JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 – 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being “erased”

The Global Cooling Scare of the 1970s was real, there was a consensus, and it was all over the media. It flies in the face of the man-made warming campaign. After World War II there was a massive industrial escalation in the West. And just as coal fired power was going in everywhere, the world damnwell cooled by -0.3°C. It’s obvious that the modern Climate Witches don’t want people bringing this up.

1970s, Global Cooling, Graph.

Where’s that cooling gone? The modern NASA GISS dataset adjusted it away:

NASA, Giss, Global Temperatures, Graph, 2016.

What happened to 40 years of cooling from WWII onewards?

That’s the magic of homogenisation.

In 2008,  Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” . The Myth paper “found” that from 1965 through 1979, there were only 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. It was published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), showing how pathetically weak the caliber of review is there. Kenneth Richard searched, found and documents 220 papers, not 7 in the same period. He estimates there are probably many more.

The Connolley there is none other than the  William Connolly who abused Wikipedia’s editing rules — barred 2,000 other Wiki editors that he disagreed with, and changed over 5,000 articles to conform with his personal warming religion and his Greens political activism. Apparently he’s used the same flagrant bias in the peer review literature. Wiki took away his Admin status, which appears to be a higher standard than AMS. So much for “peer review”.

It’s all on NoTricksZone where he finds 285 papers from the 1960s-’80s that reveal the Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’.

It was the “prevailing view” in Stewart and Glantz, 1985:

“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. “

According to Richards even the CIA knew the models and met experts predicted cooling:

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”.

A few papers:

Nelson et al., 1975 Concerned about cooling

“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.”

Douglas, 1975 — the possibility of an iceage:

“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.”

Cimorelli and House, 1974   , Schneider, 1974 — A fall of 0.3C

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.

Collis, 1975 – temperatures peaked in 1940

“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.

There are many more. It’s an excellent resource compiled by Richards, see it all at NoTricksZone.

See also James Delingpole

Everyone knows that before the global warming scare began in the 1980s, scientists were much more worried about global cooling and the coming ice age. At least everybody did till a cabal of lying climate alarmists – one then a senior administrator at NOAA, now a president at the World Meteorological Association –  hijacked Wikipedia, published a lying paper, and rewrote history by painting the 1970s Global Cooling Scare as an urban myth.

h/t Gregory R. James Delingpole. Pierre Gosselin!

REFERENCES

Peterson, T.C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society89 (9): 1325–1337. Bibcode:2008BAMS…89.1325Pdoi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (89 votes cast)
History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 - 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being "erased", 9.5 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/gsvyqqb

106 comments to History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 – 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being “erased”

  • #

    Here is a link to a blog showing many media reports of the 1970′s:

    1970s Global Cooling Scare

    LINK

    and,

    1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

    LINK

    231

    • #
      Annie

      Thanks for those links Sunsettommy.

      I certainly remember all the hype about cooling. It’s very noticeable that the ‘solutions’ to that and warming are just the same, isn’t it?!

      200

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I remember reading several accounts of what was going to happen. Brrrr and all that. But in those days no one took them as seriously as they now take global warming or so I remember it. I wonder what made the difference. Could it be the greater awareness of environmental issues generally that we have today compared to then?

      Can’t say. But so far both predictions have been miserably short of anything to worry about. We still have just a solution looking for a problem. :-(

      80

      • #
        Mickey Reno

        I remember the cooling scare during the mid to late 70s, too. It wasn’t as pervasive as the modern warming alarmism, but it wasn’t nothing, as today’s alarmists like to pretend. The important thing about that period is that the people who claimed to KNOW that we were doomed were dead wrong, didn’t know jack-s**t, and many of the same people now say the exact same thing about warming. They learned nothing, felt no humility from their previous failure, and are willing and eager to jump back in to the alarmist deep-end, with even more post-normal propaganda this time around. This will be a shameful period for real, honest, objective science by the time 2100 rolls around.

        20

    • #
  • #
    Yonniestone

    Self righteous narcissistic trolling in 3…2…1…..

    101

  • #
    PeterS

    Boy I hate that word homogenisation. In climate science it really means deliberate distortion of the data to peddle a false preconceived conclusion. It ought to be a criminal offense. Perhaps one day it will be and will have a penalty similar to that of fraud and other serious crimes. I look forward to it.

