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.
Just a note to readers – I removed two comments from a fake commenter “Theo Hughes” who has used many personas, many emails, and many IP addresses trying to get comments published here. He’s a shapeshifter, but every once in awhile one of his fake persona gets through moderation. Such people who use fakery to comment aren’t welcome here, as listed in our site policy.
Apparently so:
In the great scheme of things the nature of the 70’s cooling scare and the “who said what” is not hugely important. The important thing is that back then at least a few scientists e.g. Kukla were asking important and responsible questions such as the impending end of the Holocene interglacial and the threat of cooling climate. Cooling is a real climate threat. Warming and CO2 is an amelioration of climate and no threat whatsoever. After four decades of warming, all the negative outcomes are still hypothetical, projected articles of necrophile faith in dystopia at any price.
IMO it’s not unimportant to recognize that, just like their Stalinist forebears, Watermelons need to rewrite history as well as bastardizing science.
This whole thread’s Orwellian overtone is really scary. People here are trying to convince us there was no 70’s cooling scare, that Connolley messing with Wikipedia is ok. Good grief. Connolley was banned, Nick. Have you no shame?
To paraphrase without attribution, it’s hard to get someone to change his or her mind on a subject if his or her livelihood depends upon believing one thing rather than the other.
But, happily the CACA sc@m has just about run its course. Soon this late 20th century outrage will be consigned to the garbage can of ignominious pseudo-scientific history, joining eugenics, its anti-human predecessor in the early 20th century.
As of January 6, Connolley (or someone with the same name) was still fiddling with stuff at Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=William+M.+Connolley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
Paints WC as a noble but persecuted victim, ever seeking to present the truth.
Says more about Wikipedia as it evidently still is, than it says about anything else.
It should be pointed out that I have asked both Nick Stokes and Toneb if they even know the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric air and gases.
Neither could answer the question. They believe ”the basic science is sound” about global warming. It’s that simple, they think fake pseudo-science, is real. That’s how they wind up being seen going through the entire thread swearing everyone else, can’t remember the enormous global cooling scare of the late 60s, the 70s, and 80s.
Gordon on December 26, 2016 at 3:37 pm
It should be pointed out that I have asked both Nick Stokes and Toneb if they even know the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric air and gases.
So you did, indeed? Certainly not on this thread.
But… where did you then? What about citing sources of you asking that for?
BTW… what is your scientific degree, allowing you to doubt about the qualification of other persons just because they didn’t reply to a question?
We had lots of fake news thrown at the research posters on and about the
Swiftboat For Truth blog.
When I remembered when we took our daughter to Lubbock Texas to enroll at Texas Tech University they where in the process of obtaining all the records of the Vietnam thing I was 2 and 1/2 years in country with operation Igloowhite
Posted that on the blog and
poster Navy Chief and posters like Navy Wife went first on line and then some went direct to Lubbock!
Found all of Kerrys communication logs to and from his and all the other swift boats as well as his self written self approved awards and citations.
All fraud!
Still the progressives lie his lies
Still yet Navy Chief lost his top secret clearance for helping out before his final retirement separation from the Navy.
All that truth yet these liar commie Democrats send that lying traitor Kerry out as SOS and he turns on U S All once more.
The evil is great but it is our duty to stand the ground for truth.
These liars are being judged now.
Thus these attacks here are out of the mortal fear of the truth shown here!
Stand The Ground.!
Test
Odd a long post went mia
Not even a notice of moderation??!!
Reply to myself for a site test
WordPress’s sometimes works in mysterious way. If your long post was the 4:56 post, probably not so mysterious ways.
BTW, please don’t post test messages here, follow the “Test” link at the top of the page.
interesting comment thread. arguing about junk science from the 70’s vs junk modern day science 🙂
Test
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/25/global-cooling-and-wikipedia-fake-news/#comment-2382689
@climatereason:
I recall when I first got interested in changing climate – school year 1957/58 when we were being taught history and the presumed fact that the world was colder now than in the past because the Vikings had settled in Greenland. That was new “science” at the time and I recall doing Viking drawings and worksheets and following this issue for years after including geology and engineering on to retirement. Climate always changes and so far, not as humans have predicted (geological time frames). Technology is moving rapidly at the moment, but my great grand parents were born before my country (Canada) formally existed. My grandfather worked his homestead with mules and lived to watch the moon landing. Our lives are really too short to recognize “Climate”.
“Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get”
Every day I wake up and look outside to see what the weather is. Climate? Not so much.
And yet, I still like reading what Nick Stokes and others have to say, no matter how irrelevant. The earth doesn’t care. I just is.
But worth a few minutes of scanning.
