Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’
Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.
It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.
Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.
A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.
“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.“
After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a “consensus” manifesto in 2008 that claimed to exp”ose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened.
Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.
The Concoction Of ‘Consensus’ Achieved Via Exclusion
The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:
“[T]he following pervasive myth arose [among skeptics]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. … During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. … There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”
William Connolley and colleagues claimed that the determination of scientific “consensus” regarding global cooling and the influence of CO2 on climate during the 1970s could be divined by counting scientific publications that fell into arbitrarily-defined categories which allowed them to intentionally exclude hundreds of papers that would undermine the alleged myth-slaying purpose of the paper.
The PCF08 authors decided that when “quantifying the consensus” (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a “cooling” paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a “full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-’79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn’t a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms … were not considered worthy of classification as a “cooling” paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed “consensus” that said the current (1960s-’70s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.
Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was “imminent”. It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes.
By tendentiously excluding 1960s and 1970s publications that documented global cooling had been ongoing and a concern, as well as purposely excluding papers that suggested the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing is weak or questionable relative to other mechanisms, the authors could brazenly claim that there were only 7 papers published in the scientific literature between 1965 and 1979 that disagreed with the “consensus” opinion that global warming would occur at some point in the future (due to CO2 increases). According to PCF08, there were 44 papers that fell into the latter warming-is-imminent-due-to-CO2 category from 1965-’79, ostensibly entitling them to claim that dangerous anthropogenic global warming projections “dominated” the scientific literature even then.
An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s
As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.
Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-’70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a “cooling” paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.
But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-’79 that endorsed the position that the Earth’s climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific “consensus” by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation), the 220 “cooling” papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).
The 1970s Global Cooling Scare Was Not Mythological
In reviewing the available scientific literature from the 1960s-’80s, it is plainly evident that there was a great deal of concern about the ongoing global cooling, which had amounted to -0.5°C in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.3°C globally between the 1940s and 1970s.
Of course, this inconvenient global-scale cooling of -0.3°C between the 1940s and 1970s has necessarily been almost completely removed from the instrumental record by NASA (GISS) and the MetOffice (HadCRUT). After all, the observations (of cooling) conflicted with climate modeling. Overseers of the surface temperature datasets (such as the MetOffice’s Phil Jones or NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) have recently adjusted the -0.3°C of cooling down to just hundredths of a degree of cooling. NASA GISS, for example, has reduced (via “adjustments”) the global cooling down to about -0.01°C between the 1940s and 1970s, as shown below. It is likely that, during the next few years of adjustments to past data, the mid-20th century global cooling period will disappear altogether and mutate into a warming period.
For those who actually experienced the non-mythological cooling scare during the 1960s and 1970s (that has since been made to disappear from graphs), the consequences of the -0.5° Northern Hemispheric cooling (especially) were frequently discussed in scientific publications. There were geoengineering strategies proposed by scientists to melt Arctic sea ice. Droughts and floods and extreme weather anomalies/variability were blamed on the ongoing global cooling. Glaciers were advancing, even surging at accelerated rates during this period. Sea ice growth and severe Arctic cooling meant that the oceans were much less navigable. Crop growth and food production slowed as the Earth cooled, which was of great concern to world governments. Severe winters in the 1960s and 1970s led many climatologists to assume that the Earth was returning to an 1800s-like Little Ice Age climate. Observations of mammals migrating to warmer climates during the 1960s and 1970s due to the colder temperatures were reported in scientific papers.
Synonyms for the 1960s-’70s climate cooling conditions commonly used in the literature were words such as deterioration, recession, detrimental, and severe. In contrast, warming periods such as during the warmer Medieval times or the warm-up during the first half of the 20th century were referred to positively, or as optimum (i.e., the Medieval Warm Period was referred to as the “Little Optimum”).
According to Stewart and Glantz (1985), in the early 1970s it was the “prevailing view” among scientists that the Earth was headed into another ice age. It wasn’t until the late ’70s that scientists changed their minds and the “prevailing view” began shifting to warming. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of PCF08, who allege warming was the prevailing view among scientists in the 1960s and early 1970s too. Furthermore, as recently as 1985, it was still acknowledged that “the causes of global climate change remain in dispute.”
“The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing ‘spirit of the times’ (i.e., the prevailing mood in the science community) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. … The causes of global climate change remain in dispute. Existing theories of climate, atmospheric models, and actuarial experience are inadequate to meet the needs of policymakers for information about future climate.”
According to scientists reporting to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend for the next 25 years, and “meteorological experts” were thinking an 1800s climate was around the corner, with the concomitant return to monsoon failures, shorter growing seasons, and “violent weather”.
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974
Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate
“According to Dr. Hubert Lamb–an outstanding British climatologist–22 out of 27 forecasting methods he examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century. A change of 2°-3° F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact. … A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century. This would mean that within a relatively few years (probably less than two decades, assuming the cooling trend began in the 1960’s) there would be brought belts of excess and deficit rainfall in the middle-latitudes; more frequent failure of the monsoons that dominate the Indian sub-continent, south China and western Africa; shorter growing seasons for Canada, northern Russia and north China. Europe could expect to be cooler and wetter. … [I]n periods when climate change [cooling] is underway, violent weather — unseasonal frosts, warm spells, large storms, floods, etc.–is thought to be more common.”
The Selective Emphasis On Particular Scientific ‘Facts’ To Advance An Agenda
It is rather ironic that the below quote impugning the motives of “skeptics” by Connolley and his co-authors (PCF08) appeared in a paper that insisted the 1970s concerns about global cooling never really happened from a scientific standpoint, and their “proof” that it never really happened is that they could only manage to locate 7 scientific papers (via selection bias) that supported this “contrarian” view:
“Underlying the selective quotation of the past literature is an example of what political scientist Daniel Sarewitz calls ‘scientization’ of political debate: the selective emphasis on particular scientific ‘facts’ to advance a particular set of political values. In this case, the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past “consensus” on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been wrong.”
William Connolley may have successfully erased the Medieval Warm Period and 1970s cooling concerns from the pages of Wikipedia. He may have successfully written over 5,400 original Wikipedia articles in an attempt to persuade the public to believe in a dominant role for humans and CO2 in causing climate changes. But the internet has a long and expansive memory, and it is unforgiving when opportunists and activists attempt to dupe the public by concocting false narratives and employing the very same practice of “scientization” they hypocritically claim to deride.
285 Scientific Publications Affirming A Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence ‘Consensus’
Again, there were at least 285 scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” opinion during the 1960s to 1980s. The list is divided into several sub-sections:
Cooling Since 1940, Forecasts for Continued Cooling/Ice Age (156 papers)
Dubious Human Influence on Climate, Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity (44 papers)
Rising CO2 Leads to Cooling (7)
Uncertainties, Lack of Climate Understanding, Climate Modeling Problems (30)
Miscellaneous Questionable Human, CO2 Influence on Climate (12)
Non-CO2 Climate Change Mechanisms (26)
Warmer past despite lower CO2 (10)
The complete list of 285 Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence papers from the 1960s to 1980s can be found using the below links:
For those who may lack the time (or interest) to view the full list of 285, a summarized version of 35 sample papers are listed below. Keep in mind that these 35 sample publications represent less than 1/8th of the total volume of papers published during that era, affirming the position that concerns about global cooling were quite real, widespread, and scientifically-supported.
35 Sample Global Cooling/Low CO2 Climate Influence Papers
“Between 1880 and 1940 a net [global] warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C. … [I]t has since been found that the rate of temperature increase decreases with increasing CO2 and increases with increasing particulates. Therefore, global particulate loading is of foremost concern. … [A]n increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age. In order that we safeguard ourselves and future generations from a self-imposed ice-age it is necessary that we effectively monitor global concentrations of particulate matter.”
“[T]he 1976 surface temperature equated the global record for the lowest temperature set in 1964; but even so the trend in global temperature since 1965 has been small compared to the 0.5°C decrease during 1960–65.”
“The nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) have been moving northward in the Great Plains region from the late 1800s to the 1950s but now seem to be retreating from their lately acquired northern range. The armadillos have a nontypical homoiothermic blood system which makes them fairly vulnerable to cold climates.”
“The cooling from about 1950 to 1974 is ~0.3°C (Brinkmann, 1976). Moran (1975) suggests that the recent drought of peninsular Florida is largely due to decreased frequencies of tropical storms, associated with the general atmospheric and oceanic cooling since about 1940 (Wahl and Bryson, 1975).”
“Concern about climatic change and its effects on man has been increasing. Climatic changes affect the production of food and the allocation of energy resources. … Even with the temperature corrections included, Indiana June, July and August mean temperatures showed a decrease of approximately 3°F [-1.7°C] from 1930 to 1976.”