    251

  • #
    Scooter (alias "Frank" don't change your user name -Jo.)

    The consensus changed because of the subsequent data collected, that’s how science works.

    240

    • #

      Scooter,

      you missed the obvious point of the blog post,how did you do that?

      Hint:

      “History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 – 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being “erased”

      The Global Cooling Scare of the 1970s was real, there was a consensus, and it was all over the media. It flies in the face of the man-made warming campaign. After World War II there was a massive industrial escalation in the West. And just as coal fired power was going in everywhere, the world damnwell cooled by -0.3°C. It’s obvious that the modern Climate Witches don’t want people bringing this up.”

      You discover it,Scoot?

      501

    • #

      Don’t bother, scooter.
      Many of us were around when the Cooling Scare was going on. We read the news and periodical reports, saw the programs on TV. We discussed it in our science classes at school. This was a time when real science was still being taught by people who knew their stuff, and expected their students to learn how to think, not what to think, and were scathing towards those who were slack and content to follow the herd.
      The only difference between the Cooling Scare and the current Warming Scare was that the former did not involve pouring vast amounts of money down the toilet. The Cooling Scare also coincided with the ever-present danger of a nuclear holocaust. These days the promoters of the warming fantasy are trying to convince everyone that there is no other danger facing humanity.

      380

    • #
      ianl8888

      … subsequent data collected …

      Subsequent to the period under discussion ?

      Absolutely priceless !! Now you’re disrupting the time-space continuum to retro-collect empirical data …

      Oh dear … :) :)

      351

    • #
      AndyG55

      Except the data changed AFTER the consensus !!!

      162

    • #
      AndyG55

      Scooter?

      Is that you Dana Nutcase?

      [It could be but we know "Scooter" much better as "Frank".] ED

      132

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Scooter,

      In the nineteen seventies, people were trapped in their cars in snow blizzards on their way home from work. Some of those people died from hypothermia. And here you are saying, that piece of history has now changed, because of “subsequent data collected”. Are you claiming that those people did not die? Is that “how science works”?

      220

      • #
        Scooter (alias "Frank” don’t change your user name --Jo.)

        RW
        Oh dear, local weather is not climate

        313

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Scooter (AKA Frank)

          Oh dear, so you divorce local weather from “climate”, seeking to remove the physical empirical manifestations of weather, leaving yourself with just theoretical interpretations, with no real substance, and with no supporting evidence.

          So now we get to the nub of the matter – you expect people to drastically change a civilisation, that works sufficiently well enough, to support their survival needs, on the basis of what might happen, one day, in an arbitrary computer simulation that cannot even take account of serious, if localised, weather events.

          You are a [snip - don't use that word -Fly] Frank. And so are all the other non-scientist computer jocks who have little or no comprehension that a hypothesis, to be valid, must account for all observations, both past and future.

          “No amount of observation can ever prove me right; a single observation can prove me wrong.” after Albert Einstein.

          181

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            And while I have your attention, Scooter/Frank, can you please explain to me, and the others here, how you can “subsequently collect data” about the climate, when the only empirical measurements you can take, by your own admission, are in relation to local weather?

            160

            • #

              this comment suggests that you have not followed even the well known papers of the last 30 years. Interesting admission.

              Regarding the deaths in blizzards. Have you plotted a graph of this? What does this death data look like? How does it correlate with less car usage in previous decades and improved car technology in subsequent decades. RW, I don’t think I’ve seen a comment from you so poorly thought out.

              313

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I don’t think I’ve seen a comment from you so poorly thought out.

                I don’t really care what you, or anybody else for that matter, thinks about me, Gee Aye. I choose to tread my own path.

                I have reviewed many of the papers in this area of enquiry, and most of them consist of little more than intellectual masturbation. I say that, because they all appear to be mutually supportive of each other, and there are very few, if any, references to external literature, that could underpin the whole structure, and sheet it back to real world physics. From a forensic perspective, such structures are often indicative of people being, creative, shall we say?

                Frank made the comment, “The consensus” changed because of the subsequent data collected …”. This is a nonsense, unless Frank has a time machine that he has kept secret from the rest of us.

