#ExxonKnew ?? meh… #JohnsonKnew The 1965 Presidential Science Report on Carbon Dioxide and Pollution

Gosh, president Johnson knew, and did nothing? Regular readers of this website have been following the ridiculous #ExxonKnew campaign put together by Al Gore and a smattering of activist attorney generals, aided by 350.org nutty activist “Weepy” Bill McKibben. It isn’t going well, as there has been setback after setback, with some AG’s being ordered to appear in court, and refusing to do so.

Thanks to a tweet by Associated Press activist journalist Seth Borensten, I became aware of this November 1965 report from the President’s Science Advisory Committee titled: Restoring the Quality of Our Environment  Link: PSAC-1965-Restoring the Quality of Our Environment (PDF)

Borenstein makes this claim:

From Seth’s point of view, it looks like an “open and shut case”, and no further investigation is needed. However, one commenter was quick to remind Seth that “global warming” was reported well before 1965:

Indeed. But Al Gore, the activist AG’s, and the McKibbenites tried to make a manufactured big deal out of the fact that Exxon scientists had internal reports on climate change back in 1977, and “did nothing” with them, especially not advising shareholders. This ludicrous claim has caused much climatic caterwauling such as we see in the former jewel of science magazines, Scientific American: Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking.

Gosh, that’s 12 years after President Lyndon Johnson (D-Texas), knew, and did nothing. Here’s the money quote from that 1965 report:

SciAm foolishly thinks that the “ground zero date” for public awareness of CO2 and climate was June 1988, when James Hansen went before congress with his famously modeled 3 scenarios, and told the world we have a serious problem.

What most people don’t know, is that Hansen’s science was so…so…er, “robust” at the time, that he and his sponsor, Senator Timothy Wirth (D-Colorado), had to do some stagecraft by choosing a hot day for testimony (thanks to Weather Bureau forecast), and opening the windows, which negated the air conditioning. I kid you not, they needed the room “hot” to convince legislators to throw money at them.

This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007.

TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.

DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]

Watch the Frontline video

Science and stagecraft, for the cameras, for the funding, for the win!

So, to recap…a Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, knew in November 1965, well before it “became a public issue” in June 1988, that  “increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of human beings” and did nothing.

Gosh.

Surely Johnson can now be labeled a “denier”. I’m sure Al Gore, the activist AG’s and the McKibbenites will jump right on that, and work hard to smear the name of President Johnson, and sue his estate for his “crime against humanity” of knowing, and doing nothing.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

 

 

Advertisements

193 thoughts on “#ExxonKnew ?? meh… #JohnsonKnew The 1965 Presidential Science Report on Carbon Dioxide and Pollution

  1. Mr. Watts,
    You were entirely correct the first time and should not have crossed out the word “activist” when describing Seth Borenstein.

    He certainly is not an even-handed reporter or journalist when it comes to climate-related topics.

    • I’m to venture a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG), that the strike font is almost always used sarcastically.

      Example:

      The National Resources Defense Council is an Enviromarxist terrorist environmental activist group.

      😉

      • The NRDC is a bunch of out of work attorneys that ran into some far left billionaires. We have graduated so many law students that they cannot compete just by hanging up their shingle. There are several other far left groups that started out as a bunch of attorneys with not future that found willing money to pay the bills while the raid the coffers of the taxpayers and corporations.

      • Johnson knew who was behind the JKF assassination and did nothing. Kinda puts the CO2 silliness into perspective.

    • World Meteorological Organization of United Nations [WMO/UN] brought out a technical note in 1966 titled “climate change” to separate natural variation from human component. The authors are eminent meteorologists from national meteorological departments.

      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • cont–Human Impact: Luke Howard, an amateur meteorologist in England, first recorded the heat-island effect. Beginning in 1807, he started comparing temperatures from several sites within London with those measured a few miles beyond the city’s edge, and through the years, he noticed that the city was consistently warmer. These findings, he put in to a book “The Climate of London” in 1818.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Anthony, Garret is right about the status of Borenstein and then some. Look at the first figure shown in your report as by Borenstein, CO2 versus temperature. The two data sets are not related. The CO2 shows a regular climb and obviously is associated with some large-scale event whereas the temperature climbs, jumps and goes into negative trend, then resumes climbing. The two data sets are not only not related one cannot be the cause of the other. Clearest I have ever seen the issue presented.

      • Ron Long – November 6, 2017 at 3:14 am

        The CO2 shows a regular climb and obviously is associated with some large-scale event whereas the temperature climbs, jumps and goes into negative trend, then resumes climbing.

        The two data sets are not only not related one cannot be the cause of the other. Clearest I have ever seen the issue presented.

        Ron Long, …… take a look-see at the plotted data on this graph, to wit:

      • The lower atmospheric (near surface) air temperatures are extremely fickle and darn near impossible to predict or forecast for 5 or 6 days in advance simply because there are so many different “emergent phenomena” that can/will occur unexpectedly and/or unpredictably that have a direct effect especially on “local” temperatures, but very little, if any, effect on “regional” temperatures.

        Temperature is the “driver” of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities, but the lower atmospheric (near surface) air temperature IS NOT the culprit.

        The temperature of the surface waters of the ocean is the primary culprit responsible for “driving” the atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities as per Mauna Loa measurements. The water temperature is responsible for both the bi-yearly (seasonal) cycling and the yearly increase in/of atmospheric CO2 ppm, …… as defined on this copy of the Keeling Curve Graph, to wit”

  2. Oh no! Blame anyone who did not buy into Svante Arrrhenius’ observation back in the late 1890’s, and immediately stop burning fuel./s

    • Exactly. Exxon is just a supplier of fossil fuel. It is the users who burn it and Gore is one of the worst offenders always travelling in a private jet. He knew years ago and did nothing. Prosecute him, the ultimate hypocrite – the facts are there for all to see. Same goes for Decaprio and all the business class fliers from the IPCC who also know!

  3. Johnson and his scientist advisors did not “know.” They CONJECTURED about human CO2 emissions. (See above-quoted “Conclusions and Findings”)

    Thus, the above article is good, but missing a key piece of information:

    CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.

    That is, the MAIN point needs to be, not whether Johnson or Smith or Jones or Pinkerton believed human CO2 might cause significant shifts in the climate zones of the earth,

    the MAIN point is:

    their conjecture means NOTHING.

    NOTHING.

    **** Game over ****

      • Hi, Tony! :)

        Well, not really — I just couldn’t delete this one. “Knew,” indeed. Grr.

        Hope all is well with you and your family — your son doing well at Cambridge and you and your colleagues’ magnificent temperature data records project coming along nicely. Good — for — you to preserve the observations!

        Thanks, so much, for so kindly acknowledging me here — I miss all of you (er, most of you, heh) WUWT people so much, but, I can’t stand the lukewarm/subtly pro-renewable/who-cares-about-the-longtime-supporters atmosphere these days.

        Gratefully and warmly (but, sadly),

        Janice

        P.S. And to cap it all off — ONCE AGAIN a long comment (second one for this thread, this is the third) that took significant time and effort to write is IN THE SP@M BIN. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!!

      • “Time has passed” and so — did — your — son! HOORAY! That’s just great. Congratulations! What a fine accomplishment. You must be so proud. I’ll pray that his career is one full of joy and great satisfaction (and good money, too).

      • Hello Janice Moore!

        ” I can’t stand the lukewarm/subtly pro-renewable/who-cares-about-the-longtime-supporters atmosphere these days.”

        WUWT? Where do you get the idea I don’t care about longtime supporters like yourself?

        We cover everything climate related here, and some things non climate related. Some of that has to do with renewables pro and con.

        Anthony

      • Anthony Watts November 5, 2017 at 1:11 pm
        Hello Janice Moore!

        ” I can’t stand the lukewarm/subtly pro-renewable/who-cares-about-the-longtime-supporters atmosphere these days.”

        Janice,
        I was also a bit surprised by the some of the post that appeared here in the last month or so.
        I took it as a move toward “blog review” rather than “pal review”.
        Not many (if any) of those posts “survived” the commentators here.
        You once called me your parakletos. I know that that implies higher priorities.
        Stay away for those, but not because of a post offered for dissection.
        You have a sharp scalpel.

      • Dear Anthony,

        I have already written enough (one if those several times was in a comment to which you said in reply, something like, “I hear you.”) to provide an answer to your question and to respond to your statement about how you cover “renewables,” etc.. I would repeat myself, here, but, what would be the point…. (I also don’t want to talk about what most at WUWT apparently see as a non-issue — given what I have read and, even more, what I have not read, along these lines from other commenters).

        You and I simply disagree.