“According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age a real possibility.”
“Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have had an ambiguous climatic influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.”
“[T]he author is convinced that recent increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide have contributed much less than 5% of the recent changes of atmospheric temperature, and will contribute no more than that in the foreseeable future.”
“The 1968 AAAS Symposium on Global Effects of Environmental Pollution initiated a flood of papers supporting monotonically if not exponentially increasing pollution. The particulate increases were usually cited as at least contributing to the post 1940 cooling and possibly capable of bringing on another ice age.”
Introduction: “In the last century it is possible to document an increase of about 0.6°C in the mean global temperature between 1880 and 1940 and a subsequent fall of temperature by about 0.3°C since 1940. In the polar regions north of 70° latitude the decrease in temperature in the past decade alone has been about 1°C, several times larger than the global average decrease. Up till now, past climatic changes (except possibly those of the last few decades [of cooling temperatures]) could hardly have been caused by man’s activities.”
“It is not clear how such favorable and relatively consistent conditions are related to the higher temperatures in this century or the peaking of temperatures around 1940. The reversal of this warming trend, however, could mark the beginning of a new ice age as some climatologists have indicated. It should be noted, though, that even if we are in fact heading for another ice age, many years or decades will elapse before this will become apparent”
“Unlike some other pollutants introduced into the atmosphere by Man, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring and non-toxic. The direct effect of increased concentrations may be beneficial notably because it will tend to increase the rate of photosynthesis in plants. On the other hand, there may be deleterious effects through its influence on climate but this is still unproven and we cannot be certain whether, on a global scale, it will on the whole be harmful or beneficial. … The problem of determining the effect of increased carbon dioxide on climate is difficult, the more so because there are some essential aspects of the physical basis of climate that are not well understood”
“Recent anomalous weather conditions of the 1970s have revealed the possibility that significant aberrations in global climate have and are occurring with serious consequences. The 1970s have seen a generally overall greater variability and instability of global weather. Regions in Asia, Central America, and Africa have witnessed a higher frequency of monsoon failure which has led to a prevalence of severe drought conditions and an extension of desert boundaries. Whereas in other parts of the globe, severe flooding has been recorded. … Records of past climates have indicated that a greater variability of climate is generally synonymous with a major cooling trend in temperatures.”
Conclusions: “The scenario of a CO2-warming globe contains many uncertainties. The warming of the atmosphere is not an established fact, and even if it was there may be no need to invoke increased atmospheric CO2 or other ‘greenhouse’ gases as the cause when such warmings have been a part of our temperature time series historically.”
“Since about 1968/69 the glacier fronts have advanced by up to 158 m following a marked climatic recession [cooling] during the 1960s and early 1970s.”
“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.”
“Between 1000 and 1300 average summer [Arctic] temperatures were about 1°C higher than today, with the mean annual temperature higher by perhaps 4°C in a largely ice-free Arctic. … [B]etween 1900 and 1940, the most striking temperature gains occurring in the Arctic winter… an average rise of more than 8°C keeping her seas ice-free for seven months of the year instead of barely three months less than a century before. … Since about 1958 the reduced heat transport via the warm air sectors of the depressions has permitted an increase in pack-ice off northern and eastern Iceland to a condition comparable with the 1880s, and Polar Bears Thalarctos maritimus have been able to cross from Greenland for the first time for half a century (Marshall 1968). This relapse from warmth continued into the 1970s with one winter, 1962/63, as devastating over the English Midlands and south as anything experienced since 1740 (Manley n.d., Lamb 1966, Booth 1968). People asked, are we on the threshold of another long climatic recession?”
“Instrumental surface temperature records have been compiled for large portions of the globe for about the past 100 years (Mitchell, 1961; Budyko, 1969). They show that the Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature has risen about 1°C from 1880 to about 1940 and has fallen about 0.5 °C since then … Climate change may be a natural internal feature of the land-oceanic-atmosphere (climate) system. … Three runs were made testing anthropogenic effects of CO2, aerosols and heat. … One could sum the anthropogenic effects for each region, which would show almost no effect in the NH and warming in the SH. … Because the magnitudes of the effects are small, and may cancel, it cannot be concluded that these high correlations show that man has produced climate change.”
“An appreciable number of nonurban stations in the United States and Canada have been identified with statistically significant (at the 90% level) decreasing trends in the monthly mean diurnal temperature range between 1941–80.”
“At the present the imbalance is thought to correspond to a natural cooling of the ocean, which will lead to the next Ice Age.”
“In particular, detection of an anthropogenic influence through statistical analysis alone requires a long run of data of good quality and careful attention to measures of significance. It is most important to avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that a trend of a few years’ duration or less, following some change in human activities, can be attributed to that change even when no sound physical causal relationship is evident.”
Changes in the amount of multi‐year ice in arctic seas during the current cooling trend
“[T]he southern boundary of old ice was up to 100 miles farther south to the west of the divide, and up to 100 miles farther north to the east. The significance of these changes with regard to navigation conditions is self‐evident.”
“Concern over the vulnerability of a heavily populated world to climatic fluctuations affecting harvests and world food supply has emerged only recently. This concern has been stimulated by anomalous weather patterns beginning with the colder winters in Europe and North America in the 1960s, the Indian monsoon failures and droughts in the Soviet and Chinese grainlands in that decade and since, and the drought which continued for many years in Africa and brought chaos to the Sahel and Ethiopia. But, despite the computer revolution in meteorology, no generally accepted theory of climatic change to inform the future exists at this time.”
“[T]he measured increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to the most recent computations, would not be enough to have any measurable climatic effect.”
SPECIFIC SCHEMES FOR CLIMATE MODIFICATION
Ice Free Arctic Ocean The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice free ocean.
Bering Strait Dam The basic idea is to increase the inflow of warm Atlantic water by stopping or oven reversing the present northward flow of colder water through Bering Strait.
Deflecting the Kuroshio Current It has been proposed that the narrow mouth of Tatarsk Strait be blocked by a giant “water valve” to increase the warm inflow to the Sea of Okhotsk and reduce the winter ice there.
“Evidence derived from the carefully screened temperature record at Eau Claire, Mich., and from radiosonde data at [A] return to the temperature and circulation features of the early and mid-19th century in the eastern United States may be underway. … All 3 mo[nths] show temperature declines since the height of the recent climatic optimum during the 1930s. July temperatures have decreased about 3.5°F since the decades beginning with the early 1930s, and August temperatures have decreased about 3°F since the decades beginning with the late 1930s and early 1940s.”
Global Ecology: Readings toward a rational strategy for man [pgs. 76,77]
“A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface (albedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts. The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
“The large-scale circulation of the atmosphere during the current decade has produced patterns that had never been seen earlier in this century, but which seem to represent a recurrence of a regime that prevailed over long periods before 1895. … On this evidence, something like the climatic regime of the years since 1960 should probably be expected to persist till the end of the century or beyond”
“Estimates of the atmospheric temperature changes due to a doubling of CO2 concentration have be with a standard radiative flux model. They yield temperature changes of >0.25 K. It appears that the much larger changes predicted by other models arise from additional water vapor evaporated into the atmosphere and not from the CO2 itself. … It is important to stress…that CO2 is not the main constituent involved in infrared transfer. Water vapor plays the major role and ozone is also of importance.”
“In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C. Locally, temperature changes as large as 3-4°C per decade have been recorded, especially in sub-polar regions. … The drop in the earth’s temperature since 1940 has been paralleled by a substantial increase in natural volcanism. The effect of such volcanic activity is probably greater than the effect of manmade pollutants.”
“In 1970, Mitchell stated that by the late 1960s global temperatures had fallen 0.3°C from the peak in the 1940s, approximately one-half of the prior rise. … Summaries by Schneider and Dickenson, Kalnicky, Robuck, Roberts, and Agee all report Northern Hemisphere temperatures declines by at least 0.5°C since the 1940s. In summary, Gribbin states ‘In worldwide terms, we are in a situation where the earth is cooling more quickly than it warmed up earlier this century.’ From the above it is clear that the general consensus in the recent literature is that there has been a cooling in the Northern Hemisphere since the early 1940s.”
On the question of carbon dioxide heat radiation in the atmosphere
“The dependence of atmospheric heat radiation on CO2 and H2O contents and also on temperature vertical distribution is investigated with the help of the radiation chart. It is shown that the heat radiation of the atmosphere almost doesn’t depend on variations of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.”