                We are dealing with real world events. The weather in a given location at a given time, is a real world event, that can be measured and recorded at that time and at that location. Unfortunately, that particular event cannot be measured at a subsequent time or at an other location. So where does Frank’s subsequent data come from?

                Frank appears to be silent on the issue, and sends you along instead. I feel quite honoured.

                I would feel even more honoured, had you bothered to read Jo’s post, and the conversations in comments that followed.

                Frank also makes a statement that “local weather is not climate”, a statement that I find somewhat dubious, since it appears to rely on semantics. So to test that, how do you empirically measure, “a climate”? What are the metrics? How is “a climate” at a given location, different to “local weather” at that location? Your views on that would be interesting, I am sure.

                And finally, can you give me a definitive explaination of what “subsequent data” means, in reference to an historic time-bound event, that is not replicable?

                140

              • #

                Sorry I don’t know what your final paragraph is asking.

                All the rest is fine. I never criticised you for having an opinion or said you should not have voice it. I just thought it was crap.

                38

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Re my final paragraph:

                A singular event in the natural world may be observed or not. If it is observed then data may be recorded, or not. Once the event is over that is it. There is no more data produced, so none can be recorded. I therefore want to know where this so-called “subsequent data” comes from? Right now, it appears to be, “made up stuff to fit a thesis”, which I am sure you will wish to rebut.

                You are allowed to think that my position is crap, if that makes you feel better. It matters not to me. Science just is, what it is, irrespective of what we would wish it to be. Post-modern science has yet to learn that lesson, once again.

                160

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Who referred to subsequent data? Do you mean data which came after earlier data?

                04

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Who referred to subsequent data? Do you mean data which came after earlier data?

                00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Sorry, Gee Aye, I was under the impression that you realised what we were talking about.

                Scooter (alias “Frank”) referred to subsequent data, at comment #4. I responded to him, at #4.6 with a specific empirical example, which is well recorded.

                Frank then replied with the standard mantra, “local weather is not climate”, as if atmospheric events and trends were somehow totally unrealated.

                I responded at #4.6.1.1, trying to remind everybody that we were actually talking atmospheric physics.

                And then at #4.6.1.1.1, I challenged him, regarding his statement that “local weather is not climate”.

                At which point, you stepped in, and Frank … mysteriously disappeared … hmm, in retrospect that is really quite interesting to somebody who does not believe in coincidence.

                But anyway, the subsequent discussion of ours, was really all about Scooter/Frank, and his dubious grasp on reality, because the whole conversation actually started with Franks comment at #4,

                [Hint for future reference: the comment numbering tends to show the conversational perspective].

                80

        • #
          sophocles

          The only thing “local” about the cooling in the early 70′s was that it was “local” to this planet. That makes it Climate.

          There were many “local weather” events of that kind around the Borthern Hemisphere then, so much so that an impeccable researcher, Nigel Calder, remarks on it in one of his books. An example from Nigel was the large increase in the extent of North Atlantic sea ice in the winters leading up to and including 1975. “Local” weather encompassing most of the North Atlantic? It’s such a big region, it qualifies as Climate.

          When the cooling is made obvious in different ways over even larger areas, it falls well outside the purvue of “local” weather and is climate.

          That’s a fail Scooter, (aka Frank)

          40

        • #
          Bushkid

          Funny, that’s just what so many of us have been saying for so long – local weather, and specifically one major weather event conflated and exaggerated and hyped to blazes by media and scaremongering global warmists, is not climate. Nor is a one-off temperature that’s 0.0something of a degree warmer than last year, yet still not as warm as those recorded here in Oz, for example, in the 1880s, anything approaching a ‘record’.

          40

    • #
      Reed Coray

      No Scooter, that’s how you finagle a ticket for the “train to fame and fortune.”

      60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      (alias “Frank” don’t change your user name -Jo.)

      Poor Frank can’t seem to catch a break no matter what he does. :-(

      He’s wrong and unpopular because of that, yet still thinks he can get away with being the resident “wrong way Corrigan” by changing his name. I don’t know how Jo does it but she apparently caught him red handed with five fingers in the cookie jar.