        Thanks for letting me comment here. From now on, I’ll try to just keep my opinions about your writing and the editorial policy/ atmosphere of WUWT to myself (mostly, as I have been doing recently by not coming to WUWT at all, or only very rarely, now — too hard for me to not pipe up when I read the articles!….. as you can see on this thread). I spoke so much about it over the past few months or so because I so ardently hoped that I might succeed in getting WUWT back on course.

        The bottom line is: it is, really, none of my business. If I want to get the facts out about human CO2, I should just start my own site (not going to, just acknowledging that that would be the courteous way for me to do that, not hijack your site to do that as I have been doing a bit).

        With my apologies (not being sarcastic) for abusing the privilege of being a guest in your forum, with sorrow over what WUWT has become, and with gratitude for all the years of really wonderful camaraderie with so many fine people thanks to your letting me comment so much over the years,

        Janice Moore

      • Dear “Gunga Din,”

        Thank you for the gentle reproof. As you may see from my reply to Anthony above, I realize that I need to do better at keeping my opinions to myself and will try to do that.

        Yes, you (and others) were my “parakletos,” coming alongside in 2013/14 (and beyond) to support me when the snarlers and the virtual thugs attacked (I seemed to be a favorite target there, for awhile). I appreciated that so much. And yes, indeed, the Holy Spirit is our main parakletos (smile).

        Thanks for taking the time to help me out (with my mouth — I need to and often DO (believe me!), pray Psalm 141:3 (Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips.).

        Janice

      • Andy “to infinity and beyond” G! :) And I enjoy YOU and your comments very much. Thank you, so much. I love you people, too — but, well. Hm. I’m being kind of selfish, aren’t I. Huh. Hm.

        Well, I just can’t keep my mouth shut about what troubles me so very much about the direction WUWT has taken. And I also don’t like to “support” WUWT’s new direction by commenting…… Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa. This is so hard!!!!! What do you do when you like being with a bunch of people but the only place you can hang out with them is in a swamp????? And you mustn’t complain about the swampiness of the place (for, truly, that would be rude to the host)?????

        Well. I think the answer for me is: TAKE LONG BREAK. Maybe, I’ll be able to return and hang out and have fun AND be polite to the host. I meant to take several months and here I am already — arrrrgh! lol, I came back too soon — I’m addicted!!!! …. or something….. I had a relapse. Heh.

        Anyway.

        Thank you.

        Take care, down there. I hope that you have a lovely summer break from all those math students. They are blessed to have such an intelligent, FUN, highly caring, hard-working, teacher.

        Janice

      • Janice wrote: “I realize that I need to do better at keeping my opinions to myself and will try to do that.”

        I don’t understand this, Janice. If you are talking about this opinion of yours:

        “CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.”

        That’s my opinion, too. And the opinion of a lot of other people at WUWT. No need to keep it to yourself, you are among friends. :)

        Don’t let the Lukewarmers bother you. They are just guessing, and they know it.

        Anyway, I for one, appreciate your posts and your passion.

        I thought that was funny when you said you didn’t read WUWT because you would feel compelled to reply. I know what you mean!

      • BINGO TA: “That’s my opinion, too. And the opinion of a lot of other people at WUWT.”

        That’s the problem……it’s all “opinion.” And facts may just get in the way of this opinion.

      • Hi, TA,

        Thank you, so much. No, lol, it wasn’t that opinion I was talking about. I’ll just leave the subject opinions for you to read in other comments of mine (on this thread and over the past months, elsewhere). What a good encourager you are! Your friends and family and colleagues are blessed to have TA shining into their lives.

        Yes, indeed, I am very “paaaaaasssssiiiiooonnnnaaaate!. That’s why I am also pretty good at apologizing, lololol. :)

        Thanks for your empathy and camaraderie over our shared “better not read that or I’ll HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING!!” proclivity.

        Take care “out there” wherever you are,

        Janice

      • @ TA — just ignore Rob “Snark” Bradley. I know that you realize that “CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.” is not an “opinion,” that it is simply what the data says, i.e., fact.

        I used “opinion” in my reply to you incorrectly, also. I should not have characterized “CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.” as the “opinion” you were mistaken about. My opinions about WUWT are, indeed, opinions (highly informed, very reasonable, ones, of course! :) )

      • This is the only place I can find to respond to one of the comments made by Janice.
        I am one of the people who come to this site an awful lot even though my knowledge is woefully short on this subject. Your replies prove that you understand pretty much everything that is mentioned here but you then explain it in a way that even I can understand. That makes you a very dangerous person in some peoples eyes and then the attacks on you just keep rolling on. I have learnt more from your posting than some science teachers I have had !!!

      • Thank you for that, Andrew Bennett. That was very kind and generous of you to say. What a blessing of comfort you were to me as I just now read comments below that said essentially what Anthony has said to me (by silence and by pretending to not understand what I’ve said over the past several months): “put up or shut up” and “what you think about WUWT matters very little.” So glad you are here, Mr. Bennett — with your perspective (as a non-scientist like I am, I think?), you would be a fine teacher, here!

        Janice

      • Anyone who believes that CO2 plays a minor role in the climate is a secret supporter of renewables?
        Say what?
        That’s absurd.

      • “P.S. And to cap it all off — ONCE AGAIN a long comment (second one for this thread, this is the third) that took significant time and effort to write is IN THE SP@M BIN. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!!”

        Dear Janice, When commenting on WordPress, before clicking “Post Comment”, always – ALWAYS! – press ctrl-a, then ctrl-c. Then if necessary re-comment with ctrl-v (or ctrl-ins).

      • I think it is simply that you publish articles from clearly warmists, or renewable PR without critical editorial comment.

        In order to be seen to be even handed, you are in fact being abused and slightly taken over.

        And now the astro turfers have arrived as well.

      • Anthony,
        Janice has it seems forgotten that she is only one person of the tens of thousands that visit and comment on your wonderful site ,,
        thank you Anthony

      • “{I think it is simply that you publish articles from clearly warmists, or renewable PR without critical editorial comment.”

        It would be nice if a disclaimer (eg, I disagree, but post in the interest of open discussion) prefaced all such articles

    • Janice:
      Never give up hope!
      Never lose faith!
      By all means, don’t lose faith in Anthony or the WUWT crowd.

      WUWT has been for a decade the one web site devoted to science. Weak science articles are not pro anti-science, but are pro science as discussion of those articles eliminates scientific credibility. Most, if not all of those weak science pontifications leave with their theories in tatters.

      Though some discussions are stilted as internet bullies, trollops and anti-science religious faithful refuse all logic, proofs, evidence and scientific method.
      Ignore those spoiled animals! Ignoring the social deviants and emotionally damaged is not a weakness! Keep in mind Br’er Rabbit! and tar baby; where your briar patch is getting drawn into facts and common sense discussions.

      Being a favorite target of adolescent social misfits deeply mired in holes of their own digging, means you are winning.

      When others have lost their minds, your sharp mind and common sense appears stronger and serves as a clarion call back to reality.

      Choose your targets, strike to the core, ignore their wails and flailing.
      Your sanity and personal life are more important than responding to trollop nips!
      Choose your encounters! Let your head decide.

      I for one, will miss your presence here, Janice!

      • PERSONAL TO ATHEOK (not to keep this thing going — he deserves a response, I feel).

        Dear, Generous, Kind, Theo,

        Thank you. I appreciate your encouragement and am very glad to know (I already did, but, it’s very nice to be reminded) you enjoy hanging out with me. I enjoy your chipper, strong-minded, bright, presence, also.

        I am not, just to be sure you don’t mistake me, avoiding WUWT because of the trolls and creeps like L. Kummer. They are obnoxious (or just plain stupid), but often entertaining and always, thanks to the super-intelligent, well-informed, minds here, useful (heh).

        It is :

        1. The presenting of “renewables” inaccurately with grossly inadequate qualifiers/incomplete facts about their cost of production or other factors. Also, WUWT promotes “renewables” by presenting articles, with no qualification, which advocate the fr@udulent science which their enviroprofiteer promoters use to foist their sc@ms on the public thus creating the impression that WUWT agrees with the article. This has been pointed out by many commenters here, over and over with no change by WUWT in over a year, now. That is, vis a vis “renewables,” overall (not always, but far too often) WUWT has started (about a year or so ago) to present them in such a way as to often promote them.

        Further, the overall editorial tone/policy is leaning far, far too much to promoting lukewarmism (a non-science position, based solely on conjecture and an “it just feels right” emotional reaction). The problem is NOT that there are, from time to time, weakly reasoned/researched/supported science articles. THAT is NOT the problem. It is that WUWT more often than not presents the pro-AGW articles in a misleading way, without presenting the facts that counter the distortions and gross inaccuracies in them, thereby creating the CLEAR misimpression that WUWT is endorsing them. This happens ALL the time, now. In small ways, e.g., in an inaccurately (vis a vis the data about human CO2) worded title, or in greater ways such as presenting articles about sc@ms such as solar or wind (e.g., the Scottish offshore wind article last month) with ENORMOUS omissions of highly significant countervailing facts about their cost/effectiveness, about human CO2 emissions, etc..

