Are You A Well Behaved Skeptic, Or A Scientist?

Well behaved skeptics are supposed to nod their head and say :

Yes, humans have caused 0.7C warming by adding greenhouse gases, but future warming will be less than the models forecast

Or you could be an actual scientist and say

The global warming claims made by government scientists are almost completely due to UHI effects, high solar activity in the 20th century, and data tampering by government scientists.

The global temperature record claimed by government agencies is fraudulent. It shows the cold period of the early 1970s as being much warmer than the warm period of the early 1920s.

HadCrut

The US Weather Bureau said that the Arctic was rapidly melting during the 1920’s.

NOVEMBER, 1922.  MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW

THE CHANGING ARCTIC.

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitsbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable- Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there ore now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

The change in temperature, says Captain Ingebrigtsen, has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. This summer he sought for white fish in Spitsbergen waters. Formerly great shoals of them were found there. This year he saw none, although he visited all the old fishing grounds.

There were few seal in Spitsbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surprise the captain- He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitsbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3 Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitsbergen.

docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

The Arctic meltdown continued into the 1940’s.

ArcticClimatesAlarmingChange1947

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/62904258

By contrast, NCAR said that the Arctic was rapidly freezing up during the 1970′s

Climate Change and its Effect on World Food
by Walter Orr Roberts
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations ….. The Earth may have entered a new “little ice age”.

www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf

The CIA said that the Arctic was rapidly freezing up during the 1970′s

Early in the 1970s, a series of adverse climatic anomalies occurred. …. The world’s snow and ice cover increased by 10-15%.

CIA Global Cooling

It is not credible the the 1920s Arctic melt occurred at a lower temperature than the 1970s Arctic freeze. Science has actual rules, which must be adhered to – even by government scientists and well behaved skeptics.

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences published the graph below, showing that the 1920’s were warmer than the 1970’s. That changed after Hansen got his hands on the temperature data in the 1980’s.

ScreenHunter_956 Sep. 26 08.54

Science News

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

17 Responses to Are You A Well Behaved Skeptic, Or A Scientist?

  1. SMS says:

    Once you properly account for the PDO, UHIE, and data tampering; we are probably cooler than we were in the early 1940’s. That would suggest that any natural warming (exclusive of CO2) is non-existent. Wouldn’t it be nice to know if this were so? Maybe we are going into another ice age, or mini ice age. If we knew we could prepare for it. But politicians and science-with-an-agenda have taken over the discussion and the results of these actions could be truly catastrophic.

    • tom0mason says:

      “But politicians and science-with-an-agenda have taken over the discussion and the results of these actions could be truly catastrophic”

      Maybe that is just what they want, steal most of your wealth first before the population reduces as the cold moves in. Then those in power have an easily enslaved population and hold the trump card of control of overpriced fuels and electricity.

  2. gregole says:

    Forget for a moment the charlatans, liars, frauds, traitors, Fabian Socialists, and UN “Scientists” advocating the currant crusade for permanent widespread poverty and privation by eliminating our energy systems in the name of holy mother Gaia; and ask the simple question:

    Why isn’t it getting hotter – hotter than it has ever been?

    And further; What pathetic, miniscule, barely-measurable-with-modern-instruments heat-rise we have seen, certainly has not, I say again, has not, been accompanied by any identifiable pattern of “badness” in overall climate, despite silly unsubstantiated cherry-picked local weather events.

    So what again is the problem with Man-Made CO2?

    It’s plant food. Harmless plant food. Beneficial to us in the biosphere as a matter of fact.

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

    Summary

    Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality.”

    Claims that Man-Made CO2 is destroying Earth are based on wishful-thinking, dark imaginations fueled by a drive for political power by rent-seeking communists – haters of humanity. Sadly, it is just that simple. There is no problem with Man-Made CO2; certainly no crises.

    That MSM pushes the phoney CO2 scare is a shameful indictment of their dishonesty and fraud; that somehow common uninformed citizens have a gentle almost subconscious belief that “going green” and that “saving the Earth by, among other things, limiting their carbon-footprint” are good and decent living guidelines are a testimony to the effectiveness of the propaganda.

  3. Traitor In Chief says:

    Libtard Twatwaffles are psychotic. Between UHI, Data Tampering, Siting issues, Instrument Inaccuracies, unconsidered ocean and solar effects, Bad Math and Bad Breath, There has been no warming following 1936. My advice is to buy property nearer the equator. Make sure you have room for a garden.

  4. Rosco says:

    Well behaved sceptics are actually worse than many out and out alarmists in the ridiculous claims they make in defence of the greenhouse effect.

    You only have to read the articles written as “science” elaborating the “Steel Greenhouse” for example – a proposal whereby an object supplied with sufficient energy to maintain it at minus 18 degrees C can heat itself up to over 30 degrees C by confining it within a radiation shield.

    If only someone had told the Apollo 13 astronauts about this marvellous Steel Greenhouse effect they would have realised that they weren’t really enduring 4 degree C temperatures when they shut down to save power and in reality they could have switched to Bermuda shorts.

    Yeah right !

  5. Yet the sats show warming too.

    • Satellites show warming between 1920 and 1970. Nice.

      • To suggest that the 1940’s and 1950’s were as warm as today, you’d have argue that current global temperature has exaggerated the warming by around half a degree. If you plot unadjusted raw data does it show you that?

        • The Arctic was rapidly melting in 1920, and rapidly freezing in 1970. Do you believe that the freezing point of water changed between 1920 and 1970?

        • What I’m pointing out is that you’ve gone a step too far. You can point to problems with the historical temperature record. It doesn’t follow that your pet theory that the ’20’s-40’s were just as warm as the 21st century, follows. It’s at best a plausible speculation. To imply in a patronising tone that all other sceptics who don’t accept your speculation aren’t as smart as you think you are, is pretty silly.

        • I see, so applying the laws of physics is a step too far, and silly. I should just accept the same nonsense which other skeptics accept.

          In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences showed that the 1920’s were warmer than the 1970’s. Hansen changed that.

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/understanding-northern-hemisphere-warming/

    • SMS says:

      The satellites have primarily been around for the positive phase of the PDO. The PDO switched in 2005, yet the AMO has still to switch. When it does, I’m betting there will be a rapid drop in world temperatures.

  6. Beale says:

    I admit to some grim amusement that the NCAR paprer expresses alarm at crop failures in the Soviet Union. No explanation but communism ts needed for such failures.

    Still, the point is well taken. If Arctic ice was retreating in the 20s and 40s and growing in the 70s, it’s a reasonable deduction that the later period was colder than the earlier one.

  7. Andy Oz says:

    Hi Steven,

    I came across this guy Warwick Hughes who collated a heap of old temperature data, pre the PC age, made his own charts and then transferred it all to PC. He seems to have a lot of unadjusted data records that resulted in him rejecting the CAGW theory.
    Might be worth a look through his charts if you haven’t already.
    Cheers
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/

  8. Justa Joe says:

    AGW is a complete non-starter for me. Our historic temperature data was never intended to be averaged all together to prove some kind of point among another half a dozen problems.

  9. tom0mason says:

    If our (mankind) input of ‘greenhouse’ gases are supposed to cause all this warming, then why has the last 15+ years had no average temperature rise while CO2 levels carry on rising regardless?

    The theory is broken.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s