      Give us a break Frank. Then maybe you can catch one.

      90

      • #
        sophocles

        Yup. Anyone who says or claims:

        The consensus changed because of the subsequent data collected, that’s how science works.

        can’t catch a break. He tells the world, every time, he knows nothing about science.
        It’s the two words consensus and science in the same sentence. It’s a big giveaway.

        Now, extrapolate that to how the Internet, a man-made technological phenomenon, works. Technology is applied science. Everybody, including the Franks, leave little footprints across the Internet which, with a little work, identifies them.

        Frank is, however, useful: whenever he pops up, it means the article must be on target. :-)

        70

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Unless Frank changes computers his IP address will be one thing Jo can see for sure and use to nail down his identity. The sender’s IP address is always included in every packet of data any computer, router or other device with an IP address sends out so that whatever service is being requested, the result can be sent back to the right place.

          And he’s required to give an email address so if he uses the same one that’s also a dead giveaway.

          I would expect Frank, who declares himself to be so knowledgeable, would know these things and not think he could get away with simply using a different name. But apparently not.

          As for being on target, yep! But not Frank. :-)

          10

  • #
    Paul

    The adjustments to past temperature data – re-writing history – appears to be a favourite past-time of the climate establishment. The graph above appears to be similar to that held up by Brian Cox in the recent Q&A program on the Australian ABC TV. Back in the early 2000s on John Daly’s web site was a graph of alternating before and after world temperatures. Since then we have seen warm periods of the early 1930s disappear, now above the cooling of 1940 to 1970.
    One is prompted to surmise that multiple adjustments are being made to some data.

    Jennifer Marohasy recently referred to ACORN adjustments to Rutherglen data, reducing the 1938-39 heatwave temperatures as if they did not believe the recorded figures. It appears to be the same reasoning that the BoM refuses to acknowledge the heatwave data of the late 19th century Australian data.
    Are these so called ‘scientists’ lacking in integrity for their ’cause’ or to keep themselves in employment? See:

    261

  • #
    Grownupgreg

    Back in the mid seventies I obsessed over a book that had convinced me that by my middle age every manner of disaster would befall mankind and Mother Earth.The book fittingly was titled “The Doomsday Book”.Eanesty written by Gordon Rattray.Every prediction backed by scientific research.The most fearfull and strident claim was an imminent ice age due to mankinds pollution.This book was recommend to me from a biology teacher and was borrowed from the school library.By my twenties I had concluded that most of the preaching in this book was just that and now in my fifties not one of those dud predictions have come to pass.The only prediction that has come true is my prediction that I made back in the 90s that this global warming as it was known as back then is b…s..t.

    261

  • #
    Grownupgreg

    My mistake “Doomsday Book” Author.Gordon Rattray Taylor.

    102

  • #
    richard verney

    This begs the question as to whether today, it is truly warmer than it was in the late 1930s/ealy 1940s.

    You state: “And just as coal fired power was going in everywhere, the world damnwell cooled by -0.3°C.”
    In fact, there is a reference (in this article) to a paper in which NASA put the cooling as much as 0.5 deg C.

    So IF it cooled somewhere between 0.3 to 0.5 degC between the late 1930s/early 1940s and about1975, and IF it has warmed (according to Satellite data) by about 0.42 deg bewteen 1979 to date, it may be that today is about as warm as it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s and that there has overall been no net warming since then.

    This view is of course to some extent supported by tree ring data. Whilst I do not consider tree rings to be good thermometers, Michael Mann had to disregard the tree ring data (post 1960) because it was not showing warming. The tree ring data suggests no significant warming post 1940s and this is why Mann disregarded this data (and instead spliced the adjusted thermometer record) when performing his infamous ‘nature trick.’

    221

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Local, historical scientific instruments in the outer regions.

      In the 1950s “Wattle Day”, our state’s celebration of spring, was on the first of August, and the wattles were blooming then.

      Then the wattles became consistently tardy, so they moved Wattle Day to the first of September.

      For the last three years the wattles have been out in their glory from the first of August. Which puts us back to the 1950s and beyond, whenever Wattle Day was declared the first of August.

      80

    • #
      RB.

      I’ve come across claims at the time in papers of 1.3°F.