        I’ve gone on too long, here. I did it only because you have, I can see, not seen my other comments over the past few months and, thus (understandably!), misunderstood me.

        WUWT is now, by its editorial policy/writing often (not always, just far too often for me to feel like hanging out here) promoting, albeit sometimes very subtly, AGW/human caused “climate change.”

        Though I love talking with and hanging out here and trying to argue for the truth about human CO2 emissions and other truth, the distortions of the facts by WUWT itself (as I said, often by omission) have increased in frequency to the point that it is not at all pleasant to be here. Because I am so fond of so many here it makes me very sad to not be here, “where everybody knows your name” anymore. Very sad. But, I just can’t stand the lukewarm/subtle promotion of AGW/”renewables” (and like inaccuracies). Can’t do it and not get irritated at and disgusted with the host.

        So. It’s time for Janice to be quiet and the only way (just me) that can happen is to just not be here. I’ll be around from time to time — ONLY because of the commenters. The site is not what it used to be.

        As I see it, I did not “leave” WUWT. WUWT left me.

        As I said in one of my several comments along these lines in the past few months, I MARVEL at and ADMIRE all of you with your ability to overlook so much of what I just cannot ignore (about WUWT itself, as I said; the trolls and like personages not being the issue). Good — for — you. I admire you all (given your continued demonstrated (by your comments) commitment to data and truth about human CO2) for your resilience to endure such an atmosphere month after month — you people are WONDERFUL.

        Take care back there, I hope you are enjoying all that autumn color and that you enjoy a lovely Thanksgiving with your dear family.

        Your WUWT pal,

        Janice

      • Janice…I have been wondering what’s different…..mostly I was missing hard hitting science….you summed it up nicely for me….and nailed it…you’re not the only one noticing a change……thank you

      • Janice, I have missed your usually good-humored presence, and don’t give up on expressing your opinions, even if you started to think you were on the losing side.

      • “creeps like L. Kummer. ”

        “1. The presenting of “renewables” inaccurately with grossly inadequate qualifiers/incomplete facts about their cost of production or other factors”

        “Further, the overall editorial tone/policy is leaning far, far too much to promoting lukewarmism (a non-science position”

        Odd you should mention that guy. I had him in mind when writing to you, Janice.”

        Remember, most all of the renewables type articles are third party posts.
        Anthony practices what he preaches in that he will post articles by other than skeptics. That is not Anthony or WUWT condoning or promoting those scams; rather it is an airing of their foibles, falsehoods and misconceptions.
        All extremely good things for science.

        I’m not sure you have a good understanding what a “Lukewarmer” believes.

        A) Unlike alarmists, lukewarmers do not immediately accept multipliers and false forcings. Most of which appear designed to “tailor” programs to act certain ways.

        The key metric is acknowledging that CO2 is a GHG. i.e. CO2 is a molecule that absorbs/emit infra red radiation; causing physical changes to the CO2 molecule in the process. The basics of this were proven a century ago; but only the basics.

        Much as a microwave uses radiation to cause H2O to heat up and cook our foods, infra red radiation raises the CO2 molecule’s energy level; both vibration and temperature.

        Only the atmosphere does not have a 1500 watt microwave/infrared wavelength generator for every cubic foot.
        Nor do microwave appliances cook food very well that are low in water content. A microwave requires substantive quantities of moisture available.

        Earth’s very weak infra red generation of frequencies CO2 can absorb/emit makes any expected CO2 warming quite mild. Especially in the atmosphere where even mild warming is quickly convected away.
        Expecting four molecules of CO2 in every 10,000 molecules of atmosphere to somehow seriously warm 9,996 other atmospheric molecules is expecting a lot of a minor molecule with a miniscule window of absorbable/emission frequencies.

        Accepting CO2 is a GHG is enough to qualify as a lukewarmer; even if humans are never able to determine exactly how much CO2 affects our atmosphere.

        Best wishes to you Janice, in all of your journeys and participations! Though, I and others hope you will still visit and participate here.

      • Thank you for the thoughtful, generously detailed, response, Theo.

        1. Re: the lukewarmer issue

        I have in mind a much broader definition than you, here, i.e., WUWT has gone far beyond the narrow definition of the term you delineate, for WUWT doesn’t merely say, “there is some effect.” Rather, WUWT is promoting as fact the conjecture that the effect of human (that is the key, not CO2 in general, you know) CO2 is not negated/overwhelmed by natural CO2 emissions and/or other natural climate drivers such as H2O. The lukewarmist ASSUMES that human CO2 has a significant effect on the climate zones of the earth. This is NOT science. It is a guess.

        2. I realize that most of the articles about “renewables” posted on WUWT are not written by our host. What he does is feature them/title them/endorse them in such an uncritical, non-qualified, manner, that WUWT ends up endorsing their content. This has gone on for a long time, now. By failing to include the opposing facts, or a deprecatory introductory comment (or the like), he creates the impression that WUWT advocates what is said. An article featured with NO disclaiming/qualifying remarks is being touted as legit (without any negating comment, that is the only logical conclusion a reader could have).

        Some of the articles are mildly critical of “renewables,” but there is so much other, inaccurate, support for them in the article that the overall impact of the article is to advocate for them.

        That the WUWT commenters usually do a SUPERB job of refuting the lies and inaccuracies of the posted lukewarmist/”renewables” articles does not make WUWT any less an advocate of those articles.

        You will look (across the past WUWT articles for the past 2 years or so) in vain for WUWT to include a disclaimer such as: “This article is riddled with gross errors of fact and contains numerous omissions of key details challenging its conclusions.” WUWT simply posts them. WUWT might as well be Huff-po or Wa-po for all it does to criticize these articles. Result: the pro-AGW/”renewables”/lukewarmist view is endorsed by WUWT.

        Also, the percentage of pro-hard science/anti-AGW-pseudo-science articles has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY.

        In short, WUWT has almost abandoned the fight against AGW: it leaves the battle almost entirely up to the commenters.

        ************************

        Finally, you write about WUWT over the past 10 years as if I am ignorant of what a glorious past it has promoting science truth. YES! I realize that. WUWT used to be all about science and advocating for data and observations and TRUTH. That has, sadly, changed over the past 1.5 or 2 years or so. I’m trying, er, I mean WAS trying, to get WUWT back on track.

        Thank you, Theo for your WONDERFUL encouragement and very kind words.

        You add a lot to the value of WUWT by your comments, by the way!

        Your ally for science truth (and, hopefully, one day, WUWT’s once again, if WUWT ever gets back on track),

        Janice

      • @ Tom Halla: Thank you. Hopefully, with a break, I’ll be back and be almost always good-humored. :) Keep on with your cogently apropos comments, O Faithful Tom — often #1 on the thread. :)

    • I think it was Lincoln who said ‘Four score and seven years ago we began burning fossil fuels in large quantities and we’ll all be ruined!’ And say what you like about Washington, but at least that cherry tree probably went in the stove, underlining symbolically his early commitment to sustainable energy sources.

  4. I find it interesting that the first specualtive consequenc of increased co2 on mankind mentioned in the conclusion is “deleterious”. I wonder if the report states as a possibility any positive consequence. If not, it would show you that, as early as the 60’s, government scientists and administrators were pushing the negative interpretive bias for CO2, totally ignoring the posible benefits to mankind of added CO2. Something that continues to this day 60 years on…smh.

  5. “We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.”

    The hearings were on the 23rd of June, and I’d be surprised if the hottest day if the year isn’t normally in July.

    • Take note of the year of the record hi temp for each of these dates.

      Date Avg Lo Avg Hi Record Hi
      Jul 13 70° 88° 56° (1888) 100° (1954) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 14 70° 88° 55° (1904) 100° (1954) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 15 70° 88° 56° (1895) 100° (1988) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 16 70° 89° 56° (1930) 104° (1988) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 17 70° 89° 56° (1929) 102° (1980) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 18 70° 89° 55° (1892) 103° (1887) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 19 71° 89° 56° (1911) 102° (1930) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 20 71° 89° 53° (1890) 106° (1930) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 21 71° 89° 56° (1909) 104° (1926) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 22 71° 89° 53° (1890) 103° (1926) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 23 71° 89° 56° (1890) 101° (1991) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 24 71° 89° 57° (1947) 96° (1987) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 25 71° 89° 58° (1915) 100° (1930) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 26 71° 89° 54° (1920) 103° (1930) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 27 71° 89° 55° (1920) 100° (1940) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 28 70° 88° 56° (1920) 100° (1997) 0.12″ NA
      Jul 29 70° 88° 58° (1920) 99° (1993) 0.12″ NA

    • Bellman,

      The hearings were on the 23rd of June, and I’d be surprised if the hottest day if the year isn’t normally in July.