“The climatic ‘improvement’ of the late 1930’s had, as was expected, given way to a colder trend in the 1950’s and 1960’s … Dunbar (1976, p. 190) writes that he finds it “difficult to believe that either Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, water vapour, freon, or any other substance produced by man’s efforts is going to compete seriously with Nature in changing our climate”. … Heino’s diagrams illustrate the exceptional nature of the climatic improvement experienced in the 1930’s, but they also show clearly the slow deterioration which set in in the 1950’s. The 1960’s constituted climatically a rather unfavourable decade from man’s point of view”
“Lamb (1966) had already suggested that it appears likely that we have passed the height of the warming episode in the first half of this century and are now reverting to a pattern characterized by lower zonal flow and intensification of the trough/ridge systems, essentially a reestablishment of the climatic character of the last century.”
FIFTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF TIMELY IMPORTANCE
WEATHER MODIFICATION BY CHANGING CO2 CONTENT OF ATMOSPHERE [p. 48]
Item: American Scientist, January-February 1970, p. 18, “‘Though dire effects on climate of an increase in CO2 have been predicted, they are far from being established. The cycle is not really understood; carbon dioxide may well prove to be the least objectionable or the only beneficial addition to the atmosphere from industrial sources'”
No wonder they call him “Winston” – straight out of George Orwell.
Thanks, Kenneth, for this outstanding effort! This likely has implications for Gavin Schmidt and his simultaneous efforts to remove the early 20th century warm spell and the cooler mid 20th century cold spell. Obviously Connelly’s department is next door to Gavin’s. BTW, I numbered the publications in the list and the amount is over 300 papers!
apparently the outstanding effort is as simple as a basic literature review, to pick out papers with small datasets, and large errorbars.
That, of course, is par for the course for any research student, but apparently you think it’s a significant and meaningful effort – its not.
What do you think is identified here? are you unaware of the actual scientific method, how and why it is used? I find that baffling.
While you’re busy fawning over nothing more than early literature, you probably dont notice that exactly this happens all over the place – in fact it wasnt so long ago we thought the universe was 17 billion years old – then 12, then 14, and 13.
Gossy, this is actually how science works. Honestly, it is. the size of the error bars are inversely proportional to the sqaure root of the number of data points – the literature above – has very small N. Literature now, has much more complete dataset.
I appreciate I used a lot of big words and concepts there – but I also appreciate you dont know what they are, and you probably should. you’re in the 21st century, you dont really have much of an excuse to be ignorant of this stuff any more.
“the amount is over 300” – of course, the relevant metric here is the size of the data contributing to the analysis, not the number of analises, but clearly you’re ignorant of, or not able to understand what science is, and how it works.
good luck finding out – rest assured, you’re not alone, and I gather that you knowing you’re not isolated in your ignorance somehow validates it for you – it doesnt. you’re still ignorant.
I take it you’re a believer in AGW?
The quasi-religious zeal shines through.
I believe where the fact point B&T. and I dont get my “facts” from blogs, people who are mathematically incompetent, or scientifically illiterate. If I’m unable to access the facts, then of course, I’m unable to comment.
By demanding facts, I exclude input from politicians, blogs, self-published nonsense and angry wounded ranty posters on said blogs.
Incidentally: An adult would understand the application of religion here – a religion being ‘the worship of a god or supernatural process – often a creator” is a rather juvenile slur – so it’s not worth commenting on much further, but I acknowledge your need to demonize science when it offends your personal views (such as global warming in ~2010 substantial dataset) or applaud when it supports them (such as global cooling in 1970’s relatively much smaller dataset).
Given people vastly more qualified than you and I dare to entertain a conclusion on AGW that is so very opposite to yours (vastly less qualified) means that it does, im sure you can understand that I would take their conclusions with a much smaller grain of salt than I would your (vastly less qualified) conclusions.
Contrary to the substance of this blog – I also understand that science is a self-correcting process, and indeed, conclusions change as more/better data/models/information are acquired – this seems to be an aspect that has escaped the notice of the author of this article, and many posters on it.
“I don’t get my “facts” people who are mathematically incompetent, or scientifically illiterate”
so.. no thoughts of your own, is that what you are telling us.
From your comments I doubt you know even the very basics of anything to do with science.
Your first words.. “I believe”…. SO WHAT !!!
Waiting with baited breathe for your next load of meaningless, zero-science ranting. Its all you seem to have.
Hi andy, “so no thoughts of your own” – no, I dont make up facts on my own.
Do you? Why on earth do you think it’s appropriate to make up facts on your own? how dishonest is that?!
My first words “I believe… ”
yes, andy, this is because the question from B&T was “I take it you’re a believer in AGW?”
Obviously then, he was asking me to respond in the context of my beliefs.
It’s interesting you take offence to me answering the question asked, but I sense there is a lot of irrational anger here, from some – and that’s fine, if a little bewildering.
I enjoy seeing this expression you’ve adopted “your zero-science ranting”. Is this where I point out that you’re perfectly happy to adopt “science” where the results are consistent with what seems to be nothing more substantive than your personal preferences, and reject science that does not?
Anyone else would call that cherry picking – to be honest, I call it that too – though in your case there are additional words I would select – hypocritical, intellectually bereft, and simply downright dishonest.
None of this has much to do with personal opinion Andy – you do reject science that disagrees with you, and you accept it when it does – and you do that in defiance of the obvious and actually rather normal scientific and mathematical formalisms generally used in science.
You are good at these empty banal posts, your stock in trade , so it seems, all you have..
But you show a very low level of actual understanding about anything to do with science or statistics.
You have produced and continue to produce, meaningless rantings devoid of anything to do with either.
YAWN.. what a pointless load of meaningless garbage you are spewing.
Empty zero-science rants is all you seem to have..
Poor thing.
That low-end arts fail isn’t helping you, is it, dearie.
I am not a scientist I have read papers and article on both sides and I have questions on the science.
Isn’t CO2 plant food? https://www.cfact.org/pdf/CO2-TheGasOfLife.pdf
With out it all life dies.
If you find that questionable how come they sell CO2 generators for greenhouses? That 1500ppm is optimal for plant growth? With 30% more plant growth.
http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp
http://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide
How come the Roman warm period did not kill everyone and we have been cooling since? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
How come Venus has 97% CO2 atmosphere and and Mars is 96% CO2 and one is cold and one is hot(besides Venus being closer to the sun)? BTW Venus’s greenhouse was caused by the magnetic field failing and the ocean’s vaporizing. The water vapor caused the greenhouse run away baking the CO2 out of the rocks. https://youtu.be/c6K2ibg-Wb0
The percent of CO2 in Earths atmosphere is 0.04%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Why was there a pause in warming for 18yrs? All the climate models are wrong. Why did NOAA have to adjust the temps to make warming of .05 degrees which is in the margin of error?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/#d678b438bf09
The 97% myth. How come it isn’t reported that out of thousands of scientists polled on global warming, only 79 responded and only 77 said man made global warming is real? 77 scientist is not a majority.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
In summary:
https://youtu.be/WB109lhkAyk
And people vastly more competent than them have also questioned it – including some of the greatest physicists in the world (Dyson, Zichichi, Giavar, etc.)
I’d say your self-annointedness is showing.
@ “caitie”
Two things.
1) You need to go back and read this post again as you seem to have completely misunderstood it. Contrary to what you appear to think, it isn’t claiming that global warming isn’t happening because 285 papers were published examining global cooling, it’s specifically arguing against a paper by William Connely which pretended to find only 7 global cooling papers.
The points you make about number of datapoints and so on are actually irrelevant, as is the point that science is (supposedly) self-correcting. These are just ‘taking points’ (as alarmists always say).
2) Why do you insist on adopting a very specific arrogant and insulting tone in your comments? I realise that all alarmists do it but it’s obviously not helping your cause, so: why do it?
Virtue signalling.
@swordfish
(one of my favorite passwords)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W50L4UPfWsg
You’ve just demonstrated you are an oaf, well done.
Caitie the Competent
The size of the data set is not the only guide to the truth. One perfect data point with no uncertainty in the hand is worth a hundred uncertain data points in the bush.
N is not the only consideration. Uncertainty for each N pads the error bars.
Too much book-learning methinks.
You sound like the scholar who read chapter one correcting the professor who wrote the textbook.
In addition – “This likely has [helpful] implications for . . “ExxonMobil.
It is an impressive literature list, although I am not surprised it can be made. I remember that in late 60’s and early 70’s when I was a physics student, climate was an important topic in the MSM media. Journalists covering science were writing articles about the cooling of the climate. We were heading for an ice age.
I would not be surprised that an analysis of the science articles in the MSM papers from 60’s and 70’s would also show that a main worry was the cooling of the climate. It is ironic (sad?) that the same MSM papers are now telling us the opposite. You can hide the truth within Wikipedia and MSM media, but not forever in science.