      This one from the NOAA quarterly magazine needs to be booked marked by everyone in case of emergency.

      Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned.

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2016/06/noaa-1974-global-cooling-will-starve.html
      (contains link to original in PDF)

      30

  • #

    I wondered when that was going to be picked up. But a far worse thing has come to my attention and that is, xkcd is not, afterall, a rational being: http://xkcd.com/.

    81

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      To repeat what I posted on Bishop Hill: much as I enjoy XKCD’s quirky humour and interesting take on science, this was ruined by XKCD splicing on “Mike’s nature trick” at the end (i.e. “Stuff the proxies, let’s put on some instrument readings, as we can make them far more scary!”). Also, it is well accepted that the Holocene Optimum was several degrees warmer than today, which they also managed to gloss over give completely wrong data. Finally, they point out how the limits of the data, with short warming and cooling spikes “smoothed out” – then conveniently fail to apply that logic at the end! Sorry, I love the humour, but not, in this instance, the science.

      71

  • #

    Uh-oh …
    if it ain’t heating up exponentially it’s cooling down.
    But one thing stays the same, say Schneider, Ehrlich,
    Holdren, Kukla, same o’l, same ‘ol, (lol.)
    If Doomsday’s to be averted, we hafta’ return
    to that golden age of serfs. (

    http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.8QdP3CKv.dpbs

    100

  • #
    crakar24

    Is anyone keeping an eye on vostok and dome Concordia data, the co2 lagging temps not leading is pretty damning probs next on the list to be adjusted as nothing is left.

    Also read somewhere the reason why ground based temp data is starting to show a pause is because they have run out of excuses to adjust it higher

    161

  • #
    crakar24

    Out of interest which time zone do we use as reference for the time stamp on our comments, the one above states 7:07 but hrte in Sa it was 6:07 cast, east is 6:37 and wast is……
    What 4:37? So why 7:07?

    30

    • #
      Yonniestone

      The BOM are now homogenising time zones……so 7:07 is as good as it gets.

      91

      • #
        toorightmate

        Our beloved homogenising BOM folk are the very same folk who can not provide a rainfall reading because the rain gauge is “out of service”.
        These rain gauges are at the cutting edge of technology – you know.

        91

        • #
          ROM

          We noted that our local BOM station rain gauge was out of order during the heaviest rain fall period.

          The BOM’s rain gauges around here have been mostly decorative around here for the last few years so they might be highly susceptible to some water ingress problems.

          10

  • #
    el gordo

    Its the 62 year cycle, from WW2 to 1975 it was the cool side and from the great climate shift of 1976 until the end of the century it was the warm side.

    There is no need for alarm, just a couple of decades more and it will begin to warm again.

    52

  • #
    john karajas

    Surely it’s about time for the Medieval Warm Period to be “disappeared” again,

    82

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Be fair, Jo. Compare apples with apples.
    The old 1970s graph shows annual mean temperatures of Northern Hemisphere only, not a global average.
    You contrasted this with a modern chart which is a Global average. That’s apples-and-oranges.
    You say NASA have “adjusted away” the cooling, but the only adjustment there is taking the simple average of NH and SH.
    The cooling trend was far more pronouced in the NH than the SH. The SH has the 1940s blip then non-stop warming after 1950. I’m not saying that’s what happened in reality, I’m saying that’s what NASA’s chart shows.
    Go to the NASA GISS web site and look at their modern chart of temperature by Hemispheres.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png
    The NASA GISS annual NH temperature series still shows the cooling from 1938 to 1975.
    If there is any coverup it is not apparent from comparing the old and new charts.

    The only coverup you show in the article is by young conniving Connelly and Co. I’m sure they’ll claim they did their best effort at the time. But one can never be sure it wasn’t a case of “stop the experiment as soon as the data collected so far supports your bias”. Or possibly the 2nd corollary of Maier’s Law.

    43

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Further, in the interests of balance and completeness…

      * Even the world average of GISTEMP shows cooling from 1938 to 1975, mainly because of the 1940s blip.

      * Whilst your pair of old and new charts doesn’t show much coverup, comparing old and new charts is a good way to find fra indefensible adjustments, as Tony Heller has famously shown already comprehensively.