      I think the Summer Solstice was on the 21st in 1988.
      People often confuse this with (a) the hottest day, and (b) the date when summer starts because the daylight hours get longer. Both are wrong. Students take college-level earth science classes where such things are explained, and go away still believing wrong things acquired in grade or high school.

      Anyway, I think part of Wirth’s story, and maybe all of it, is fabricated. It does not make a good story to say “We were lucky – the day was hot.”

  6. AD 1965 was during the postwar global cooling, 1945-77, which occurred despite rising CO2. Some scientists “knew” that more CO2 should slightly warm the planet since c. 1900, but it hadn’t done so.

    The range in the report of 1.1 to 7.0 degrees F per doubling is ludicrous. It assumes feedback effects from a little bit net negative to wildly positive.

  7. Gotta love the charts with a truncated time span which provides a dramatic effect for the interior of the chart.
    Give me500 year or 1000 year span and a dramatic difference will occur. I always look at the ‘Y’ axis range to immediately cause my BS Meter to alarm.

    • Sure and if the charts used Kelvin and they included zero Kelvin, and they ought to, the entire climate record would be a small jiggle around 289. The variations would be invisible, except under magnification.

  8. The voice of a scientist’s scientist:

    Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
    From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
    To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

    6 October 2010

    Dear Curt:

    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

    How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming sc@m, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fr@ud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

    1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

    2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

    3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fr@ud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

    4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

    5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

    6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

    APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

    I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike M@nn of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Ph!l Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

    I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

    Hal

    {emphasis mine}

    “Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety; Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making).” (quoted in WUWT 10th Ann. anthology from a WUWT article which is no longer available)
    (Source for WUWT article: James Delingpole article:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/. And double-hooray! The letter appears on this later WUWT post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/ .)

      • Oh, Luc. I am SO glad to see you post. I haven’t seen you comment in a long time (I’ve had little time for WUWT given the job I managed to land last August). You have been in my prayers non-stop for over a year (is it years? — I’m losing track of time at WUWT….), now, you, a kind, generous-spirited, person who IS going to believe! Yes! :) Glad you are doing well (or, at least, well enough to post). I won’t be commenting as often, or very little, anyway, (I have embarrassingly little self-restraint and must simply stay away or say things I should not), so, if you don’t “see” me, don’t assume I’m gone forever from WUWT. Take care and — YES –> See you in heaven! :)

        (and thanks for “talking” to me!)

        Janice

      • Thank you Janice for your (as usual) kind and generous comment :) Yes, I’m fine… and fit as a flea – or as fit as an octogenarian may be expected to be ;)

        I just popped back in to see if you’d caught my comment to you (half knowing that you would have) – but fairly surprised to see, and read, all the additional comments that have been posted since I made mine. I admit it made me somewhat sad to read of your own misgivings. For myself, I hardly ever post a ‘sciency’ comment, because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make any worthwhile contributions. Therefore my comments, such as they are, are more often geared to more generalised subjects. I have followed the climate wars for many years – reading, reading, reading. I have followed the logic (not difficult, having an engineering background) and have been (and still am) totally convinced by the arguments against AGW – AND against the futile arguments for unreliables.

        I, (maybe) too, have become a little more discretionary in which essays/articles I now read on WUWT. I was spending so much time on here reading for hours on end (sometimes as much as maybe 3-4 hours on one article with several hundred comments) for many years that it was interfering with my sleeping time, lol. But I must say that I have always enjoyed your comments – always thoughtful, often amusing, invariably warm and insightful. Should you persist in your ‘threat’ to leave WUWT (albeit spasmodically) I, for one, will miss you very much and this place will be much the poorer.

        I don’t know what is ‘going on’ – IF, indeed, anything is going on. I am not convinced that WUWT has suddenly – or even done so over 18 months to 2 years – changed course. I have to say that I enjoy AND learn the most from the very knowledgeable commenters on here when they are deconstructing an opposing argument. So I say: “Let the naysayers come and try their luck. Who doesn’t enjoy seeing a good fight?” I always feel assured that the good guys (us, lol) will win!

        My very best wishes to you, Janice.

        Your friend, Luc

    • Science has become a real crap fest. Most published research findings are wrong. The problem is most obvious where the drug industry has tried to reproduce research. The vast majority of time it was unsuccessful. A lot of time the original researchers couldn’t even reproduce their own experiments. link

      It is truly galling that scientists demand that politicians pay attention to ‘science’. No scientist should be unaware of the replication crisis. Their demands for attention are the height of hypocrisy.

    • Yes. Increase from 300 ppm to 375 ppm is 0.0075 %-units or 25%.

      320 to 400 is also 25%. If find it interesting that the carbon dioxide scare had such typical structure already then, namely
      – large uncertainty, fat tail
      – SWOT sector threat as leading edge
      – more money and computers needed
      – all the basic arguments already covered

      In particular, some of the parts in this 1965 paper make me think it is partly forged afterwards. There is too much topics of today discussed in 1965. Or, put it another way. It is as if nothing has changed in between, which odd thinking how different society was 50 years ago. /foilhat Would THEY do that?

      Many eminent and much quoted scientists of that time were warning about a coming neoglaciation, usually called an ‘ice age’.

      • “In particular, some of the parts in this 1965 paper make me think it is partly forged afterwards.”

        I thought the same thing. When I first was reading through it in the post, I had to do a double check as I thought I must have misunderstood what I was reading.

        SR

      • “make me think it is partly forged afterwards. There is too much topics of today discussed in 1965.”
        Well, the National Library of Australia for one has an original copy. You could check. It would be quite a coup if a forgery were found.

        I’m sure Library of Congress has an original too.

        The fact is, the topics of today have been discussed continuously by scientists for over fifty years.

      • “I find it interesting that the carbon dioxide scare had such typical structure already then,”

        Keep in mind that there was a whole “Human-Caused Global Cooling” scare going on for decades before they switched over to the “Human-Caused Global Warming” scare, so the climate scientists already had a template for their arguments linking humans to climate change even way back then. They just changed from arguing human-caused cooling to arguing human-caused warming.

      • Well, the National Library of Australia for one has an original copy.

        Did you check what it says? :-)

        Now, the paper is remarkable, but not buzzing my BS detector 100%. Just irritatingly and a little bit.

  9. What is really astounding to me is how badly these AGs miscalculated the amount of support and traction they would get. One could almost feel sorry for them. Well maybe not really. Ok, not at all.
    Fine! The schadenfreude is delightful.
    Happy?

  10. I am completely dumbfounded at the claim that public knowledge of climate change (this time round, concern over the warming) only became known in the late 1980’s. This is manifestly untrue.

    There had been expeditions to the melting arctic amidst much public interest (Royal Society 1818) Numerous Conferences, Government meetings (1947 and earlier) and numerous newspaper reports from the 1700’s onwards with a particular flurry in the 1920’s onwards. At that time Bob Bartlett undertook numerous expeditions to the melting arctic which was filmed for Pathe newsreel which were seen by millions of our cinema going forefathers as news inserts in the main film offering.

    The warming world was a ‘hot’ issue and in various of my articles I cite many hundreds of papers, newspaper clippings books etc that reference it.

    Here is a short summary of the long standing interest in climate change which reached a peak in the early 1970’s cooling (following the concerns about warming from 1920) and was immediately followed by concerns of warming again. In that context the global cooling scare can be seen as a short term interruption in the centuries long (intermittent) warming.

    —– —- —-
    From my article ‘the long slow thaw.’

    Reginald Jeffery observed in his book ‘Was it Wet or was it fine,’ “By 1708 the middle aged would say where are our old winters?”

    This query was being echoed on the other side of the Atlantic around the same time as the records of the Hudson Bay Company demonstrate that climate change was not restricted to Europe.

    “Over the fifteen years between 1720 and 1735, the first snowfall of the year moved from the first week of September to the last…”

    Thomas Jefferson -third President of the United States- kept extensive weather records and referring to the period around the 1770’s remarked;

    ““A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. (54)

    A few decades later Noah Webster, 1758-1843 (founder- Webster’s dictionary) commented;

    “The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.”

    Towards the end of the 19th Century a correspondent in the Canadian Horticulturist monthly of 1880 (page 7) remarked;

    “I do not know whether or not the climate of Ontario is really becoming permanently milder than formerly, but I do know that for the past 18 years or 20 years we have not experienced the same degree of cold as the seven years preceding.”

    Writing in 1931 after several decades of compiling his book ‘Was it wet or was it Fine’ Reginald Jeffery remarked;

    “I have been asked so often during the period that I have been doing this work this question, well after all this grubbing into the wealth of the past, do you think that our climate is changing or has changed? Where are the old snow storms? We never quite know where we are with regards to weather.”

