In 1961, climate experts unanimously agreed that the Earth was getting cooler.
NASA/NOAA have completely erased this cooling.
In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported 0.5C Northern Hemisphere cooling from 1940-1970. Government experts have recently erased almost all of that cooling.
Hansen 99 also mentions the cooling. Not at my computer or I would pull the quote.
The sixties was a bad TOBS decade. Those folks weren’t very bright, I mean for God’s sake, they sent men to the Moon without proper computer models!
Actually, unlike climate science, they had very good models which could make reliable predictions. Here is the abstract from NASA Technical Report 32-1527 dated May 15, 1971 and written by T D Moyer:
The report documents the complete mathematical model for the Double precision Orbit Determination Program (DPODP) a third generation program which has recently been completed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The DPODP processes earth-based Doppler, range and angular observables of the spacecraft to determine values of the parameters that specify the spacecraft trajectory for lunar and planetary missions. The program was developed from 1964 to 1968, it was first used operationally for the Mariner VI and VII spacecraft which encountered Mars in August of 1969.
The DPODP has more accurate mathematical models, a significant increase in numerical precision, and more flexibility than the second generation Single Precision Orbit Determination Program (SDODP). Doppler and range observables are computed to accuracies of 10^-5 meters/second and 0.1 meters, respectively, exclusive of errors in the tropospheric, ionospheric and space plasma corrections.
Sorry, but those models did not predict doom, obviously they were flawed.
🙂
Here is an interesting quote from Chris Mooney. “Scientists advance and get promoted by publishing original research that is highly cited by other scientists. And it is hard to imagine a better citation-grabbing paper than one that seriously refuted what most scientists in a given field believe to be true. There is therefore a huge incentive for a scientist or group of scientists to upset everything we thought we knew about climate change, assuming that this could be achieved in a serious scientific paper that passes peer review and stands the test of time. A researcher who achieved such a feat would be on a parallel, as far as fame and renown goes, with someone like Alfred Wegner, who originally proposed the revolutionary idea of continental drift.
The incentives, therefore, are very much against maintaining a climate conspiracy. The incentives instead tilt towards exposing it. And that makes the 97-percent consensus on climate change among scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature that much more powerful.
In other words, they would be shunned, blocked from publishing, and lose their funding.
Not hardly Steve. Imagine if someone could really prove that man adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no effect on climate. They would be world famous. What you are presently calling proof is just bogus noise that most scientist ignore. If anyone took your constant slander of climate scientist seriously, you would get sued. Look at National Review getting sued for calling Michael Mann the “Jerry Sanduskey of climate science”. National Review has a serious legal problem on it’s hands. The reason that is that total disregard of the truth can have consequences and the Constitution defends the truth.
It would be interesting if just one of the snarky responses to my post acknowledged the premise of the post, that the incentive to disprove the consensus on AGW is much greater than the incentive to be part of the consensus. The key to effective rebuttal is to begin with acknowledgement of the premise you are rebutting. Imagine again, if someone could actually show that AGW is false, they would be world famous. Imagine if someone could show that plate tectonics is false or that vaccines cause autism or that smoking does not cause cancer. They would be world famous. The incentive to be the one to disprove is more powerful than the incentive to be part of the consensus.
But you got to break into the peer review system. You may think peer review is flawed system, but like democracy, compared to all the other systems, it is the best system there is. It is certainly better than “everyone review”. If your science is real, it will break thur the peer review system.
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
Yeah, those guys are really encouraging new theories! 😆
Taking things out of context and twisting the meaning is the oldest political trick in the book. It just adds up to one big lie.
ROFLMAO!!!
Please put… “Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”… In the right context. 😆
No. “Look over there” is the oldest trick in the book. Thou endeth the trick.
So Matayaya, have you done any looking into Wegner’s life or do you still hold him up as an example of mainstream scientist making big revolutionary discoveries in science, supposedly like current mainstream “climate scientists”?
Do you have a point to make? How about addressing my point, or I should say points. It would be nice to have an actual conversation without snark.
Guys, we have to seriously try to rebut matayoyo’s imagination. Remember, his imagination that “And it is hard to imagine a better citation-grabbing paper than one that seriously refuted what most scientists in a given field believe to be true.” is true & all the evidence (such as suppression of research, withholding funds, & closing down journals) is fake.
If only matayoyo could have a conversation that didn’t involve his own diseased imagination taking priority over reality.
😆 😆 😆
You will believe anything that supports your world view. Forget that the world’s governments are monetarily encouraging ‘scientists’ to write scary papers about man made climate change, just dream a little dream. 😆
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Dorothy! Chris ‘Scarecrow’ Mooney needs a brain!
What a laugh!
a paraphrase of Max Planck said it more crisply: “Science advances one funeral at a time.
The actual quote is:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers
For over 100 years the medical scientific consensus was that brain cells don’t regenerate. Degeneration of brain cells and the entire brain was a given. While the existence of subjects like Matayaya, Drewski et al support this hypothesis, it has now been proven the medical scientific consensus was false.
Matayaya and Drewski are false positive readings in an otherwise discredited hypothesis. I think they might be 2 for 2 with CAGW!
http://biology.about.com/od/Brain/p/Regeneration-Of-Brain-Cells.htm
That there’s consensus doesn’t mean they’re going to be wrong. On the other hand, it has the same amount of weight towards being right, i.e. none.
How did that original thinking go for Wegner? Did it lead to great career advancement during his lifetime?
Using this as your reference is quite ironic.
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
Sometimes it (eventually) works, as in ulcers being caused by helicobacter. Sometimes you die in disgrace first. Can you outlive the consensus? It ain’t easy.