      32

      • #
        AndyG55

        The cooling in your graph of current GISTEMP is about 0.05C

        A tiny fraction of what was shown in over 300 papers.

        82

    • #
      RB.

      “The cooling trend was far more pronouced in the NH than the SH”

      There are comments in papers from researchers as well as the climategate emails where its admitted that there is only data for the NH before 1980. One 70s NYT article at Goddard’s site reports that there isn’t enough data south of 30° to get an average.

      Look at how well the SH and NH SST correlate back until 1880! The SH SST is calculated from NH data. It sticks out like dogs’ proverbials.

      60

  • #

    Just some continuous volcanism and subsequent cooling as between 1783-5 in Iceland stops harvests, clean air in W Europe, aviation and all sorts of goodies. Back when Laki/Grimvotn spewed all that basaltic lava nobody expected to eat much, breathe well, live long…or catch any flights at all. But how would we handle that now, in light of the fuss over the 2010 peashooter? I reckon we would handle it like total sissies, judging by the carry-on back in the 70s. Please don’t tell me there were no global cooling scares then. Even if you didn’t read TIME’s precious prose they’d put the cooling scare on the cover so you couldn’t miss it.

    The 70s weren’t too bad in Oz. We had some spectacular storms and floods (and a world class tornado, in Bulahdelah of all places); the country was almost drought-free at times but all that regrowth gave us some bad fires when things did dry out. Cooling doesn’t work so well for everyone. Increasing drought in Africa from the 1960s is now being explained away as the result of white fellers burning coal – but that makes it hard to explain all those historic Sahel droughts which manage to co-incide loosely with the Migration Period, LIA and other recognised coolings.

    Coolings have been bad for most of the world, that of 2200BC being something of a civilisation buster. Now I don’t know what climate is around the corner and I’m getting the strong impression that others are only pretending to know. But we’d better be prepared for everything and not just some things. That’s why enlightened lukewarmers sifting through definitions of uncertainty and resilience are as big a hazard as ranting alarmists: they want smaller white elephants and slower wasting of money and resources. How about we just stop wasting? This is probably as nice as the Holocene gets…and it’s not all that nice.

    81

  • #
    Ruairi

    The seventies ‘coming ice age’,
    Was for warning the public, the rage,
    But such talk of a freeze,
    Causes warmist unease,
    So they tweak every temperature gauge.

    190

  • #
    Lawrie Ayres

    They are desperate to have Hillary in the White House and no trick is too low, no lie so blatant that it can’t be used to secure that end. The Donald when he becomes President will make it very hard for the warmists and will probably defund many as his pragmatic approach to CC kicks in. The problem for these fraudulent fools is that the voters have given up on CC as they know it is crap and they are beginning to feel the effects of climate policy in their pockets and lost jobs.

    There is just too much freely available archived material that confirms the cooling trend to be ignored. It is pathetic and proves that none of the shysters are scientists and none deserve to keep their jobs. A few Malcolm Roberts in Washington could bring the great scam to an end.

    90

  • #
    TdeF

    When the history of the Global Warming bubble is written, people will marvel at the deceit, the fantasy, the sale of indulgences, the bankers and economists, the made up facts and the perversion of a whole generation of pseudo scientists. Scientists are not a holy priesthood, sworn to the truth, the way and the light and poverty. They are real people who have jobs and need money and have mortgages and school fees. They want success, fame and attention. So many go to the dark side and many others simply keep quiet because they really need their jobs. Murry Selby wants his back.

    My thoughts wander to all those 350 qualified CSIRO scientists who had to ‘research’ something because the minister says they must. It must be hard to get up in the morning and go off to measure, record and homogenize and prepare glossy brochures pushing something which you know is not true, simply because the minister wants it. Still the superannuation is 14% and you can retire at 55 and come back as a consultant and invest in a little winery and get in a bit of cheap skiing and look forward to retirement and bushwalking. Who needs to worry about what it all means. Then there are the little conferences in Japan and America and even one in Hobart on Ocean Acidification, which is really hard to take as the oceans are not acid, but the title is impressive and you can meet a lot of overseas scientists who are in the same boat, on the same alkali seas.

