclusion of outliers, the replacement of UHI data by a mean of their rural context.
This is today’s view of GISS’ data:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161227/rvkkzzii.jpg
Maybe that, like many skeptics, you’ll argue about “NASA cooling the past to get the present warmer”.
That’s your problem I guess…
The notrickszone post isn’t all that new. In case it hasn’t been posted already, here is WIlliam Connolley’s response.
[see here’s the thing Ken Rice, and there’s no way of getting around this. Connolley is so toxic in his discourse that I and many other people just don’t give a crap about what he has to say anymore – Anthony]
[see here’s the thing Ken Rice, and there’s no way of getting around this. Connolley is so toxic in his discourse that I and many other people just don’t give a crap about what he has to say anymore – Anthony]
Well, given that this post mentions him in a number of places, it would seem worth at least considering his response. However, you are of course free to choose to ignore people on the basis of the manner of their discourse. You might want to bear in mind that many feel the same about you and your site.
…and Then There’s Physics wrote:
And here is WIlliam Connolley’s response from your link.
Wow we have John Kerry himself defending other progressive lies herein what an honor!
OK
Lt Kerry
Odd a post is mussing
Got to congratulate the Stoat, he sure aided Wikipedia into irrelevance.
But his frenetic rewriting of history did nought more than draw attention to the weakness of the CAGW meme.
That you had to be ignorant of past weather before you could be gullible enough to partake.
The largest failure here was Wikipedia, obviously actions speak much louder than pretentious self promotion.
Even when alerted and even when having the mendacity of the activity painstakingly outlined for them, Wiki refused to act.
Sure made a mockery of all their pretty goals and showed their contempt for all the goodhearted volunteers who tried to make the best online dictionary happen.
For this the operators of wikipedia must be lumped in with the Stoat.
Weasels of a kind, for the “Cause”?