Excellent work!
I would like to highlight this bit:
“A change of 2°-3° F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact. … A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century. ”
As we can see, in 1974, it was understood, one might even say there was a consensus view, that climate change was natural and changes could be quite dramatic, in the order of 2-3 deg. F per century.
“The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
For more than 45 years, Holdren and Ehrlich have been shouting “fire” in every theatre they can find! Why have they not been institutionalized long ago?
Count me unconvinced. What is the evidence here? a couple of cherrypicked phrases?
It is obvious, that the real subject are papers claiming more cooling (or warming) and not papers talking about what has happened (some pretty mi#nor cooling).
It is also important, whether the reasons given for the cooling make sense or if they do not. Do people here really not understand, how a theory works?
Well there’s also that US documentary voiced by that Spock actor. Leonard Nimoy. About the Global cooling expected by scientists. Including one Stephen Schneider. You find it on youtube.
Only brainwashed German dimwits don’t know it. You’ve been educated by idiots and liars, sod.
Let’s not forget feature stories in Newsweek, Spiegel and Time…all crowing consensus. Spiegel warned in 1974 that there was only a 1 in 10,000 chance of warming ahead.
And Science News! That was what got my attention. See below.
Let’s not forget Time, Newsweek and Spiegel…e.g. https://notrickszone.com/2010/12/17/der-spiegel-1974-new-ice-age-approaching-odds-of-a-warm-future-at-best-1-in-10000/#sthash.N33SEtz3.dpbs
“Do people here really not understand, how a theory works?”
Yes, you use $billions of other people’s money, advertising that the ‘science is settled’, pay for research that conforms the theory, and re-edit all historical sources to make it appear so. Governments love it, as it gives them more money, more power, and more perceived global influence.
It may come as a surprise to you Sod but some of us were alive in the 1960 when this very real event happened.
tomo – you simply confirmed what sod implied.
you dont know how the scientific method works – science is self correcting – that means that early results are iteratively refined as new data and new analysis comes in.
Many of these papers are perhaps, 40 years old – I was not alive at the time of course, but I’d be suprised to learn many goverements were claiming the science was settled. In fact, I think your saying so is a disingenuous fib, but feel free to show me say, a handful of governments that said anything like it, 40 years ago.
So we can speculate – pending your further data – that you are likely to have fibbed about what governments said 40 years ago, and that as you’re apparently unaware that trend analises have errorbars proportional to some nonlinear function of the size of the dataset, that you’re also unable to comprehend comments made where N is small are demonstrably error prone.
You might well have been alive when it happened, and that gives you less of an excuse to have failed to inform yourself on the basic operation of science and error propagation since then – unless of course, the brain has addled somewhat.
You make it VERY obvious that it is you who has a failed arts student’s view of how science works.
You remain UN-educated.
Still waiting for you produce something, anything that shows you proceeded past junior high maths and science.
All you show is very low-end understanding of either, the sort of understanding they teach in humanities and arts basic maths courses… words, without comprehension or understanding.
Understanding sarcasm isn’t your strength either, it seems.
Let’s clear something up here that you’re busy obfuscating with your nasty little tone …
The Scientific METHOD is – the the best of our ability – dispassionate and fact-based.
ScientISTS and the whole business of science are NOT – not by a long shot. Something as simple as deciding who the PI (Principal Investigator) is going to be or deciding which proposals get funding and which ones do not are ENTIRELY political, subjective, and full of agenda, bias, etc.
There is a huge bias in the scientific community for the status quo. People’s careers, credibility, position, prestige, and all the rest hinge on preserving that status quo. It is entirely possible – in fact, quite likely – that if new science appears that threatens that status quo, it will be squelched, suppressed, ignored, or just plain not funded. That is why it is famously said, “Funeral by funeral, science progresses.”
So please do quit pretending that science as practised is this unimpeachable oracle of truth. The techniques are valuable but there are as good or bad as the bureaucracy that wields them. There is ample evidence – and there has been for years – of suppression of contrary views (see Ballings and Michaels’ “The Satanic Gasses” for a number of ugly examples), questionable methodology, jiggering the data, overselling the results, and so on to absolutely justify a healthy skepticism of the AGW/CC dogma.
More to the point, you are the one exhibiting religious zeal here when you express this boundless trust in a system that you apparently barely understand. Go do real research (I have – many years ago) and get back to us with just how dispassionate the whole process actually is from tip to tail.
In the mean time, you might manage to find a civil tone and stop being an ass to strangers because they are asking fair questions…
Let me spell it out as you seem to miss the point.
1. These days $billions is pumped into this AGW-Climate Change industry via government initiatives at the behest of the unelected elites of the UN. This is certainly not good for science (who pays the piper calls the tune), or the rest of us as we all foot the bill. We are currently paying for an expensive and unproven theory.
2. 40 years ago the fear of a global cool down was real and widely reported.
I nominate Caitie as a perfect data point about which there is no uncertainty.
If another one comes along we can establish a trend.
Caitie, two perfect data points can be used to confidently describe a trend. That is how science ‘works’. It is also how expertise is demonstrated. Before you were born we put men on the moon and at the bottom of the ocean and brought them back. It was done with very few N’s.
There was a global cooling scare on the run for years and remarkably the names of the shrill and the clamorous are the same as those we hear today. Literally.
Doubling CO2, which is not technically feasible, might increase the global temperature by 0.25 C. The hobgoblin of global warming is a pipsqueak.
In other words, you don’t bother reading any of these beyond statements taken from them and presented?
Fabulous.
“(some pretty mi#nor cooling). ”
As opposed to some pretty minor warming from El Ninos, hey.
The cooling on the top graph looks like about 0.4C in 30 years.
Where as the whole warming (much fabricated) in the fraudulent giss graph is about 1.1C in 120 year (a lesser rate)
“It is also important, whether the reasons given for the cooling make sense or if they do not. Do people here really not understand, how a theory works?”
Ahh, but there was no cooling. Scientists from that time period were mislead by surface data that was not properly corrected for bias….
Well either that or todays scientists have hidden the cooling that actually did take place by introducing biased processes within the homogenization process.
It is one or the other.
of course, a little more intelligent thought would probably lead you to a more sane conclusion that doesn’t involve some monumental conspiracy led by those INCREDIBLY wealthy research scientists (cos, you know, they are much more wealthy than the fossil fuel/petroleum/automotive industry right?).
RS, with a dataset of say, 10 datapoints revals some trends, the errors are monumental – but you can still find a linear trend. What you think that trend might mean is speculation with in the errors of the fit.
Now, coming back to that same dataset with something like 10 times the amount of data – the trend analysis result is going to be DIFFERENT. There is no hiding of data, the data are still there – they’re even still in the analysis – they are just LESS significant in the context of the data, beacuse there are simply more data points. It also means that the accuracy of the fit has improved.
Put another way RS – you would have to be seriously ignorant of basic statistics to expect a trend analysis to be replicated EXACTLY between two datasets, where the second dataset is so much larger than the first.
It’s both idiotic and ignorant to pretend that the reason a result from a trend analysis of two datasets, one much larger than (but including) the other is a consequence of someone hiding data.
sods point is perfectly valid – do you really not know how science (and statistics, much less basic trend analysis ) works?
I’d go further – since its clear you dont know – why dont you find out? Sit down, get some data , do a trend analysis yourself – heck, use any data you like – Informed comments matter – ignorant ones dont.
“of course, a little more intelligent thought would probably lead you to a more sane conclusion that doesn’t involve some monumental conspiracy led by those INCREDIBLY wealthy research scientists (cos, you know, they are much more wealthy than the fossil fuel/petroleum/automotive industry right?).”
Well caitie, maths doesn’t seem to be your strength either. Do you actually believe the idiot climate scientists can forecast a chaotic system 100 years into the future? Has it not occured to you that that branch of science has DISCOVERED NOTHING and is just a bunch of hot air?
For your education, Miss arrogant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY
You keep saying we have more data. No we dont. The number of stations and data points have decreased dramatically since the cold war.
caitie,
This is illogical BS. Please go to remedial reading class and learn to understand what has been written above.
The number of data points are indeed important when attempting to estimate the likely trend if a chaotic system where all the parameters are not known (and unknowable with the present regime), and the interactions, feedbacks, and all determinants causing the interactions and feedbacks to vary are not known. In fact it is just guesswork.
If not explain these few important climate using observed data only. (No models)
What are all the features that constitute all types of cloud?
What are all the conditions that causes all types of clouds to happen? What governs how long all types of clouds last and what are the determining factors governing how and when all types of clouds to dissipate?