Happy 2017 all.
“Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get”
Excellent.
I’m NOT old enough to remember the global cooling hype. However, I am old enough to remember several cartoons (most notably an episode of Superfriends) that were rerun throughout the early 80s, as well as early reader stories about global cooling authored in the 60s and 70s that found their way into textbooks at my elementary school.
These cultural artifacts left such an impression that 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.
What an interesting and entertaining thread – but then, so many are, which keeps me up till the wee hours. But I have to say that I, for one, will not be sorry if this obsession with CO2 and climate winds down following Trumps accession to POTUS. I sometimes wish I could get my life back!
But I think it is unlikely that the environmental movement, in general, will simply dissolve and disappear back into the woodwork from whence they came. There will be another, and another following that, to try and scare us all into submission. That ‘they’ have to place the blame on mankind for every evil and cooked-up impending doom is built into their genes.
Various links here with past Connolley stuff:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
This was the start of the ban at Wikipedia, six months, according to the post.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/on-the-plus-side-theres-no-reason-for-william-m-connolley-to-comment-here-anymore/
This has a number of comments from Connolley if you’d like to read him in person. Search for wmconnolley.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
Quite a bit of discussion with William. Probably the best page to read.
Getting cooler here…
Everyone here who believes nick stokes has a personal investment in making out the Global Cooling scare to be non-existent, please raise your hands! (or comment on this post).
IIRC, he is a retired CSIRO “scientist”…but let Nick confirm or deny that. Given the links and references he has abundant access to I would say that may be true.
Quite how Peterson et al got only 7 papers on cooling is a puzzle. One paper mentioned by journalists was a 1976 paper in Science on orbital effects on ice ages. Petersen actually reference and quote from it as follows:
“the long-term trend over the next several thousand years
is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation”
(Hays et al. 1976).
But they do not appear to count it as a cooling paper, or several similar they also reference. Only human influence allowed?
The claim is that there was a “cooling scare” in the 1970’s. Saying that we are in an interglacial isn’t a “scare”; it is just true, and you could find papers at any time in the last century saying that. Also papers that talk about the cold winters in North America in the ’70s isn’t a scare. It’s just an observation, which could equally (about the ’70s) be made today. But the NTZ trick is to pad out their list with such papers.
The discussions I had with Dad were well grounded in the concern du jour that the climate had been cooling. Various cold winters then had left an impression and continued into events like the biggest May snow storm I’ve seen in New England (1977?), the New England Blizzard of ’78 (of course), a snow storm in September during foliage season (1980?) etc.
It wasn’t a scare, just a concern, and actually an opportunity to see glacial regrowth. We had been to the grand hotel at what had been the terminus of the Rhone Glacier, it had retreated kilometers up the valley to the mountains. I thought it would be nice for it to regrow a bit. Ditto those in Glacier Natl Park which I went through in 1974.
The Rhone Glacier was one of the first studied to map its motion, some of the original scientific drawings hung in the hallways and probably still do.
@Nick Stokes – your problem is you are dealing here with people who actually lived through the ‘Seventies as adults (and probably through earlier decades as adults too).
People who are educated, many of them highly so – when education was rigorous and politically correct claptrap and social studies had no place in ‘varsities. People who recall very well what they read, heard and saw (not all of us actually “saw” because not everywhere in the world actually had TV in those days – imagine that?).
You are dealing with people who then lived in various parts of the world (yes, there was an Empire still in the 1950s and 1960s and it had to be administered), so a lot of people, many highly educated, went all over the place paying careful attention to all sorts of seemingly (ir)relevant statistics (odd that, isn’t it, for the generation that sits in a basement on Google?).
Many on this thread have made a comprehensive effort to refute your assertions. I will not repeat their rebuttals, but will weigh in with some first hand experiences.
I have been fortunate enough to live travel extensively on all but one continent (besides The Antarctic); to have lived for extended periods on three continents; to have seen wet/dry and cool/warm cycles, desertification and then “greening” and back again happening in perfectly naturally (except where the former has been aided and abetted by population explosion and goats); to have seen ice on the Thames at London, and known (and know) people who saw it frozen solid as low as Windsor in the 1940s, 1960s and ice on the Channel 3 or more miles off the French coast at Dunkerque et etc.. As a child I knew people who had lived through the last winters of the late 19th Century – that was fun too by all accounts.
I can tell you (as everyone else of a certain age on the thread already has) that in the 1970s there was serious concern from the CIA and Whitehouse down, and in the British Establishment (if you really must) that cooling was an imminent threat, given the temperature trend from the 1940s to the late 1960s early 1970s. Wikipedia, Google and any other website cannot change living memory and paper records.