    When it ends as it must, Climate Change/Ocean Acidification/Man made global warming will just vanish, except for the fascination of historians who will write it off as a 20th century mass delusion. Profitable though. Better than cloud seeding or the automatic sheep shearer. Those guys were crazy.

    141

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      For my industry, the CSIRO was a marvellous institution rendering marvellous service, of which I was always very much aware.

      So, when the Hawke government in December 1986 appointed a partisan board to the CSIRO, with Neville Wran as chairman, I noticed. It was noted at the time that he was the first non scientist to hold that position.

      The only conceivable purpose for that action was to direct our science to suit the political purposes of the Australian Labor Party, which by that time had become a “Fabian Socialist”, i.e. Marxist party, committed to the destruction of the capitalist system.

      The new board would, as boards do, determine, now on a partisan basis instead of a needs basis:
      1. What projects would be presented,
      2. What projects would be undertaken,
      3. Who would be employed to undertake these projects, and, most importantly for a politician,
      4. What results were published.

      Even then, some publications issued subsequently by the CSIRO represented a corrupt interpretation of scientific work.

      30

  • #
    ROM

    I think the climate catastrophe alarmists and green eco-fascists might have a number of very valid reasons to be starting to get just a shade nervous about their future prospects right across the whole gamut of politics, public opinion and the field of the thoroughly corrupted alarmist climate science.

    We have Trump in the USA, an out and out sceptic I believe, who might or might not make it to the White House.
    But he has made his mark and the next POTUS if it is Hilary, god forbid, will have to take due cognizance of the support that Trump is getting and from where in the demographics of the USA that support is coming from.

    May in the UK doesn’t seem to banging the climate catastrophe drum at all as she has far more pressing and urgent problems than anything climate.
    And the EU might just have even worse problems than anything that Climate Change can throw at them when the Brits finally pull out.

    Der Speigel; Britain’s Departure Likely to Cost EU Billions.

    Merkel in Germany appears to be an out and out believer hence all the increasingly irrelevant and unbelievably expensive renewable energy transition driven by her belief in CAGW.
    But with the refugee problems heating up in Germany and fast and the civil strife directly related to the increasingly unwanted so called “refugees”, [ some are but it now seems a lot are nothing more than North African economic opportunists who want the good life fully paid for by the white fellas in Germany and Europe ] she might not be there to be elected Chancellor again.
    .
    Poland is definitely not interested in destroying their economy just to reduce a minor atmospheric gas that has yet to to be both observed and proven that it has anything more than a very minor effect on the local and global Climate.
    .

    And then there is France where Nicolas Sarkozy presidential candidate against the present occupier of the Élysee, President Hollande who sometime ago was caught as a scooter riding pillion passenger to “ahem”, see his mistress, has come out so as to speak and is openly displaying his Skeptical credentials and even using them as a vote attractor with the claim that the World has a damn sight more important matters to try and solve rather than to try and stop something like the climate changing which it has been always doing for the last four billion years.
    .
    The world of “Climate” is a’changing and it is doing so at a faster and faster rate.
    .
    So maybe the Skeptics are about to begin enjoying the ride as they get to ride on the up going side of the “Great Wheel of History” as it rolls ever onward stopping for nobody nor anything.

    Popcorn futures on the way up?!

    Ref; GWPF; NICOLAS SARKOZY TURNS CLIMATE SKEPTIC IN BATTLE FOR ÉLYSÉE

    30

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I recall that, when the Soviet Union fell, a Russian commented on the Soviet attitude to history, ‘The trouble here was that we never knew what was going to happen yesterday.”

    Some climate “scientists” really hanker after those glory days.

    131

  • #
    ROM

    Ah! But contemplate this following from a rabid green eco-fascist / alarmist / climate activist’s view point and then from a skeptic’s viewpoint.

    HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE WINNERS.

    40

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      When it comes to climate, history can be re-written, ad infinitum, by some extremely dodgy software.

      51

    • #
      markx

      Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

      Napoleon Bonaparte: “History is a lie agreed upon.”

      Churchill: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” (But that is paraphrased. He actually said: “For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history.”)