    Whilst around the same time a farmer from Buchan in Scotland wrote to his local newspaper;

    “1934 has opened true to the modern tradition of open, snowless winters. The long ago winters are no precedent for our modern samples. During the last decade, during several Januarys the lark has heralded spring up in the lift from the middle to the end of the month. Not full fledged songs but preliminary bars in an effort to adapt to our climatic change.”

    It then goes on to say;

    “It is unwise to assume that the modern winters have displaced the old indefinitely” and also; “Our modern winters have induced an altered agricultural regime”

    —– —— —–

    If the public interest in climate change and global warming was not being discussed until the late 1980’s then it appears all these references were cleverly hidden in plain view.

    tonyb

    • Tony: And it appears to me that the trend was entirely natural, since it precedes the industrial explosion that occurred in the late 19th century.

      • I maintain that 1880 is merely a staging post in warming, not the starting post.

        This is figure 5 from my article ‘the intermittent little ice age’ which uses CET to determine the likely start of the warming trend, this time round. There were plenty of warming periods in the millennia prior to that.

        I reckon 1660 is around the start date, although the upwards trend is not continuous

        Tonyb

    • Halt !!
      Some facts
      Or land mass (earths ) is floating on huge tectonic plates , Owing to the movement thereof interfere with the circulation of ocean currents, which as the oceans cover 2/3 of the planets surface control the hot/cold button.
      The first ice appeared about two billion years ago when the land mass was almost singular,and as the oceans expand owing to the movement of land mass the climate has been going hot cold. For the last 600,000 years the earth has been in a geological ice age, with advancing and retreating glacial ice.
      Every 100,000 years or so we experience an “ice age ” with “little ice ages ” every 20,000 years + – we are now due for the next one.
      Think !
      we have over 500 active volcano’s, with a new eruption every 10-15 days earthquakes at the rate of + – 2,000,000 a year with a + 6 quake every 15 days, at any second in 24 hours there are over 1,000 electric storms, 11 lightning strikes every second and a hurricane is creating havoc somewhere every 5 hours
      Idiots, and only idiots think that they can control this !

  11. Let me see: damage Lyndon Johnson’s reputation any more than he did all by himself, or has been done over time by what he left behind? No, that’s impossible. He made a mess out of his administration without any help from anyone else.

    A 1967 memo https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v34/d228 shows that his administration was active in the mess that was already starting to raise its head in the Middle East.

    That was in the middle of the Vietnam War. No, LBJ did plenty of damage to his reputation on his own. This bit of hogwash cooked up out of dust bunnies is just that – hogwash.

      • Don’t worry, Sara, :) , it was just a mis-post, no doubt (and by the way, for what it’s worth, I’m pleased at the possibility of our being confused — you are a fine commenter!).

        @ Stephen Richards — THANK YOU! (shouting because you are probably far away by now). And HOW IS THAT LEMON TREE? I prayed about the aphids/pests troubling it for MONTHS. Take care.

  12. I am starting a #Spielbergknew campaign. As evidenced by his 1977 film, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Spielberg knew that space aliens were here, and just biding their time until their Big Invasion coming soon. George Lucas will also be named in the suit, as well as others, all of whom knew about space aliens, yet not only profited from it, but also pretended it was just fiction, for our amusement only.
    Who’s with me?

    • We’ve seen this before, but it doesn’t hurt to see it again. Here is Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”) on the climate of Germany in the time of the Roman Empire:

      “Some ingenious writers (2) have suspected that Europe was much colder formerly than it is at present; and the most ancient descriptions of the climate of Germany tend exceedingly to confirm their theory. The general complaints of intense frost, and eternal winter, are perhaps little to be regarded, since we have no method of reducing to the accurate standard of the thermometer the feelings or the expressions of an orator, born in the happier regions of Greece or Asia. But I shall select two remarkable circumstances of a less equivocal nature. 1. The great rivers which covered the Roman provinces, the Rhine and the Danube, were frequently frozen over, and capable of supporting the most enormous weights. The barbarians, who often chose that severe season for their inroads, transported, without apprehension or danger, their numerous armies, their cavalry, and their heavy wagons, over a vast and solid bridge of ice. (3) Modern ages have not presented an instance of a like phenomenon. 2. The reindeer, that useful animal, from whom the savage of the North derives the best comforts of his dreary life, is of a constitution that supports, and even requires, the most intense cold. He is found on the rock of Spitzberg, within ten degrees of the Pole; he seems to delight in the snows of Lapland and Siberia; but at present he cannot subsist, much less multiply, in any country to the south of the Baltic. (4) In the time of Caesar, the reindeer, as well as the elk and the wild bull, was a native of the Hercynian forest, which then overshadowed a great part of Germany and Poland. (5) The modern improvements sufficiently explain the causes of the diminution of the cold. These immense woods have been gradually cleared, which intercepted from the earth the rays of the sun. (6) The morasses have been drained, and, in proportion as the soil has been cultivated, the air has become more temperate. Canada, at this day, is an exact picture of ancient Germany. Although situated in the same parallel with the finest provinces of France and England, that country experiences the most rigorous cold. The reindeer are very numerous, the ground is covered with deep and lasting snow, and the great river of St. Laurence is regularly frozen, in a season when the waters of the Seine and the Thames are usually free from ice.”

      Interestingly, when Gibbon wrote “Europe was much colder formerly than it is at present” he was writing in the 1760s – 1770s during what we now call the LIA

      BTW when he says “Canada” he is probably referring to what is now southern Québec

      • “BTW when he says “Canada” he is probably referring to what is now southern Québec”

        Hard to say, the British took the French province of Canada in the Seven Years War (French and Indian War) which ended in 1763. Decline and Fall was published in 1776 (The third most important English Language publication of that year). But, winter in Ontario is not a lot more salubrious.

      • Gibbon published his “Decline and Fall” in six volumes from 1776-89.

        Before the British conquest of 1759, “Canada” referred to that stretch of New France along the St. Lawrence River. In 1791, Britain organized the area as two colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, in order to provide Royalist refugees from the US with a province under British law and custom, as opposed to French. Upper Canada became southern Ontario and Lower southern Quebec.

        Thus, Gibbon probably used “Canada” in the same sense as had the French before Britain captured the region in the last French and Indian War, which partly coincided with the Seven Years’ War in the Old World.

  13. Well, lemme see. For a 26% increase in CO2 we got a 1.6deg F increase in temp? This is catastrophic? Hells bells, it beats the ice age that “scientists” were predicting in the ’60s.

    • And Armie was a Communist. His father named him after the “arm and hammer” graphic symbol of the Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP), of which his father was a leader. He made his money as a go between between the Soviet Union and the US.

  14. Funny to see you refer to SciAm as “the former jewel of science magazines.” I see my recollection of events meshes well with what you report here. I remember that in the late 80s (and my memory also says “1988”) SciAm ran what was (I believe) its first article on global warming (I wonder if it was written by Hansen). I remember reading it and calling “BS”. I thought the model probably lacked certain feedbacks (like heating-increased cloud cover-increased albedo) and later proved to be correct. I had, at the time, subscribed to SciAm for over a decade. At this same time (late 80s) I had been perceiving a noticeable leftist slant in its stories and allowed my subscription to lapse shortly thereafter. Now I only buy an occasional special issue on safe (from politicization) topics like cosmology.

      • Nick, you are like a fish on a hook when it comes to this issue., you bite every time.

        So FUNNY !!! :-)

        You KNOW there is MASSIVE amount of evidence showing the GLOBAL COOLING scare.

        Many of the “coolists” then changed into “warmists”

        STOP PRETENDING !!

      • DENIAL is the LOWEST form of wit.

        Wear it with pride , or shame…. which ever you see fit, Nick

        Everyone else KNOWS there was a GLOBAL COOLING scare.

        The evidence is INSURMOUNTABLE !!!

      • “Nick writes another lie,since the link to the 285 papers make clear it was clearly a discussion about cooling”
        So you give just one example, first on the list. Of course he leads with the best (Kukla). But look, say, at the start of p 2:
        96. Paterson 1977.
        It’s a straightforward paper about ice record on Devon Island. And it says nothing about future climate, cooling or otherwise. What NTZ cherrypicks is
        “Figure 4a shows 10-yr mean [temperature] values from AD 1200 to present [Arctic Canada]. Prominent features are brief warm periods with peaks at 1240 and 1380, cold peaks at 1430, 1520, and 1560, the ‘Little Ice Age’ continuously cold from 1680 to 1730 and with another temperature minimum at 1760, a pronounced warming at about 1910 with relatively warm temperatures until about 1960 and a marked cooling thereafter … [T]he cooling trend over the past 5,000 yr has probably been more than 1°.”
        All it says is that Devon Island has been cooling recently (in 1977). Nothing about the future, and nothing surprising.