Schneider and many others were full of bull on global cooling. Schneider was relatively young in the 1970s, and I suspect he was clever enough to realise the cooling trend had bottomed in the 1960s or perhaps early 1970s, so he decided he had backed the wrong horse and started singing from the global warming hymnsheet. Hubert Lamb andf others of his ilk were always more sensible than most, because they weren’t grant- or tenure- chasers. They were at the other end of their careers, were frankly more capable of thinking than, and more intellectually honest than, most of the younger generation like Schneider.
I really don’t care what bilge you dredge up “online”. Do your worst. I know what I have seen over my adult years and a peripatetic existence. I accept anecdote does not make science, but spare me your specious drivel. If you are still around in 2030, you may have cause to wish the Manns of this world were correct.
i was there.
it was a scare.
time, newsweek, even mr spock..
@KO
“you are dealing here with people who actually lived through the ‘Seventies as adults”
As I did. I have told before here the story of my own first serious contact with global warming theory. In 1976, as a fairly junior research scientist with CSIRO, I was transferred from Canberra to Perth, WA. There they were dealing with a query put by the State Government. Automation had made the economics of wheat cropping in marginal (dry) areas more favorable, and there was pressure for the state to invest in transport infrastructure. What was known about future climates? I was asked to contribute because I had contacts with our then Div of Atmospheric Physics, in the East. I asked them, and got a very strong response. The greenhouse effect would dominate, expanding the Hadley cell and driving south the winter westerly winds which were the main source of rain in SW WA. Bad for marginal wheat.
CSIRO reported accordingly, and there was no expansion. The advice was prescient. The following three years were exceedingly hot and dry, and the shift seemed to be permanent. Some existing wheat areas have struggled.
Nick
You have made reference to a listing of papers and say you have looked at a number of them and could find little evidence of the claimed cooling or that they were not peer reviewed papers.
Can you link to whichever list you think best ( ie it leads to the papers without being pay walled) so I can look at the first twenty or so and categorise them myself into cooling, neutral or warming. Thanks
Tonyb
Tony,
There is a list of 35 sample papers, with summary quotes, here. That’s the list linked from the head post, and the one I started to summarise.
The claim is that there was a global cooling scare, in which scientists forecast imminent cooling. My problems with that are:
1. many are not published scientific papers
2. many just note observations of recent cool weather (which undoubtedly happened).
3. several are just predictions associated with the progress of the interglacial (millennia). These are not special to the 70s; speculation on the end of interglacial have been around since Ice Ages were first described.
The paper of Peterson et al, which lists their version of cooling/warming papers, is here (Table 1).
“Nick Stokes December 27, 2016 at 12:20 pm
The greenhouse effect would dominate, expanding the Hadley cell and driving south the winter westerly winds which were the main source of rain in SW WA. Bad for marginal wheat.”
Trying to grow stuff that was not native to SW WA and weather patterns. Well done Nick.
With this new law that was passed, it will dampen the exchange of ideas. While I disagree with the warmist stance, I don’t know of any skeptic that have bought into AGW, however, there are warmist who have become skeptics. In 20 years warmist haven’t presented any evidence that supports there claims as far as I’m concerned. And that is what debate is about, the freedom to exchange ideas. I think Isvalgaard could be right on this upcoming solar cycle, I don’t like it, but he presented his case. I found that it has merit.
While the new administration is more supportive of the stance that I hold, and the warmist is out, in the short term, the warmist could be held liable to this new law. Nobody benefits except those that are pulling more authority and power unto themselves. Who decides what information is disinformation and which isn’t? What are the procedures to determine that ? And even so, if the concensus is that the sun revolves around the earth, that doesn’t make it right.
In the future, if the skeptics view becomes the accepted way of thinking about climate, what about the next issue. Without the ability to argue in a public format, it never would have happened. Suppose I hold a view that isn’t right, will there be a rishrac making an argument ?
There is also a side benefit that I should mention. That is the amount of learning and thinking that takes place in order to argue successfully. And it challenges yourself with cross examination as to whether the thoughts you hold are true or not.
I would like to see the statements made by people that support C/AGW that skeptics are criminals, end. On par with war crimes against humanity. Or that a democracy can’t be trusted with the future of the world. I would have hoped that ended. As not being in anybodys interest. That sword cuts both ways. If it’s truly climate change and the consolidation of power to effect those changes, then whoever holds power decides. Climate change can die a swift death, and without debate, it will become a dead issue.
In any event, it’s a very bad law.