Failing this just list the first 100 key features of clouds.
Explain which governs this planets climate conditions more – sea and ocean conditions, or solar radiation?
What causes the upper atmosphere temperature inversion. Cite only observed data to prove your response.
What are all the effects of plankton on climate?
Why are historic records of trees better at recording rainfall than temperature? Prove this statement correct or not (your choice) citing only observed evidence (no models).
Why does Professor Wood’s greenhouse experiment always work as advertised?
Caitie we are trying to locate your strengths to encourage you in the right direction. Stop making it difficult.
Take a sine wave. Any frequency. Pick two points on the wave more than one wavelength apart. Plot the trend. Pick two points on the wave less that one wavelength apart. Plot the trend.
Repeat the exercise using a large number of data points between the two end points. As many as you like. Calculate the trends. Explain the difference between the two trends, if any.
Repeat the latter (shorter) exercise for a part-wave selecting a data set of the same length but a different starting point. Calculate the trend. Explain the differences between all the trend lines.
Next, using logic, not stats, prove that the climate as we have measured it so far, is best described by which of these three trend lines.
Ponder whether or not we have enough measurements to be sure we can express with confidence the warming influence of AG CO2 or the cooling influence of AG airborne particulates.
Catie,
You’re creating your own strawman and then puncturing it. Ultimately it’s not about wealth; it’s about defending a worldview. AGW is made to order for the leftish bien pensant. The ultimate justification of their little world-views.
No, the data is not hidden, it just becomes less statistically significant as the size of the data set increases – put another way; the formal statistical weights of each datapoint in the ensemble decreases as the inverse of the square of the size of the dataset (for a single datapoint in an ensemble of N points, the statistical weight goes as 1/N.
Nothing sinister, just basic math, but its fascinating to see how many people conflate bad understanding of statistics with a global conspiracy. Really rather breathtaking.
Oh dear, still the low-level understanding of basic data.
And did you know that there is very much LESS surface temperature data available now than there was in the 1980’s?
So you have proven AGAINST your own point, even though your understanding of the real statistical basis of multiple data collection is obviously very much beyond you.
Did you know that the number of surface temperature stations was at its peak in the 1970’s, and that there are now less than 1/8 the number of reporting station? Or is that yet another point of ignorance?
Did you know that the actual quality of many of the current reporting station is of an extremely low level, with airports, air-conditioners, tarmac surfaces abounding? Another point of your ignorance, I’m guessing.
Did you know that just a bit less than half of current data in GISS is marked with an “E” for “estimate”.. no.
Is there ANYTHING you do know ??????????
“Did you know that the number of surface temperature stations was at its peak in the 1970’s, and that there are now less than 1/8 the number of reporting station?”
so?
Add the total amount of data available then, to the total number of data available now (which includes data available then), and you will wind up with a larger number. You dont know that adding two positive numbers gives you another postive number greater than either of the two original values?
“Did you know that the actual quality of many of the current reporting station is of an extremely low level…blahblah”
so?
the “actual quality of data” is reflected in the errors. So what?
“Did you know that just a bit less than half of current data in GISS is marked with an “E” for “estimate”
EVERY SINGLE measurement is an “E” for estimate at some level. Some are interpolated from temporally-nearby data, and some are derived from other processes. So what?
Andy – this is how you do science. It’s HOW science is done- you build a data set – it might not even be a direct observable!. You conduct statistics, and you ESTIMATE the answer that is consistent with the input datasets.
So what Andy!. lol – this is hilarious – andy, hun, this is how it’s done okay? Really, it is. In any science. Cope, okay? really, cope.
You seem to have gotten the idea that this blog has become your forum in which to pretend you’re an expert and to spout off and insult everybody. You’re allowed to make comments here but in the spirit of a respectful dialogue. You’re sophomoric, condescending has reached its limit.
Poor little thing, double down on your own ignorance and stupidity.. That is how you cope.
You have nothing to offer of any relevance to anything to do with maths or science.
Just idiotic bluster to cover up your lack of knowledge and understanding.
You have NOTHING. Your rhetoric is EMPTY.
“…it might not even be a direct observable!.” – caitie (sod on steroids?)
With warmunists, it rarely is. =)
Here’s how science is really done, when one is doing it correctly, that is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
(NOTE – early on he addresses the very topic of Pierre’s post, coming to the same conclusion, the rest it addressing the MAJOR flaws in the warming narrative.)
“Informed comments matter – ignorant ones dont.” – caitie (sod on drugs steroids?)
Which is why yours don’t.
I’m seeking clarification of a point made by catie. I welcome answers from all participants, but would like to hear from catie regarding her understanding of acceptable ways to acquire a data set.
I have a Bachelor’s in Biology and graduated summa cum laude so I think I have a solid basic grasp of how science is supposed to be conducted. My degree was decades ago and I what I am reading here concerns me that science standards have changed dramatically since then.
Specifically, I learned that the only valid way to acquire data is to collect it from observation. Increasing your sample size by fabricating data points invalided your results, so much so that if you were caught doing so was an automatic F for that assignment (at the very least).
Catie seems to be saying that it is now an acceptable standardized practice to round out a data set by estimating the values of additional data points based on the data points that you actually have.
Her comments seem to suggest that this new approach has been made canonical, at least in some fields. She seems to be saying that she understands all science to be done by collecting some then guessing what the rest of the data is.
Is this true? If so, how widespread is this new approach? I cannot see the value in such an approach. If there is value, perhaps someone could explain it.
I’m seeking clarification of a point made by catie. I welcome answers from all participants, but would like to hear from catie regarding her understanding of acceptable ways to acquire a data set.
I have a Bachelor’s in Biology and graduated summa cum laude so I think I have a solid basic grasp of how science is supposed to be conducted. My degree was decades ago and I what I am reading here concerns me that science standards have changed dramatically since then.
Specifically, I learned that the only valid way to acquire data is to collect it from observation. Increasing your sample size by fabricating data points invalided your results, so much so that if you were caught doing so was an automatic F for that assignment (at the very least).
Catie seems to be saying that it is now an acceptable standardized practice to round out a data set by estimating the values of additional data points based on the data points that you actually have.
Her comments seem to suggest that this new approach has been made canonical, at least in some fields. She seems to be saying that she understands all science to be done by collecting some then guessing what the rest of the data is.
Is this true? If so, how widespread is this new approach? I cannot see the value in such an approach. If there is value, perhaps someone could explain it.
“Is this true? If so, how widespread is this new approach?”
It is certainly widespread in climate science.
The surface data is actually incredibly sparse in huge regions of the world.
Even then, some 40-45% of stations don’t report regularly. And as surface station studies have show, many stations (even in the USA) are often of extremely low quality, goodness knows how bad some of the data from developing and undeveloped countries is.
As such, somewhere over 70% of the land surface has inadequate covered, the rest is just “made up” by those doing everything they can to push the AGW. Hence we get the laughing stock that is GISS
But this is acceptable and quite valuable to alarmists, because the fabricated data can do whatever the fabricators want it to do. They even feel the need to continually keep changing past data, to the stage where GISS is basically a meaningless straight line.
But it is in no way has any resemblance to science or reality.
@tmorgan
“Is this true? If so, how widespread is this new approach7”
The video I included will answer some of your questions, as it deals with what climate data is appropriate, and what isn’t. Climate science today appears to be a mess, at least as controlled by the warmist gatekeepers.
I am nearly speechless. I knew there was probably some bungling going on with adjustments to thermometer records due to siting and other problems. But I didn’t realize credentialed scientists were performing and teaching a scientific method that accepts data fabrication as valid. I can’t imagine how such a state of affairs came to be or how it is allowed to continue. Such ideas violate the very core of the scientific method.
Caitie, thanks for explaining why the adjustment of large data sets is not required nor desired especially by methods that will introduce BIAS!!
snicker
You don’t get it do you there is NO proof that the climate in recent years is not just natural variation.
All the screwing-around with statistical numbers (not data as they are just statistical products derived from small amount of real observed data).
Here’s a lesson for you to explain —
Imagine one of the biggest storms ever to hit Europe, it destroys most buildings, bridges, roads and about a third of the forests in Ireland and Britain, causes floods in the low countries of Europe, kills many 10,000s of people on its passage up through Germany and beyond.
But its natural variation.
Less than 15 years later there comes a European winter freeze. For months rivers from Ireland to Prussia are frozen. This level of cold is very unusual but it’s a natural variation.
Less than 15 years after the freeze Europe there starts the great drought. In most of Europe there’s no significant rain for 4 YEARS! But it is natural variation.
Caitie, why can I say this is natural variation?
Because unlike you I have some wider education, and more experience than you. So go look it up it was a real historical set of events. (Hint:Daniel Defoe may be a good place to start.)