        97 Angell et al just says the troposphere has been cooling. Nothing about the future. For some reason, they bold this bit
        “but even so the trend in global temperature since 1965 has been small compared to the 0.5°C decrease during 1960–65”

        98. Collis et al says nothing about cooling. It just says that weather is important to food supply.
        etc

      • “Notice that this liar ignores the long list to focus on just one media report”
        It’s the one featured right at the top, with big picture. But that is how these lists always go – debunk one, and they just say – but look how many more there are. It’s never ending.

      • Another of the familiar thin collection. Rasool said that if aerosols quadrupled, it could trigger an Ice Age. He could be right; we’ll never know, because the Clean Air Act had just been passed, and the increase in aerosols stopped. Gordon MacDonald, a senior scientist, is cited too. Did he support it? “Whether this could… I wouldn’t want to guess”.

      • “Rasool said that if aerosols quadrupled, it could trigger an Ice Age. He could be right; we’ll never know…”

        Schneider and Rasool also said:

        We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

        Funny you seem to have ignored that, Stokes.

        Now, can you explain precisely how it is that we are continually told that the science of GHGs warming the atmosphere has been understood since the 19th century, and yet Schneider and Rasool in 1971 believed that It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K. and yet you and your fellow “climate scientists” are now asserting that a mere doubling is capable of causing an increase as large as 5.2 K according to the IPCC First assessment report.

        How did the science change between 1971 and 1990 when that report was published?

      • Clean Air act, seems the USA can (only) control the worlds temperatures. China on the other hand, their particulates have no say. Communist black carbon is weaker I guess, need to put that into the models.

      • “Schneider and Rasool also said:”
        Yes, their estimate of CO2 sensitivity was way too low. Far lower than Arrhenius, even, whose estimate was quite close to current. But their prediction of cooling was based on a conditional – massive increase in aerosols – which might have seemed possible at the time, but didn’t happen.

      • Well that landed in the wrong place.

        try again

        ——————-

        DENIAL is the LOWEST form of wit-Nick.

        Wear it with pride , or shame…. which ever you see fit, Nick

        Everyone else KNOWS there was a GLOBAL COOLING scare.

        The evidence is INSURMOUNTABLE !!!

      • Sorry I shouldn’t tease but it’s usually this side that lets go the science clangers. I do have to ask what is your background statistics?

      • Nick,

        in his 1906 paper, Arrhenius dialed down the CO2 forcing numbers significantly and said CO2 increase is GOOD for us.

      • Sunset,
        “1970s Global Cooling Alarmism”
        Poptech’s list typifies the amplification of memory here. It starts with a big image of the 1977 Time cover of “The Big Freeze” and headlines this quote:
        “”The scientists and computers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were confidently predicting that the frigid weather would continue. The chilling pronouncement of NOAA’s senior climatologist: ‘The forecast is for no change.’ ”
        – Time Magazine, 1977″

        Two clues there – “weather” and “no change”. It isn’t an article about global cooling. It’s an straightforward article about a long snowy spell in the US in the winter of 1976/77.

        “285 Papers 70s Cooling”
        Anbother of those nonsense lists from No Tricks Zone. Hardly any are about global cooling, or climate prospects at all. They have included just about any paper that has mentioned a cool spell in the recent past. You could compile a similar list today.

        “in his 1906 paper, Arrhenius dialed down the CO2 forcing numbers significantly “
        No he didn’t. This is a popular misreading. He divided his calc into two parts, one the rise without wv feedback, and then one with. People like to stop reading after the first part. And yes, Arrhenius welcomed warming. He lived in Sweden. Some like it hot.

      • I don’t think anyone denies there were concerns about cooling in the 70s, but it clearly wasn’t a consensus view.

        Here’s a 1976 article from the Times reporting on claims by the WMO

        They say that a return to a little ice age is “invalidated” by rising carbon dioxide.

      • It is clear that Nick and other warmists still scared of the feeble CO2 gas,fail to see why Arrhenius claims are absurd.

        Arrhenius Revisited

        “The Arrhenius figures are in italics. A weighted average has been calculated that follows the function shown above. “A” in the above table represents the concentration of CO2 as a ratio to 280 ppm (the approximate CO2 concentration in 1896). The Arrhenius theory is elegant in its simplicity and it is still the theoretical basis for the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” theory. Let’s take a closer look at what it implies.

        With the benefit of hindsight we can test Arrhenius’ predictions against the observed warming from 1896 to the present. According to NCDC the average global temperature increased 0.7 K compared with ΔT = 5.43 log(2) (395/280) = 2.7 K. The Arrhenius prediction is not even close but there are other problems.”

        https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/

        As you can see that his claims,along with Hansen are so far off the mark,I have to wonder why wild CO2 forcing claims stupidity continues.

      • Nick writes another lie,since the link to the 285 papers make clear it was clearly a discussion about cooling:

        ““285 Papers 70s Cooling”
        Anbother of those nonsense lists from No Tricks Zone. Hardly any are about global cooling, or climate prospects at all. They have included just about any paper that has mentioned a cool spell in the recent past. You could compile a similar list today.”

        Here is the very first paper on the list cited:

        “1. Kukla, 1972

        Climatic changes result from variables in planetary orbits which modulate solar energy emission and change seasonal and latitudinal distribution of heat received by the Earth. Small insolation changes are multiplied by the albedo effect of the winter snow fields of the Northern Hemisphere, by ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, and, probably, by the stratospheric ozone layer. The role of volcanic explosions and other aperiodic phenomena is secondary. The immediate climate response to insolation trends permits astronomic dating of Pleistocene events. A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1oC in the next hundred years. A refinement of the Milankovitch theory in terms of the lunar orbit and more data on solar periodicities are needed for reliable long range predictions.”

        http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.7K3bkZVt.XJYFZ93g.dpbs

        Stop LYING! Nick!

      • Another Nick lie,

        since the link starts the list of media report cooling weather,with unusual cold and snow being observed,in year 1970.

        “Sunset,
        “1970s Global Cooling Alarmism”
        Poptech’s list typifies the amplification of memory here. It starts with a big image of the 1977 Time cover of “The Big Freeze” and headlines this quote:
        “”The scientists and computers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were confidently predicting that the frigid weather would continue. The chilling pronouncement of NOAA’s senior climatologist: ‘The forecast is for no change.’ ”
        – Time Magazine, 1977″
        Two clues there – “weather” and “no change”. It isn’t an article about global cooling. It’s an straightforward article about a long snowy spell in the US in the winter of 1976/77.”

        Notice that this liar ignores the long list to focus on just one media report,it is a clear attempt to marginalize the rest of the list.

        Here is a sampling of the first TEN on the list,each one has its own link:

        “1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
        1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
        1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
        1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
        1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
        1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
        1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
        1970 – Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
        1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
        1970 – U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)”

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

        The big list is just a sampling of what was reported in the 1970’s which were in the hundreds if not thousands.

        You are a dishonest man, Nick.

      • “Nick writes another lie,since the link to the 285 papers make clear it was clearly a discussion about cooling”
        So you give just one example, first on the list. Of course he leads with the best (Kukla). But look, say, at the start of p 2:
        96. Paterson 1977.
        It’s a straightforward paper about ice record on Devon Island. And it says nothing about future climate, cooling or otherwise. What NTZ cherrypicks is
        “Figure 4a shows 10-yr mean [temperature] values from AD 1200 to present [Arctic Canada]. Prominent features are brief warm periods with peaks at 1240 and 1380, cold peaks at 1430, 1520, and 1560, the ‘Little Ice Age’ continuously cold from 1680 to 1730 and with another temperature minimum at 1760, a pronounced warming at about 1910 with relatively warm temperatures until about 1960 and a marked cooling thereafter … [T]he cooling trend over the past 5,000 yr has probably been more than 1°.”
        All it says is that Devon Island has been cooling recently (in 1977). Nothing about the future, and nothing surprising.

        97 Angell et al just says the troposphere has been cooling. Nothing about the future. For some reason, they bold this bit
        “but even so the trend in global temperature since 1965 has been small compared to the 0.5°C decrease during 1960–65”

        98. Collis et al says nothing about cooling. It just says that weather is important to food supply.
        etc

        “Notice that this liar ignores the long list to focus on just one media report”
        It’s the one featured right at the top, with big picture. But that is how these lists always go – debunk one, and they just say – but look how many more there are. It’s never ending.

      • Number 7 on that “no tricks” list is the 1975 NAS report “Understanding Climate Change”.