Nick and Tony, I think Kenneth Richards post ( http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.0OGsOocC.m315Q6bw.dpbs ) is clear and accurate with regard to Petterson, Connolley, and Fleck: “The Concoction of ‘Consensus’ Achieved via Exclusion.” They are using the same shady cherry picking of sources used by Oreskes and Cook in their “Concocted 97% Consensus.” Their Table 1 is not worth the paper it was written on.
“regard to Petterson, Connolley, and Fleck: “The Concoction of ‘Consensus’ Achieved via Exclusion.” They are using the same shady cherry picking of sources used by Oreskes and Cook in their “Concocted 97% Consensus.” Their Table 1 is not worth the paper it was written on.”
Of course it is Andy.
I mean …if you say, then by all means.
However to gain more than hugs and kisses from the faithful on here (or is that all you wish to achieve?)…
Then kindly produce evidence of the number of papers about global cooling being published in peer-reviewed journals in the 70’s significantly outnumbered those about warming.
The opposite of which Petterson found… and you dismiss with hand-waving.
Andy,
“Their Table 1 is not worth the paper it was written on.”
Early in the thread I posed a simple challenge (still no answer). Nominate one scientific paper that supports a global cooling scare, and is not in the first column of PCF Table 1. Then we could discuss it.
I actually think there may be one or two. You say there are 163. Let’s have specifics.
Nick,
Clearly you still have not bothered to read the CIA’s 1974 paper on the academic and government scientific consensus on dangerous global cooling, which consensus had already led to establishment of US climate change study programs. Here it is again:
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
A conference in San Diego in April 1974 brought together different academic groups and agencies, including the few skeptical of Kutzbach’s Wisconsin team’s conclusion that earth was entering a new Little Ice Age. The skepticism was over analytical tools, not the consensus conclusion that the planet was threatened by cooling. Modeling hasn’t improved much in the past 42 years.
Chimp, I have dealt with that in several places. The challenge was to nominate one scientific paper.
Nick,
You haven’t dealt with it at all. The report is based upon the work of whole teams of academic, government and think tank scientists, not just one off papers, of which there were reams.
All you’ve said about the CIA report is that it came out the same month as Nixon’s resignation. The Nixon and Ford administrations started coordinated climate policy programs precisely because of the consensus on global cooling. The report forecast drought, famine and unrest as a result of the coming new LIA. It called for a National Climate Plan.
Since you won’t read it, I’ll mention for you some of the organizations involved: the Lambian, Smagorinsky-ian Budyko-ian and schools of climatology, Klutzbach’s team at U of WI, RAND, Scripps, UCSD, MIT, NOAA and NASA, among others involved with the SD conference.
Also, the AAAS conference of meteorologists at about the same time came to the same dire conclusions.
Give it up. Your fantasy about just two magazine articles because of a cold winter in the US is a bad joke. So it appears that “consensus climate science”, being so akin to Stalinism, can’t exist without rewriting not just climate history but the history of science.
Klotzbach. Typo. No disrespect intended.
Chimp,
“Since you won’t read it, I’ll mention for you some of the organizations involved: the Lambian, Smagorinsky-ian Budyko-ian and schools of climatology…”
This is absolute nonsense. They weren’t involved in the report. A single agent read a bit of stuff, talked I think to Kutzbach and maybe Bryson at Wisconsin, and wrote his impressions. And the names that he’s dropping there aren’t supporting the cooling idea at all. I quoted above what Lamb was saying in 1974:
“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).”
Smagorinsky was developing the core processes of GCM’s; I don’t know if he made any predictions, but if he did I’m pretty sure it wasn’t cooling. And here is Budyko writing in 1976, in a paper titled “Global warming”:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/12/budyko.png
“Also, the AAAS conference of meteorologists at about the same time came to the same dire conclusions.”
Link? Quotes?
I’ve quoted above the status statement in that CIA doc, but here it is again:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/12/cia.png
Update – I don’t know of an individual paper written by Smagorinsky on cooling/warming, but he was a participant in the 1979 Charney report, which was definite on warming, with a 3°C rise per CO2 doubling.
Nick Stokes
December 28, 2016 at 5:29 pm
Your Budyko citation comes from well into the global warming scare period.
However, he did predict in 1972 that a 50% increase in CO2 would melt all polar ice, while a reduction by the same amount would cause global glaciation.
He was surely wrong about the effects of an increase, since the CO2 level has already risen by 24% from 1972, yet earth has gained polar ice during that time, thanks largely to growth of the gigantic East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Nick Stokes
December 28, 2016 at 5:34 pm
The Charney Report “derived” its 3 degrees C “estimate” of ECS for a doubling of CO2 by taking the average of two WAGs or two and four degrees C. There is no actual observational evidence behind either of those two wild-a$$ guesses.