Then explain to everyone here how to differentiate natural variation from man-made!
“Do people here really not understand, how a theory works?”
We all know FOR CERTAIN, that you don’t.
Stick to you Bros Grimm fairy tales about wind energy, sop, its all you have.
Because you think wind energy is made from cow farts? or do you think it gives you a headache? or is the electricity generated from it, somehow.. a different color that you dont like?
I have to admit, I’m coming into this cold here – but I hear a lot about people objecting to wind power because it makes the cows milk turn green or something. Or gives their babies a mysterious ability to rotate their heads 360 degrees.. no seriously, some of this horseradish about objecting to windpower is absolutely head-desk-worthy – whats the quality of yours?
note – its okay if you’re not comfortable to answer, I just like to maximise my LOLs by increasing the clown population in the circus. I’m sure you understand.
“I have to admit, I’m coming into this cold here ”
What you have to admit, is that you are basically ignorant.
That would be the best starting point.
Once you understand that, then you can start to learn.
Try it sometime, instead of the meaningless garbage rants.
Wind energy is irregular, unreliable, subsidy sucking,unable to compete on a level laying filed, and often requires a REAL energy supply system to back up the majority of the power.
You need to have two supply systems, one which is inherently ineffective and irregular, and one which could be 100% reliable but is forced to operate in fits and starts to make up for the irregularities of the wind energy.
In many places they are finding that even with fast start gas system they are actually adding MORE CO2 into the atmosphere because the gas systems are forced to operate inefficiently, plus of course, the amount of concrete, wire and other materials , all of which have to be manufactured using REAL power such as gas or coal creates far more CO2 than the wind turbine is ever likely to save over its short life time.
But you didn’t know any of that either, did you.
‘but I hear a lot about people objecting to wind power because it makes the cows milk turn green or something. Or gives their babies a mysterious ability to rotate their heads 360 degrees..’
You made up every single word of that to fit your ignorant biases. Want to prove people really believe what you just claimed? Present links to their exact words. In the meantime, please do continue to make a fool of yourself.
sure otter, obviously i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green.
That is exactly what I want.
you do, at least, provide actually funny comical relief. The other comedy actors here are more tragic.
Wow, you chose to double-down on your own stupidity. I can see why you are laughing, you can’t understand your own ignorance!
Pierre, is there a reason this @$$#0!& is still talking on this site?
Its own stupidity is all it has,
It is unable to produce anything resembling science.
caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:45 PM | Permalink
“sure otter, obviously i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green.”
You’re sure you want to debate numerical simulations? Your level of discourse belongs into a SJW circus.
“i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green”
Is this what your peers are telling you?
Tell them to slow down on the funny pills.
Seems you are living in a child’s mind, you poor dear.
You really have no clue have you SOD. I was alive and studying the subject at grammar school. Global cooling was an established fact. You really are a complete tosser and you deserve any ad hom attack thrown at you.
The 60s and 70s, a period I lived through from teenager to adult, was heralded as a period of cooling and the danger of a new ice-age was certainly the scientific and popular media strapline during that period. I don’t care how many or how few papers have been stacked up since, either for or against, I lived through that period and global cooling was perceived as a real probability and not as a fringe view but as a consensus.
As Max Boyce, the Welsh comedian, was wont to say: “I know ‘cos I was there”
It is the hubris of man that always brings him down. Climate science seems more like religion than a methodology. I am sure scientists were just as convinced of their arguments in the 1970s as they are now. This certainty, and lack of humility, has led to an abandonment of the scientific method in favor of name-calling and claims of ‘settled science’ – an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Of course the trillion dollar carbon trading floor is enough of an incentive in itself to suppress all but the desired narrative.
“I am sure scientists were just as convinced of their arguments in the 1970s as they are now.”
because you cant read the carefully-phrased conclusions in many of the articles above?
“its not clear..” , “on the other hand…” , “may be due to..”
I dont interpret expessions like these as a lack of humility, but perhaps you do.
Im also not sure youre really the best person to be talking about the scientific method being abandoned – were you able to actually grasp the process, you’d understand that its a collaborative and convergent process – and the starting point at least, can be quite far from the actual fact. Usually the starting pionts are associated with large error bars, andof course, this blog disingenuosly wont talk about error bars (maybe it’s to make the scientific articles appear to lack humility, I dont know). Subsequent refinements of the hypothesis hopefull reduce the error bars, and converge on the correct true answer.
“settled science” refers not to the method of course, but to the body of knowledge. In the case of Global warming, one would be wiser to associate “settled science” with the fact that the planet is indeed, warming. A few mathematicall illiterate twits struggle to understand what that means, but they’re more detritus than substance.
“A few mathematically illiterate twits ”
You being one of them.
Here are some facts.. Feel free to find the data that shows they are incorrect
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 – 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010
11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.
12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling
13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods.
There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
The ONLY warming has come from regional El Nino and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO.
Those are the facts.. now let’s see you RANT your way around them , while producing ZERO SCIENCE, like the rest of your meaningless child-minded posts.
And “settled science”.. seriously ??????
..the very fact you use that wording PROVES you are scientifically ILLITERATE.
You failed science and maths Junior High, I’m guessing.. …
but because you had a good imagination, you went onto fabricating stories in a low end gutter press somewhere.
The body of “climate science” is far, far from settled, it is only in its infancy, as is your child-like mind.
And like the stagnant beliefs of “climate science™”, your brain-washed mind has also become stagnant and fetid.
Read what Wikipedia says about its author under Writing and Editing (at end). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley#Writing_and_editing
William Connolley has inflected on Wikipedia and its readers a version of vanity publishing by proxy to which only a political activist with a message to get out could dedicate so such time and effort.
I also note that many academics whose work goes against Connolley’s views have been removed or entries are heavily edited (see Professor R. W. Woods entry and the reference to his greenhouse gas experiments as just a single grudging footnote.) Contrast and compare the desultory treatment that, arguably one of the greatest climatologist of our time, H. H. Lamb is subjected to, and the reverence that political activist James E. Hansen is given.
How and why Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, has allowed this to happen is beyond me. They should both be ashamed of this advocacy, politically driven use of what should have been an excellent educational and reference project. Instead it is just a port of call for some dubious opinions tarnish with green politics.
His membership in the Green Party hardly lends credibility…
I had the “pleasure” of working with Connolley in the mid-90s.
He was an arrogant twit then, but I did not believe he was inherently corrupt.
Well you live and learn.
Pierre, do you have any idea why your graphs are so blurry? If I right click and open in new tab, they are fine?
Perhaps you meant that Connolley has infected Wikipedia
“inflicted,” most likely
Either as you feel.
Certainly my blurry-eyed proof reading had again failed.
apparently the people contributing to, and running this post, dont seem to have much of an idea of how science and statistics works.
Trends – well obviously – emerge from data. Obviously, statistical trends become more accurately measured as the number of data points contributing to the ensemble increases.
At the risk of educating people – a simple mean value of an ensemble – assuming it’s normally distributed – has a sigma that is associated with the inverse of the squareroot of the size of its population – in redneck-ese, that means that as the size of the population increases, the error decreases. while N is small, the erros are large – and the errors decrease rapidly with N, until N is so large that sqrt(N)~sqrt(N+1).
Apologies for using numbers and making people think.
If people posting here actually had an intellectually honest bone in their body – much less something more than zero comprehension of science and math, they might have noticed that many of the comments included above, by our deliriously inept article author were carefully couched in language that tended to avoid declarations of absolute truth.
Though what I think is probably the most hilarious is that, while the drooling folks here clap and stomp their feet like a infant discovering a shiny tinkly thing, its business as normal for science.
Well that was an EMPTY load of twaddle.
You obviously have only a very BASIC level of understanding of measurement error.. Junior high stats ???
But keep going.. funny to watch.
yes I agree – and actually you validated my comments – thanks for that.
Sorry andy, the simple fact is that science is self correcting. It’s a little amusing you’re stomping your foot insisting that a result from 40 years ago with a vastly smaller dataset should be the same as that today?
But yes, I chose a simple example of error propagation – and unfortunately, it wasnt simple enough for you to grasp.
I cant actualyl dumb it down further – you’ve chosen to be ignorant of both science and basic stats – thats not anything I can do much about, except enjoy the comedy – and I do.
thanks again. Feel free to build on your latest hilarity.
Sorry that you have zero understanding about anything to do with science.
You certainly started with your dumbest empty baseless zero-science rants.
Keep going.. its funny.
All the real unadulterated data that still exists, points very much to the 1940’s being warmer than now, with a dip down to the mid-late 1970’s,
…. and there is nothing your ignorant ranting can do about that fact.