        They quote at length the section from Appendix A suggesting a chance of a new ice age, but miss the section 2 paragraphs later saying

        These climatic projections, however, could be replaced with quite different future climatic scenarios due to man’s inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation (Mitchell, 1973a). This aspect of climatic change has recently received increased attention, as evidenced by the smic report (Wilson, 1971). A leading anthropogenic effect is the enrichment of the atmospheric C02 content by the combustion of fossil fuels, which has been rising about 4 percent per year since 1910. There is evidence that the ocean’s uptake of much of this C02 is diminishing (Keeling et al., 1974), which raises the possibility of even greater future atmospheric concentrations. Man’s activities are also contaminating the atmosphere with aerosols and releasing waste heat into the atmosphere, either (or both) of which may have important climatic consequences (Mitchell, 1973b). Such effects may combine to offset a future natural cooling trend or to enhance a natural warming. This situation serves to illustrate the uncertainty introduced into the problem of future climatic changes by the interference of man and is occurring before adequate knowledge of the natural variations themselves has been obtained. Again, the clear need is for greatly increased research on both the nature and causes of climatic variation.

  15. In the year of my Ph.D., Austin, the one TV station controlled by LBJ, the 1965 government science report linked showed heavy reliance on administrators (1 from UT) and government officials. One W. J. Youden has only an address, in Washington. I only know something of the scientific credentials of two on in the list, Ruth Patrick and Lionel Walford, probably good choices. Of the different section chairmen, nearly all are apparently non-administrators from universities.

    Of course, Roger Revelle was the head of the carbon dioxide section. Compared to government reports nowadays this seems to be a great piece of science, showing both pros and cons and maybes. As to pH they only mentioned freshwater and “This will have no significant effect on most plants,” and they mentioned the fertilizing effect of carbon dioxide. Back in those days we knew the difference between acids and bases and we still had lots of real pollution in LBJ land to deal with. They also knew cod populations followed temperature, something fisheries scientists lost in their computers and are having to rediscover. Nevertheless, there were some with solutions looking for problems.

  16. This has been beat to death but here it goes again:

    What is it that they knew decades ago, which they did not share with the world that they should be held accountable for?

    1. Booming biosphere and greening planet? No
    2. Record crop yields and world food production? No
    3. Best weather/climate in at least 1,000 years for life……since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm? No
    4. Decreasing strong/violent tornadoes with the decreasing meridional temp. gradient from warming the higher latitudes? No
    5. No trend in hurricanes/typhoons? No
    6. No acceleration in sea level increase? No

    7. Increase in atmospheric moisture of around 2% since that time frame and corresponding slight increase in extreme rain events. This happened
    8. Melting Arctic sea ice. This happened
    9. Slight increase in heat waves in some regions. This happened
    10. Global climate model projections of temperature that have been too warm and no skill at predicting region weather. This happened and are the entire basis to build the case for catastrophic human caused climate change on.

    Items 1-9 are based on authentic science. Item #10 is based on a political agenda and is also the one that they are actually being held accountable for. If they had sounded the false alarms sooner, the hijacking of climate science could have commenced much earlier and the politics based on junk science might well have(given a decade head start) been successful at committing the world to non scientifically based, transfer of wealth agreements, like the Climate Accord…….before the observations and data caught up and busted the exaggerated versions of the busted speculative theories……..like they are doing right now.

  17. Seth Boringstone again lives up to his name and submerges us in witless prattle. Svante Arrhenius was a Nobel-Prize winning Swedish scientist who knew that a warmer world would be a better world. Nothing that we see now, shows that Arrhenius was wrong, but Boringstone is.

  18. That 1965 document was indeed a “consensus” report from many of the leading scientits of the day. And it warmed in dramatic terms about the rise of CO2. Yet this is the time when some are telling us that they were preoccupied with a cooling scare?

    • Nick,
      “Yet this is the time when some are telling us that they were preoccupied with a cooling scare?”
      Yes, Nick, they were.

      • Well, the forceful words quoted here were from a committee headed by Roger Revelle, and including Broecker, Smagorinsky and Keeling. The top people of their day. And it was signed off by the President. Sounds more representative than the ambivalent support the two articles in Time and Newsweek were able to muster.

      • Nick, I know you sneak over to Tony’s site and read…….I know you’ve seen everything he’s dug up about the global cooling scare…..
        What I can’t believe is you seem to think the rest of us have not

      • Latitude,
        You seem to think posting that one graph, over and over, somehow proves something. No-one has found a NCAR source for it; it is produced by the journalist John Hamer, and seems to have been syndicated to a number of rural newspapers. The graph itself doesn’t make a ‘scare’; it just shows history of land temperatures, somewhere, as best known at the time, reducing over about thirty years, back to the levels of about 1920.

        What you don’t deal with is this report by the eminent scientists of the day warning the President of the likelihood of CO2 based global warming. Which the president signed off on.

      • Love the way you pick “eminent scientists”…this has nothing to do with ‘one’ graph….the graph just makes a point..that you obviously caught….and I know you’ve seen Tony’s blog and I know, you know, there’s more than enough evidence….

      • Nick, the NAS showed nearly identical chart as NCAR in 1975.

        You have been told WHO produced the NCAR chart.

      • This is why they changed the title of the story to Climate Change. It means whether the climate warms, or whether it cools, they can still say it is bad and “we told you so”. There will always be someone, somewhere, who comes up with different predictions, so all eventualities are covered. The main thing is that it is “bad”. i.e. Change=Bad.

        The biggest irony is that for much of the world a warmer climate actually means a more stable, less changeable climate. While many do realise, but not publicly admit, this, it shows the shallowness of their propaganda and lack of forward thinking.

    • Nick .
      Of course we were getting bombarded by the news media in the 70s about the coming ice age .I remember it well and it is well documented .In ten years time you will be denying that their was ever a warming scare when you are freezing when the climate moves back into a colder phase .A shortage of power for heating because of silly policies in many countries will cause much distress but all the warmists will duck for cover and say ” how were we to know”

      • “Of course we were getting bombarded by the news media in the 70s about the coming ice age”
        This bombardment has grown a lot in the telling. All those Time covers, etc. But such a bobardment would surely have left more marks than these few items endlessly circulated.

        It’s so hard to get a consistent story here. We have an article saying, accurately, “#ExxonKnew ?? meh… #JohnsonKnew”. Yes, what Exxon knew in 1977 was just the conventional scientific understanding. And it wasn’t about imminent cooling.

      • Nobody “KNOWS” anything even now.

        Its all just non-validated modelling and anti-science hypothesis.

        As you well know, Nick, there is NO CO2 warming signature in the whole of the satellite temperature data.

        CO2 warming of our convective atmosphere is more like a MYTH and any sort of factual science.

      • Nick,
        Your persisting in repeating consensus lie about the 1970s ice age scare does not really make you look clever or good.

      • I’m developing a theory that the people who now can’t remember the global cooling stories of the Seventies are the same people who were too spacked out of their brains on LSD to remember the Sixties. And clearly in some cases the same people who then realised global warming was the new thing. It must be a thermo-phobic LSD side effect of some sort, an anti-Goldilocks psychosis where the porridge is always either way too hot or way too cold.

        The majority, who were sober at the time, remember “the coming ice-age” stories quite well, and were about as persuaded about the freezing as we now are by global frying.

  19. Back in the 1960’s, 1 car produced as much real pollution as around 25 cars today. In the 1960’s we knew what real pollution was and thanks to the catalytic convertor, the most ingenious/effective pollution fighting device in history…..we helped reduce a massive source of it.

    Funny thing about pollution since then. Catalytic convertors, create a bunch of CO2. In the 1960’s this was still considered a beneficial, non toxic, colorless, odorless, benign gas which played its most important role in the law of photosynthesis, enhancing plant growth.

    Now, it’s being defined as carbon pollution and the increase in CO2 is the leading cause for model simulations of our atmosphere going out 100 years that project human caused catastrophic climate change.

    3 way catalytic convertor:

    1. Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2 NOx → x O2 + N2
    2. Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2 CO + O2 → 2 CO2
    3. Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2] O2 → x CO2 + (x+1) H2O.

    Who could have guessed back then that we were just converting air pollution with well known and observed adverse health effects on humans into an even worse form of pollution that remains in the atmosphere for a century and is a much worse threat to life on this planet………..based on programmed models that simulate the atmosphere for a century…… via interpretations by the main gate keepers of our climate science.

  20. The ExxonKnew case I find so confounding every time I look at it. Here are some interesting points:

    — The scientific assessment reports in the DoE carbon dioxide program in the early 1980s was that there was no empirical evidences of the proposed effect, and that first detection is not likely until the new century. They therefore saw their work as preparing for how best to establish first detection.

    — The first international assessment report “Scope 29″ in 1985 did not even suggest a date when first detection might be achieved.

    — The first IPCC report said that detection is not likely for decades.