Chimp,
“Your Budyko citation comes from well into the global warming scare period.”
No. The versaion I linked was included as a book chapter in a later publication. But the original was
Budyko, M. I., and KIA VINNIKOV. “Global warming(atmospheric temperature variations in Northern Hemisphere).” Meteorologiia i Gidrologiia (1976): 16-26.
OK, maybe the Budyko isn’t the same paper. Google gives the citation as above, and links to the place I quoted, but I see the latter has later references, so maybe it is an incorrect link. I’ll see if I can find the original, tho it’s probably in Russian.
Chimp,
Here in 1977, Tellus,
Budyko, Mikhail I. “On present‐day climatic changes.” Tellus 29.3 (1977): 193-204.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/12/budyko2.png
Nick
Thanks for that. I will read through the 35 papers. That will take some time and this thread will be
Long dead by then so I may email you direct with my assssment and see of they agree with yours or not. happy new year!
Tonyb
Stokes is understandably keen to downplay the 1970s global cooling scare, but it really won’t wash.
I have a copy of a CIA report from 1974, which begins: “The Western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change… A forecast by the University of Wisconsion projects that the Earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850) – an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the Western world.”
It adds that in the preceding 10 years, multiple papers in “various climatic, meterological [sic] and geological periodicals” predicted the world was returning to the conditions of the Little Ice Age.
No ifs, no buts. It was happening. Except it wasn’t.
Bradford: the difference between people like you and Stokes is that when he comes around with an info, he publishes the source of that info.
But you, Bradford, you “have a copy of a CIA report from 1974”. Wow³.
Ha ha ha ha… Retired Special Agent Bradford opening his Ultra Secret Pandora Box. Perfect.
Actually with very little effort, you too will be able to view the CIA Report Retired Special Agent Bradford refers to. It’s freely available as a pdf at http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf.
You don’t have to go to microfiche or similar archaic (but rather reliable as they cannot be interfered with by the likes of Connolley) sources, to see just about every other “mainstream” publication of the time from Nat Geo, through Newsweek, Time etc to total rags aimed at morons ran articles on the perceived threat of cooling.
What is particularly amusing is the language of those articles, the hyperbole and fear-mongering, are identical to that used by those suggesting today that warming is “an issue”.
You manifestly didn’t understand why I wrote the message.
That report everybody having some experience knows about. For example, by having read this years ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/
I simply don’t like people writing such things without referring to the source
Rick Bradford, Thanks for the comment. I think the best quote in the summary of the CIA report you mention (http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf) is: “…50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century.” The agricultural climate has continued to improve rapidly since that was written, with the obvious greening of the Earth due mostly to the increase in CO2.
So Obama signed into law a bill that would outlaw propaganda that is not fact based and against the interests of the United States. Some of the warmist posting would have us believe that none of the things that a lot of lived though we’re not real. That there was no concern about global cooling, and in fact it had been global warming all along. The immediate thing that came to mind is this climate mess. First, the offical reports are fact based in the eyes of the government and the rest aren’t, and second government has stated that climate change is worst than ISIS, either directly or through inundation.
So from this point on if we disagree with with the stance of the government on climate change, or the lack thereof, does that make a skeptic a criminal ?
Will I have to give up watching NHK World ? Or Korean Japanese, and Chinese dramas ? Or music ? They’re foreign ! Who knows what kind of propaganda is in it. In fact, some of them say fictional . Will any of be able to say anything that hasn’t been approved as being fact based ? How about the Beatles, will they eventually confiscate my albums? And the Nutcracker, which is Russian, who knows what kind of cultural propaganda is hidden in that.
Will there have to be a registration of who is commenting here ? How do I know you’re not from New Zealand ? Or Israel? If we talk about something that is not officially approved, it would be that I am spreading disinformation.
You failed to mention the hatchet job attempted in 2009 – 2010 by Connelley and Peterson on Roger Pielke Sr. Wikipedia bio entry … for that see the comment page following the main article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_A._Pielke. I believe this was also an issue with Connelley’s (and Peterson’s) departure from Wiki editorship shortly thereafter.
Just more proof that Wiki is not a reliable source.
Green curve: CRUTEM4 NH (annual mean T_2m):
Doesn’t look too bad to me. Sure, they’ve definitely shaved off the “1940s blip” somewhat. But all in all the match looks pretty decent to me …
Contrary to Nick’s claim of just two articles in US media after one cold winter in the NH, here’s a list of dozens of articles on the global cooling scientific consensus during the 1970s.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
It has been posted before, but perhaps not all readers have seen it.
The AAAS has made its consensus conferences disappear, but “Goddard” found newspaper reports of it.