Now go back to junior high and finish you basic maths course.. come back in say 10 years when you have caught up.
One wonders if you even have a clue that many who post here are actual scientists, and that you are basically spitting into a hurricane with your ignorant twaddle.
hi otter, one might.
Would you wonder that too?
Certainly there is little evidence of it, but that doesnt mean much, scientists simply screw it up from time to time – and if people like andy et al really are scientists, one might expect that in their “science time” they actually do apply the scientific method, as well as numeracy. Suffice to say that here they dont.
No problem – the guy heading up the genome project is staunchly religious and he simply deflects the insanity of faith while he does his research. Similarly Issac newton was a christian, but he was able to act more sanely throughout his research.
There is nothing ignorant in pointing out the article here simply ignores the purpose and implementation of statistical trend analysis, which is exactly what it does.
If you take issue with that, that’s your own problem and not mine – but if YOU are a scientist CO, I sincerely hope you check your error propagation correctly.
Still waiting for you to present something that remotely represents science.. Rather than empty meaningless rhetoric.
Waiting, waiting.
“Well that was an EMPTY load of twaddle.” – AndyG55
Sure put us in our place, didn’t he/she/it/whatever! It’s truly humbling to be in the presence of such genius. Who knew that sigma was “ASSOCIATED WITH the inverse of the squareroot of the size of its population” Here I always thought it was EQUAL TO it. Live an learn.
I wonder if caitie is related to sod?
Or maybe it’s just that all the “chosen ones” write alike?
A FEW DETAILS
variance = the average of the sum of the squared deviations
std dev = positive square root of the variance
The bigger the sample size, the smaller the std dev.
What caitie seems to be saying is that the larger the sample size, the less the error. But that is NOT necessarily true, as this illustration hopefully makes clear.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html
And as true as that is for honest raw data, the more data tampering there is, the worse the situation becomes.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/paper-finds-more-smoking-guns-of.html
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
Waiting for you to produce something resemble science..
So far you seem to be TOTALLY EMPTY of it.
I was sort of certain about the basic qualitative answer – the beliefs in a new ice age were damn real and comparably “prevailing” to the later global warming ones – but I am immensely impressed by the hard work needed to find the papers and provide us with a possibly accurate estimate of the number of such papers.
hehe, the comments above are LOLful.
Scientists are okay when they support your pet theory. In fact, so much so that you can go and grab a bucket of them to point out how right they were and how wrong they must be now.
On the other hand, scientists with more data, more understanding and more information that happen to disagree with those 40 years prior( who had less understanding, less information and less data) are – of course, completely wrong.
(note, one must also be ignorant of basic statistics and the scientific method, as well as lack anything resembling an intellectually honest bone in ones body, to do this)
@caitie the sod equivalent
If you think ALL of the above commenters are ignoramuses, it’s probably because you mistakenly think that the Lubos Motl post above is by warmist fraudster John (97%) Cook instead of the real deal.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html
“(note, one must also be ignorant of basic statistics and the scientific method, as well as lack anything resembling an intellectually honest bone in ones body, to do this)”
As you are proving to everybody.
Oh wait there you do have a small knowledge of very basic low-level statistics….,, but NONE of the scientific method or anything to do with science.
Your dishonesty at pretending that you do is quite childish.
caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Reply
“On the other hand, scientists with more data, more understanding and more information that happen to disagree with those 40 years prior( who had less understanding, less information and less data) are – of course, completely wrong.”
You think Lamb had less understanding than the likes of Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann? You seem to think younger scientists have more understanding than older scientists? So show me someone who has more understanding than Gauss or Gödel. Should be easy according to your worldview.
Well let’s talk about grant-grabbing warmunist idiot scientist stand-ins some more. I have yet to see ONE analysis of power spectra in temperature data from a warmunist scientist. They either don’t know signal processing or they don’t want to apply it because it shows the 60 yr and 200 yr solar cycles very clearly.
Add to that list Albert Einstein (failed school teacher and patent clerk) when his first scientific papers were published.
Faraday (apprentice to Sir Humphry Davy then Sir Charles Wheatstone, had no formal qualifications but was a member of the Royal Institution)
Gregor J. Mendel studied philosophy at the Philosophical Institute of the University of Olmütz (Olomouc, Czech Republic), where he excelled in physics and mathematics. However his solution for a difficult life ahead of him was to enter the Augustinian Altbrünn monastery and become a monk.
No real ‘science’ qualification – in the modern sense – between them but thankfully back then that didn’t matter.
Note H.H.Lamb was not really ‘qualified’ for the job either but thankfully he was the right man for the job.
You have given me lots of laughs tonight caitie14. You are quite a sad little man, or girl, I assume the 14 refers to your age, I hope.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-… […]
The Laws of Physics have replaced the Laws of God (as interpreted by the Pope), but the consequences for the public are the same ss they were after Copernicus discovered Earth moves around the Sun in 1543: The public must not be allowed to know that Earth is controlled by a Higher Power than world leaders.
http://www.journalijar.com/article/11650/neutron-repulsion–social-costs-from-overlooking-this-power/
Caitie, where does the more data come from? Are there really temperature measurements from 40ies to 70ies that were not available to aurhors of those decades?
Al Gore should be in prison the rest of his life for the mass amounts of money he made on his convenient lies!
The 1975 March 1 issue of Science News had a cover story on cooling and included a graph showing 0.7C cooling in the northern hemisphere from a peak in the late 1930s (an extreme decade that we’ve never equaled) to the late 1960s.
https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/8983
Once the Keeling CO2 curve came out soon thereafter, people forgot about the cooling, which conveniently ended around the same time.
http://wermenh.com/climate/scinews.jpg
I would be very grateful if one of the warming advocates could explain why there is such an extraordinarily close relationship between the size of temperature data adjustments and CO2 concentration.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-04-18-24.png
Caitie, you wrote:
“…the simple fact is that science is self correcting.”
So how do you feel about people saying “The science is settled!” when it comes to global warming?
Hey Peerke! Caitie is right to say “…the simple fact is that science is self correcting.”
Unfortunately, fraud masquerading as science is NOT self correcting.
““…the simple fact is that science is self correcting.”
ONLY if it is allowed to.
Locked minds, such as this little girl shows, do NOT help science to progress.
They are actively AGAINST allowing climate science to self-correct… they cannot allow that to happen if the AGW scam is to survive.
This Time Magazine article from June 1974 says, “Since the 1940’s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F (1.5 C).
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-03-at-6.25.03-AM.gif
September 12, 2016 Lara Cow Flatulence Bill Illustrates Creeping Tyranny Enabled by Cultural Terraforming
Despite plenty of evidence to suggest massive fraud behind “climate change” measures designed to redistribute wealth more than anything else, “progressives” in California are harassing dairy farmers to where moving out of state is becoming an increasingly viable option. That’s the case with Ricardo Lara’s (he’s a Democrat, naturally) bill targeting cow flatulence and manure.
https://www.oathkeepers.org/lara-cow-flatulence-bill-illustrates-creeping-tyranny-enabled-cultural-terraforming/
September 12, 2016 Lara Cow Flatulence Bill Illustrates Creeping Tyranny Enabled by Cultural Terraforming
Despite plenty of evidence to suggest massive fraud behind “climate change” measures designed to redistribute wealth more than anything else, “progressives” in California are harassing dairy farmers to where moving out of state is becoming an increasingly viable option. That’s the case with Ricardo Lara’s (he’s a Democrat, naturally) bill targeting cow flatulence and manure.
https://www.oathkeepers.org/lara-cow-flatulence-bill-illustrates-creeping-tyranny-enabled-cultural-terraforming/
[…] Richard’s post from yesterday on how a small group of alarmist scientists tried to whitewash away the global cooling scare of […]
OT..
on a different note completely
I suggest people watch what happens to the Arctic sea ice levels over the next few weeks. Could be very interesting.
The late 1960s/early 1970s was a period when sea floor spreading and tectonic plate movement was only just gaining acceptance. There’s been a huge growth of knowledge about earth sciences since then, not least from Exxon Mobil who pioneered the way with studies of how carbon dioxide would warm the planet. Exxon abandoned thsoe studies in 1982 even though it knew that humanity was charting a dangerous course.
To try to refute the obvious – that the Earth ahs warmed up by over one degree centigrade since the 1880s – on the basis that scientists once thought that global cooling would take place is nonsense. Any cooling trend from natural cycles would have been logical to assume. However, given that we have dumped carbon into the atmosphere that was previously buried for millions of years has thrown a spanner in the workings of natural cycles.