    — In the second IPCC report, first it said in response to the question of when the empirical science might arrive” ‘we don’t know’. When this was removed in a late revision, the conclusion was still only ‘points towards’ a discernible human influence. So, even in 1996 there was no conclusive evidence according to scientific assessments. There were lots of papers at the time expressing doubt about the empirical evidence including the paper by Santer that was the main basis for the IPCC claim — when it was eventually published.

    — If we go to individual scientists claiming detection, we have George Plass in the 1953 and 1956, and before that Callendar in 1938. So #PlassKnew and #CallendarKnew. Its only that they were heavily criticized by the experts, including notably Roger Revelle.

    So ‘Exxon knew’ can only be about contentious claims of Callendar and Plass….or conjecture (as Janice Moore says above). And the conjecture goes right back to Svante Arrhenius etc in the late 19th century that was persuasively critiqued by Ångström in 1900.

    Back to 1965. This blog post above quotes a subsection to the Appendix to the report that was given to the new president Johnson early in 1965. The author, Revelle, speculates about CO2 warming melting of the Antarctic ice cap at a rate of 4 feet per decade and so after 1000 years a rise of 400 feet. That is the highest speculated AGW sea level rise I have seen.

    — Not only did Johnson know but less than 3 weeks after his inauguration (8 Feb 65), in a special message to Congress on pollution, President Johnson commented:

    Large-scale pollution of air and waterways is no respecter of political boundaries, and its effects extend far beyond those who cause it. Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

    see here: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650208.asp

    — And #ExxonKnew folks know #JohnsonKnew. See Naomi Oreskes here:
    See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html

    So, there is nothing new here for the #ExxonKnew. And this is why I am so perplexed. What exactly is the claim about Exxon? I just don’t understand how these folks are seeing the history.

    ( For details of the history see the timeline here:
    https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/chronology-of-climate-change-science/ )

  21. Readers (Stokes?) are referred to the report to verify what it actually concluded. Besides quotes referenced by me above the main things I noted were “….could be deleterious…” and “At present it is impossible to predict….” Their positive prediction of fertilizing effect (“….increase in photosynthesis…” and “…significantly raise the level of photosynthesis…”) sounds like it may be true.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/05/exxonknew-meh-johnsonknew-the-1965-presidential-science-report-on-carbon-dioxide-and-pollution/

  22. I remember that back in the early 1970s, people were worried about climate change, meaning the impending onset of a new glacial epoch. Not Warming.

  23. Belief in AGW caused by CO2 = denying the science of thermalization, Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy & quantum mechanics. The IR energy absorbed by CO2 is immediately (0.0002 microseconds) shared with surrounding molecules (thermalization) so, at low altitude, there is little chance for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon (relaxation time about 6 microseconds) as a direct result of having absorbed one. Water vapor has many absorb/emit lines at substantially lower energy levels than the 15 micron absorb/emit band for CO2 and on average there are about 35 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules. At low altitude, energy absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted up via water vapor radiation and some convection. End result is CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  24. Janice, Our Lord created us with two ears, two eyes, and only one mouth. What could that possibly mean? Let’s see how it goes; probably all long term folk have noticed the changes; first take, WUWT is on best financial footing yet = wider audience = more diverse opinions = dilution of your viewpoint. Live with it. L

    • Re: WUWT is on the best financial footing yet

      So. It’s about money. How sad. It used to be about advocating for the truth.

      I should have figured it was about money when Anthony took our money to go to AGU last year and essentially thumbed his nose at us when we asked for a summary report of how things went, then, asked for our money for a well-deserved vacation and thumbed his nose at us again when we asked for a short report or two about what he did. Money/”stuff for me” has started to become more important to him than being courteous and getting truth out. Reminds me of what happens to a lot of decent leaders after they’ve been in power for awhile. VERY sad.

      There is no point to a “wider audience” when what you are saying is JUNK.

      Live with it.

      That summed up Anthony’s response perfectly, “L.”

      And I reply, “Of course. What else can we do?”

      • Now you are just sounding peevish, insensitive and rude, Janice. Lets see how well you would do after ten years of wrangling the most important blog on the topic. Stop whining.

  25. Everyone with a good team of technical staff knew…

    …that ‘climate change’ was even more of a joke than renewable energy.

    So they did nothing.

    The optimal policy. For shareholders and the public.

    It even conforms to the ‘precautionary principle’. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  26. I read about how scientists were worried about global warming in the 40’s in a boys encyclopedia. That was in 1958 when I was 12.

    • “I read about how scientists were worried about global warming in the 40’s in a boys encyclopedia. That was in 1958 when I was 12.”

      Keep in mind that the 1940’s followed the *very* hot 1930’s, and being climate scientists, they think the trend, hot or cold, is going to go on forever, so they were predicting human-caused Global Warming, because it was hot at the time.

      The fact is climate scientists were declarig both human-caused Global Cooling and human-caused Global Warming as being real from the 1940’s to today, depending on who you asked.

      As the climate cooled from the 1940’s to the late 1970’s, there were fewer and fewer claims of human-caused Global Warming and many more claims of human-caused Global Cooling. And then when the climate started warming up in the early 1980’s, everyone switched back to predicting human-caused Global Warming.

      Climate scientists have been all over the map since the 1940’s when it comes to human influence on the Earth’s climate. And in all this time they have not proven their case that humans are causing the climate to change, whether colder or hotter. Pure speculation since the 1940’s.

  27. Nick Stokes ==> November 5, 2017 at 7:47 pm

    It’s so hard to get a consistent story here. We have an article saying, accurately, “#ExxonKnew ?? meh… #JohnsonKnew”. Yes, what Exxon knew in 1977 was just the conventional scientific understanding. And it wasn’t about imminent cooling.

    I’m hearing you loud and clear but I’d just like to have you on record.

    Nick, are we in the midst of man-made climate warming right now – imminent or otherwise – as we speak this very day in the year of our Lord 2017, according to the worlds eminent scientists! Or is it all a media beat-up?

    A yes or no answer will do.

    Again, to be as clear as possible, I’ll ask the question again*:

    Is it “the conventional scientific understanding” today**, that the world is actually being threatened by man-made global warming?

    Simple question, I’m sure you can answer!

    If it helps, I am expecting, a Mosher type answer (e.g.Yes and yes!).

    *Answer both separately if you feel the rephrasing might change your answer.
    **November 2017

      • “Yes, our carbon dioxide is warming the climate.”

        UNPROVEN ANTI-SCIENCE NONSENSE, NIck

        You know there is absolutely ZERO CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature data

        You KNOW there is no CO2 warming signature in sea level rise.

        You KNOW there is NO CO2 warming signature anywhere,

        You are NOTHING but a low-level lying AGW propagandist.

      • That more CO2 is warming the planet is not in evidence, but warmer is better than colder.

        What is evident however is that more CO2 is greening the planet. It’s all good. More would be better.

  28. And in the 52 years since that report, the climate gas cooled, warmed, had more storms and fewer storms, more ice and less ice, floods and droughts, heat waves and killing cold.
    In otherveords, nothing.
    Only many of us have changed, into cowering, scared, non-rational climate kooks who see worldwide catastrophe in every weather event.
    And who support destruction of habitat by the industrialisation of the wind.

  29. A bit of literary info.The correct term is”attorneys general”, NOT “attorney generals”. We get this from French, which permits adjectives to come after the noun they describe more often than English does. That’s why you see it pop up a lot in law and military language, where we borrowed heavily from French. The more English way to say it would be the general attorney … The attorney that represents the general public … and the plural would be the general attorneys.

  30. LBJ knew a lot of things like how to reconfigure the seats on Air force One to face backwards toward the throne chair. I don’t thing they even do that in NK or on the Putin plane.

  31. If Wirth thought that the hottest day of summer in Washington was June 6 or 9, that shows how little he knows about climate. The summer solstice (longest hours of daylight and highest sun angle) usually occurs on June 21 (sometimes on June 20 due to leap years). But there is a lag between increasing solar heating and warming of the atmosphere, due to the heat capacity of the atmosphere (and also the oceans, which pull heat out of the atmosphere during spring), so that the hottest days of summer (on average) are in mid-July.

    By the way, the Northern Hemisphere gets the same amount of sunlight at the vernal equinox (March 21) as at the autumnal equinox (September 21). But March 21 is usually colder than September 21, because the Northern Hemisphere gets cold during the winter months of short days and low sun angles, and takes several weeks to warm up, while on September 21 the Northern Hemisphere has accumulated heat from the summer months of long days and high sun angles, and takes several weeks to cool down. Which is why most places in the Northern Hemisphere have about equal temperatures in mid-April as mid-October.

    If Senator Wirth was from Colorado, he should have known that the skiing is better in March than in September!

  32. Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant believe youre not more popular because you definitely have the gift.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s