      10

  • #
    Dave in the States

    The motivation for the continual rewriting of climate history since 2009 is spelled out in the climate gate e-mails. It was one way of “hiding the decline”. Since then we find re-writing, sometimes in contradiction to other re-writing, whenever its seems convenient to support what ever narrative is currently being pushed.

    50

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Two thoughts. First, the warmists have wrung everything they can from homogenizing the raw data. It’s time to start homogenizing the homogenized data. Second, at the rate temperatures in the immediate past are being lowered, it won’t be long before the last ice age ended circa 1900.

    70

  • #
    Richard

    Since they have repeatedly tried to erase the medieval warm period and the little ice age, it comes as no surprise they are trying to erase the history of scientific literature that doesn’t fit their agenda.

    They really need to rename their organization The Ministry of Truth.

    80

  • #
    sillyfilly

    The NH was definitely cooling but a bit of apples and oranges graphical comparison. One an annual NH Mean, the other a 5 year running Global Mean (interesting choices, surely not intentional)
    So lets go to directly to GISS NH temps and follow the little red roads.
    Whoops on the missing 1970′s NH cooling. Whoops on any solar cooling since then.

    211

  • #
    el gordo

    If you squint your eyes its possible to see the cooling in the 1950s and 60s.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/image9.png

    20

  • #
    Andrew Lock

    It is a little funny that Nelson paper is supporting corrections to the temperature record that this article rails against and isn’t concerned about cooling, just that the tend is overstated due to station biases. Its concern is that the temperature stations are correct. Go figure.

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.’

    wiki

    Orwell referred to it as Doublethink.

    30

  • #
  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    The psychology of the left? A concise summary.

    Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Envy and Sloth.

    No Pride, not even Gluttony. They only want it to destroy it. So nobody else can have it.

    30

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Eighty years ago, in 1936, Einstein’s 1905 discovery that mass (m) is energy (E) [E = mc^2] was misrepresented by Bethe-Weizsacker’s definition of nuclear binding energy.

    That is why a world hangs in the balance today!

    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/a-world-hangs-in-the-balance/

    00

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Undoing the damage to Wikipedia

    further to Jo’s comment on William Connolly, besides losing his admin status he was also banned from adding or making “any” edits on Wikipedia to articles related to climate change.

    A good response from Wikipedia , but he has damaged many articles on the database and it will take substantial effort to correct.

    His “activist” nature ( complete with a high degree of arrogance ) was revealed in his complaint concerning Wikipedia’s rejection ( in a 7- 0 vote ) of him as an editor / administrator.

    Connolley complained to the New Yorker in 2006 that Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about.”

    The good news is that at least Wikipedia is acting , instead of simply accepting what Connolly is serving up.

    10

    • #

      ‘Connolly complained to the New Yorker in 2006 that Wiki
      “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking
      about.”

      Connolly,hmm, so different from Socrates,who got the Oracle
      Award for ‘wisest of men,’ but said, ‘I only know that I do
      not ‘know.’

      Connolly, Editor in Chief and Gate-keeper of all Knowledge,
      must qualify for different award, the top-of-the-crop-’hubris-
      deadly-sin-award.’

      00

  • #

    I kept this. I thought it might come in handy one day.
    Cheers.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ahab deArab

    We endured daily indoctrination by the progressive intelligentsia in school during the late 60′s and 70′s about social issues and the coming cooling that was supposed to have most of the Los Angeles basin underwater by now. These same [[snip]people] wanted us to believe that it is global warming and now global climate change (because change covers cooling or warming)so they can tax the workers of the world into oblivion. Cycles, bigger cycles, even bigger cycles and then bigger endless cycles of change are normal. Hope these educated people will eventually get wisdom. Follow the money. There are people getting very rich from this climate change industry. Not bad for smoke screens.

    [Editorial discretion applied.] AZ

    00

  • #
    Mikey0

    The Ministry of Truth strikes again. Winston Smith hard at work

    00

  • #

    [...]  Global cooling papers being erased to help climate scammers? Click Here for Story [...]

    00

  • #

    Sorry. I thought I included a link. It seemed not to have woked. I’ll try again. THe link is to one of Hansens first ever papers on the subject of AGW. I have the full paper, but I find the first and last page very funny!

    Here is the link:

    00