This article is like saying that Copernicus was wrong about the earth going around the sun because Aristotle believed the sun went around the Earth.
So, tsar, you would prefer to go back to Little Ice Age temperatures, yes?
Not to mention that NO ONE denies that it has warmed slightly since the Little Ice Age.
Do you even Recall the Little Ice Age?
Or do you just not care what happened with the weather during the Little Ice Age?
“thrown a spanner in the workings of natural cycles”
Another load of unsubstantiated BS.
“even though it knew that humanity was charting a dangerous course.”
Again, unsubstantiated BS
And those awful Exxon Mobile villains didn’t even care that children wouldn’t know what snow is anymore!
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/312923/more-than-80-people-stuck-on-mt-ruapehu-ski-field
Tsar Nicholas
Mild warming has happen many, many, many times in this planets history. Prove citing observed data that the current climate conditions are not caused by natural variation.
There is no proof that mankind’s miniscule addition to global CO2 atmospheric budget has cause any climate effects as CO2 levels do not track global temperatures, as indicated by many proxy measurements showing past climate and CO2 levels. In other words correlation does not equal causation!
Also of note — natural variations has been orders of magnitudes higher in the past with little ill effects on the totality of life on this planet.
If you believe otherwise please explain how and why have ice-ages occurred before, and what caused the recovery from them?
[…] Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ̶… […]
Excellent work!
[…] Richard writes at NoTricksZone: (follow the link for the full […]
Of course WMC cheated. I’ve been saying for years that it was false on its face. He found 71 total papers over a period of 15 years. That is less than 5 papers a year. The number is way too low. Otherwise was obvious thst he was lying by omission.
[…] regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain. LINK Global Warming Skeptics Reply With […]
I’m not sure if you know about these two documents from the past that show this 30+ year cooling.
NOAA 1974
“Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf#page=5
UNESCO 1974
“For the past 30 years the temperature of our planet has been steadily dropping”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074879eo.pdf
The often requested 30 year (proof) by the AGW believers already exists (in the past).
There is a good reason for the 30 years being climate, its half the 60 year cycle picked up in ice cores and shallow sea cores.
Its clearly related to the PDO and I reject the idea that temperatures increased from 1890 through to 1940.
From 1890 – 1924 it was a cool PDO, 1925-46 warm, 1947-75 cool, 1976 -2006 warm. To be more precise it should be warm/dry and cool/wet.
We are belatedly heading into a cool wet period with a slight drop in world temperatures.
Both the warmists and coolists are disturbed by the pause, it shouldn’t be happening.
“Both the warmists and coolists are disturbed by the pause, it shouldn’t be happening.”
Cooling is exactly what should be happening if you add a 200 year cycle and a 60 year cycle. These two cycles can be gained by Fourier analysis of the temperature record and explain practically all temperature variations of the last 250 years. This model also produces a steep drop starting a few years back. As it is sinusoidal in nature the drop will pick up speed as we go along.
[…] Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Co… […]
[…] Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Co… […]
[…] Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Co… […]
Climate science can’t predict what happened last week, let alone what will happen in 100 years, but it is “settled.” I.e., we mustn’t question or even test the validity of wobbly warmist junk theories.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is a well established fact, yet they have no problem devising new tests for it.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a6175/5-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right/
Why the difference? (as if I had to ask)
[…] Read the full report here. […]
Its difficult to understand this obsession with the past and the ability to ignore the very real and rapid increase in temperature and the manifestations of extremes drought,flood, forest fires, ocean acidification. Can the ‘head in the sand’ types explain their fears and the reluctance to take steps to safeguard the next generation from a worrying and uncertain future.
1. there has been NO rapid increase in temperature except by data tampering
2.There has been NO increase in extreme drought or flood , or fire
3. Ocean acidification is a myth, it CANNOT happen due to the enormous buffering, and anyway 98% of all free CO2 is already in the ocean
Now, you GULLIBLE, IGNORANT, BRAIN-WASHED DUMMY.
Go and do so actually investigation into the truth, and stop spewing your rabid alarmist claptrap and idiocy.
*YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNN*
Come back when you know what you are talking about.
@Chicken Little
The ability to detect and ignore the deceit of con men and fools is not motivated by timerity, but by calm and rational thought – something you clearly do not possess.
timidity (obviously), not temerity.
Climate Otter is making me drowsy.
Mike Hamblett 15. September 2016 at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Its difficult to understand this obsession with the past”
Don’t criticize Michael Mann. He is a top warmunist religious leader. You haven’t heard of him? He forges temperature reconstructions going a thousand years back to promote warmunism!
” and the ability to ignore the very real and rapid increase in temperature and the manifestations of extremes drought,flood, forest fires, ocean acidification.”
Well Mike, here’s the thing: I experience NOTHING of all this – so I have to assume that I am being lied to. There is a tradition of lies going back to at least 1898 by Western media so that is EXACTLY what I am expecting.
[…] —NoTricksZone […]
caitie (sod in a skirt) wants us to believe that the more data we have the better we’ll understand what’s going on. That’s true, as Burt Rutan clearly shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg
…but NOT for the reasons that he/she/it/whatever gives.
I.e., everything caitie/sod knows is wrong.
I refer to it as “negative knowledge”.
Stuff they have to unlearn, before they can actually start to learn.
I think you’re onto something there, Andy.
[…] indefatigable James Delingpole, drawing on a lengthy and thoroughly documented blog post by Kenneth Richard, writing at No Tricks Zone, has a great little article exposing the intentional bias not only of Wikipedia but also of Google […]
I did not read all the comments so perhaps this has been covered.
It would be very good to have a couple of summary lists available to all, and occasionally updated. One would be the properly formatted bibliographic entries for all those papers. Another would be a list of the places searched to find them. You might then get a lot of mail saying things like “I searched Journal of Whatever for 1960 -1964 and found these three interesting papers” with the full bibliographic reference and a brief summary of the content or a copy of the abstract.
I know for an absolute fact that kids were being told in the 60’s that an Ice Age was coming. I was told either in school or at a school museum that human industry was throwing dust particles in the air and it was causing an Ice Age. I was shown a picture with New York city under a mile of ice. I remember this clearly because it scared me. Now if they were showing this to school kids it’s probably a fairly good bet that there was some consensuses that it was going to happen.
yonason:’everything caitie/(sod in a skirt) knows is wrong’ as soon as chat gets insulting we know your argument is weak. Poor show yonason, show some courtesy and we might progress the debate.
It was an observation that this person wrote like a female and even nastier version of sod than usual, nothing more.
As to the “weakness” of my “argument,” I notice you didn’t give any DIRECT criticism of the video I posted (the main point of my post) of Burt Rutan’s excellent evaluation of the climate science fraudsters.
But thank you, miss manners, for your superficial observations and pretentious moral posturing. Now, watch the Rutan video, and learn something.
You also conveniently (for you) neglected to comment on the link I gave to a real scientist presenting what is wrong with the approach you want us to “believe” in. Find it here…
https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-1132332
watch it, and learn something, if you are able to.
P.S. – I’m curious as to why you haven’t been critical of caitie (sod in a skirt), who tells us that we…
“…dont seem to have much of an idea of how science and statistics works”
…then apologizes “…for using numbers and making people think.” (i.e., accusing us of being unable to think for ourselves.
[NOTE – Speaking of “thinking” here’s a thought. When saying one is “using numbers” it might be a good idea to actually USE THEM. Like this – “8” – There. I’ve just used more numbers than cataie did in her/his/its/whatevers entire post.
caitie (sod in a skirt) then accuses us of being intellectually dishonest to the core, and infantile “drooling folks” (Oh, I almost forgot, we were earlier accused of being “rednecks.”)
So, I make one snide aside, and you say that makes my post “weak,” even though I provide a link to a knowledgeable novel and informative viewpoint, but you are OK with caitie’s uninformative and (as AndyG55 points out) “empty” posts? Seriously?!
It’s “caitie” and you and your watermelon warmunist friends who are putting on the “poor show.”
Gossamer 20. September 2016 at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Poor show yonason, show some courtesy and we might progress the debate.”
No chance. caitie showed no reaction when I quizzed her about numerical simulations of chaotic systems. She has no factual knowledge – not even of the computer games modern warmunists use to make the computer announce the end of the world.
“MORE DATA WILL MAKE THEM SLEEP” – caitie (is that sod with her? Huh, I guess they aren’t the same critter, after all.)
A picture is worth a thousand words
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-06-at-6.18.58-AM.gif
More bad data will NOT solve the problem!
[…] Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Co… […]
[…] Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific C… […]
[…] to erase it, are the subject of an article by Kenneth Richard writing in the NoTricksZone blog (link to article). The article is titled: “Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust […]