Nothing Ever Changes

During the 1970s, climatologists forecast an ice age – and later denied it. During the past decade, climatologists forecast an end to snow and cold winters – and later denied it. History repeats itself.

 

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Nothing Ever Changes

  1. Latitude says:

    Climate science is like gambling science, both sciences are based on trends.
    When the trend is warming, climate scientists predict warming.
    When the trend is cooling, climate scientists predict cooling.
    If they are early enough with their predictions, chances are they might get it right, and look real good at it.

    But people that believe it are just being fooled.

    Just once I would like to see the weather be really cold one year, really hot the next, and continue that pattern for a decade….
    …just to see what kind of predictions they would make

    • Justa Joe says:

      Interesting analogy in fact Casino gambling is the art of taking advantage of short term trends, but as all good gamblers know every thing evens out over time. You’ve provided excellent instruction for the CAGW scammers. They were on a “hot” roll, but The table has gone “cold”. It’s time for them to leave the table.

  2. Ian says:

    Another BBC climate boob for you Steve, from May this year:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/uk/indepth/climate-winners-losers.shtml

    “Climate losers

    “…

    “At five, it’s the ptarmigan. Like the mountain hare, in the winter they will stand out like sore thumbs on a snowless (sic) mountain.”

  3. omnologos says:

    This has all been known since 1982

    • suyts says:

      Beautiful. I hadn’t seen that before. I believe it is time to start looking back and holding the people that have made these wild assertions accountable. After over 30 years of being consistently and constantly wrong, and given the laws that were passed and the backward thrust of science, it is time to start learning the lessons provided and moving on to more realistic problems facing humanity.

  4. suyts says:

    There is nothing new under the sun. Charlatans and people that actually assign god-like qualities to mankind. Strange that many haven’t figured out how damaging these people are.

  5. NoMoreGore says:

    Well, this time, they’ve painted themselves into a corner. If the NH ice cap begins to advance and we proceed as expected into a very cold period, what will they sell? The melting arctic was their (pathetic) cover for their new “cold is really hot” schtick. Not that anyone is buying it. Where do the faithful go from here?

    They will probably resort to: “Now you’ve done it! The conveyor belt has shut down after 2007, and now we’re plunging into an ice age! Quick! Destroy all energy sources! Raise taxes! Global Government! Hand over your money!”

    Let’s hope the GOP can gain real control in 2012. They’ve screwed up plenty enough, but at least they’re not psychotic. Right now the inmates have taken over the asylum.

    • suyts says:

      I’m not sure where they go from here. But I am sure it will include, “Destroy all energy sources! Raise taxes! Global Government! Hand over your money!”

      Maybe they will revisit population control, but more likely, they will invent another imaginary monster to fight. For a while there, it looked like they were going after some imaginary global water shortage, but I think its a non-starter.

      Damn, they wear me out. But, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”—-attributable to many.

  6. Pat Moffitt says:

    Brilliant!

  7. climatologists forecast an end to snow and cold winters – and later denied it.

    Is William Connolley already at work altering things in Wikipedia to show no one ever said winters would be warmer and dryer?

  8. omnologos says:

    whatever happened to good old ocean acidification? or has it been put aside whilst the world prepares for the 2012 Mayan scare?

    • suyts says:

      Hmm, I thought that was put to bed……….not really acidification, but rather theoretically less base in a minuscule manner. The main “gauge”, as I recall, were the corals, but it turns out they were harmed by a disease of some sorts rather than a ph imbalance. But that may be incorrect in that I do, at times, muddle my alarmist causes. They all have the same theme. As NoMoreGore stated, “Destroy all energy sources! Raise taxes! Global Government! Hand over your money!”

      lol, yeh, in 2000 we thought computers would melt down, now, in 2012 our sundials won’t work!

  9. Andy Weiss says:

    Climate change has been occurring ever since Earth existed. The climate will eventually change, but Mother Nature has not revealed her next move!

  10. Lazarus says:

    “During the 1970s, climatologists forecast an ice age – and later denied it. ”

    No they didn’t. There was more of a consensus for global warming even in the 70s than there was for an Ice age. No denial is needed, all the research published for both claims is available and you know about it.

    A very dishonest post.

  11. Geezer1 says:

    Not so. I was living in North Dakota at the time. It was colder than a well diggers hinny in the klondikes. There was article after article that we were entering into a new ice age. It was also a time when that that idiot, Jimmy Carter was president and was saying that we would have to live in smaller housing with 7 foot ceilings so that we could afford the energy cost that it would take to heat it. They were wrong on all accounts.

    • Lazarus says:

      “There was article after article that we were entering into a new ice age.”

      Were these articles published in a peer reviewed journal or something more likely found on a news stand?

      Think carefully as you answer will determine if you really are a skeptic or someone who just accepts what they want to hear.

      • Lazarus says:
        December 29, 2010 at 2:59 am

        Think carefully as you answer

        That would be a good idea, wouldn’t it Laz.

      • Lazarus says:

        God Steve your dishonesty is almost palatable. The ice age predicted from Lamb is 10,000 years from now. I doubt very much if he is now denying it but feel free to show where he has stated that it has now been called off.

        Why not be honest and admit that climatologists as a (consenting group) never forecast an ice age – and later denied it. It would be a refreshing change.

        • Your reading comprehension appears to be at a primary school level.

          “We are on a definite downhill course for the next two centuries.”

          Learn how to read before you make accusations.

      • Ya Lazarus, there’s no climatology at CRU, the Climate Research Unit.

      • Lazarus says:

        What are you on about?

        Answering a comment with something totally unrelated may seem normal thing for you to do but it isn’t usually considered mature in adult circles.

        Do you agree or disagree that Steve’s link refers to an ice age thousands of years from now?

      • Mike Davis says:

        LAZ:
        In the 70s those claiming the earth was trending towards the next glaciation were the ones that were right. The regions experienced a warming period so the Warmists won out for a short time. There were many research papers claiming a definite trend towards colder weather rather than observing the variable nature of weather. according to historical records we caqn expect about 20 or so more years of cooling followed by minor warming that will not reach current temperatures without proper adjustments like the records have received during this period of time to support the warming claim being pushed by the team.

      • Lazarus says:

        “There were many research papers claiming a definite trend towards colder weather rather than observing the variable nature of weather.”

        No there wasn’t. To keep claiming this will not make it come true. There were a few papers but most of them refereed to ice age cycles with no major cooling for thousands of years. There were far more papers predicting global warming because that is what the physics of GHGs suggested. This is a matter of historical record. Steve knows this, it has been mentioned by others with references on her several times before. I’m surprised you ar ignorant of it.

      • Lazarus says:

        Mike, I forget to ask you the same question I asked AAM;

        Do you agree or disagree that Steve’s link refers to an ice age thousands of years from now?

      • Mike Davis says:

        LAZ:
        The 70s scare was the concern about a cooling trend that was happening at that time just as the current fad is warming that stopped during the last decade.
        It always takes a few years for the trend to TIP towards the current conditions and that is only when they can no longer hide what is really happening by making stuff up like we are seeing now with the warming causes cold BS!
        The major trend claimed by the warmers back them was that any warming would offset expected cooling and delay the destruction of the imminent ice age that was knocking on our door at that time.
        The question for you would be, when will the globe be considered to be experiencing a glaciation / ice age?
        There is evidence that the globe has not yet recovered from the LIA, so it is possible we are still in that cold period and unlike past cooling periods that lasted around 4 or 5 hundred years we are approaching 750 years of cooler than average for the last 8 thousand years. If that is the case the global climate took a step down temperature wise about 1250 and the next step down will be about 2100. Of course the timing of past events has been distorted by the proxy re-constructors so we do not know when the last step actually happened and we may be experiencing the next step down now!

      • Lazarus says:

        Mike

        Why avoid answering a direct question?

        Do you agree or disagree that Steve’s link refers to an ice age thousands of years from now?

        As for you analysis of the 1970, it is not supported by the scientific literature of the time. As I said, this is a matter of historical record. If you disagree just say so. If you disagree with the link I think you know you know I would give then where is you conflicting evidence – ie all the peer reviewed literature suggesting global cooling in the short term that out numbers the global warming papers of the time?

  12. Geezer1 says:

    It was also a time when we experienced -85 to -105 windchill factors for 72 hours straight. One doesn’t forget that type of experience. One also does not want live through it again either. I think the actual temp was around a -45F or so. Yeahh for global warming. It is a heck of a lot more comfortable than freezing to death.

  13. Was this guys work found on news stands??

  14. Pulp fiction?

    Kukla and geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a historic conference, themed: “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?” Kukla and Matthews then highlighted the dangers of global cooling in ‘Science’ magazine and, to President Richard Nixon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kukla

    • Conference held at a news stand? Nope.

      The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research…..

      (1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.

      (2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc……

      http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/letter/

      • News stand government operating from the White House, ;O)

        The White House assigned the Kukla-Mathews letter to theBureau of International Scientific and Technological Affairs of the State Department who circulated it to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) for “review and appropriate action”, the highest level interagency body within the U.S. Government concerned with the atmospheric sciences. The ICAS then established an ad hoc Panel on the Present Interglacial to respond to the Kukla/Mathews letter, with an anticipated target submission date of September 30, 1973. (The formal publication date of their report was August 1974)……. the official publication of the report saw a flurry of activity by the various agencies. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and NOAA were particularly active. The NSF had formed a Climate Dynamics Group in the spring of 1974……

        http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/letter/

  15. But none of this ever happened in the science community….. hehehe

  16. I recently had an exchange about this at the Puffington Host, with a “Dardedar” absolutely impervious to reason, even after having been presented various kind of evidence including a direct quote from Peterson Connolley and Fleck reaffirming the concept that, from 1972 to 1975, the scientific community agreed that the world was cooling and for all they knew might as well have kept cooling further in the upcoming years.

    The “ice age” forecasts of those times (and there were aplenty, even if they didn’t have any “consensus” seal of approval) was similar to silly statements of today such as “such-and-such extreme weather even is compatible with global warming”. IOW it’s an unwarranted association between concepts that might be at best only rationalized together.

    We’re just lucky the IRS (IR in the UK) doesn’t apply the same logic, as eg me buying an iPod for Christmas is “compatible with” the idea that I have millions stashed in secret bank accounts. On the one hand, such a statement of compatibility is “true”; on the other hand, it is patently useless as me buying an iPod for Christmas is “compatible with” a lot more situations, including me having just the money needed to buy such a present and little more.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s