We Must Listen To The Kings

Future King Charles III and present King Barry I, have both decreed that we must trust the scientists. Who could argue with such clear headed thinking by these people of fine breeding?

ScreenHunter_12 Feb. 01 08.20

The Windsor Star – Google News Archive Search

BcSn6c5CUAAOou3 (1)

The Bryan Times


The Press-Courier – Google News Archive Search

About stevengoddard

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

23 Responses to We Must Listen To The Kings

  1. gator69 says:

    The Spanish Inquisition was started by the monarchy, and not the church. Kings derived the right to rule over other men because it was decreed so by God, and if the flock strayed from God, the monarchy lost its right to rule over them. Therefore heretics must be punished and stamped out.

    Not much has changed over the centuries, except the names of the men, and the religions that give them that power.

  2. kbray in california says:

    We can observe in these human cases how poor genetic pairing can result in mental defects and narcissistic tendencies. Fine Breeding….??… Not!!

  3. Bob Greene says:

    It’s nice to never be held accountable for predictions and prognostications that are wrong. If you do that in industry people stop listening to you. If you do that as a consultant, you tend to have fewer clients. If you do that in climate science you become rich and more people listen to you.

  4. Clay Marley says:

    Hubert Lamb (founder of the CRU at the University of East Anglia) may well be proven right. Except for a few peaks, like the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods, the overall temperature during the Holocene has been declining.

    In later years, Lamb did embrace AGW, but still thought it would be followed by a new ice age in 3000-7000 years – after we ran out of oil.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Probably a lot sooner than that.
      From a bunch of papers and other ‘Experts’
      Glaiciers are actually advancing
      [Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic] 2010
      “…. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded…..”

      [A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier] January 2012
      “…. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP…. ”

      [Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments]
      “….As summer insolation declined through the late Holocene, summer temperatures cooled and the local ice sheet margin expanded. Gradual, insolation-driven millennial-scale temperature trends in the study area were punctuated by several abrupt climate changes, including a major transient event recorded in all five lakes between 4.3 and 3.2 ka, which overlaps in timing with abrupt climate changes previously documented around the North Atlantic region and farther afield at ∼4.2 ka….. ”


      [Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007) ]
      “….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”

      Dr Robert G. Brown at Duke Univesity who often comments @ WUWT
      “….The last “interesting” piece of evidence is that the Little Ice Age, occurring in apparent coincidence with the Maunder Minimum, was the coldest period in the entire Holocene post the Younger Dryas fluctuation, and occurred as global temperatures had been gradually decreasing from the Holocene optimum for thousands of years. This large temperature excursion in response to what may have been a relatively minor variation in a primary driver (the Sun) strongly suggests that the Earth is either entering or is already solidly into the bistable regime where sufficiently sustained fluctuations can drive it nonlinearly towards the cold stable state, quite possibly drive it “rapidly” in that direction… the Ordovician/Silurian transition, wherein the Earth entered an ice age, relatively rapidly, in spite of having seventeen times the atmospheric CO_2 content that it does now when it began, and in spite of sustaining it at ten times the current concentration for the entire period the ice age lasted….”

      Woods Hole Observatory
      [Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried?]
      “….Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries….

      This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur….”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Dr. Brown suggests that the climate is probably bistable with two ‘Strange Attractors’ (from Chaos theory) this means climate can change very abruptly.

      “…Richard Alley, one of the world’s leading climate researchers, tells the fascinating history of global climate changes as revealed by reading the annual rings of ice from cores drilled in Greenland. In the 1990s he and his colleagues made headlines with the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years.…” From a plug for Alley’s book “The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future”

      Richard Alley chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change.
      . From the opening paragraph in the executive summary:

      “……Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age…..”

      A recent paper from the fall of 2012 Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? says
      “…although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m−2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m−2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012). …..”

      The paper goes on to say
      ” … thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place. …”

      The bipolar seesaw is the melting of the Arctic and the ice building in the Antarctica that we have been seeing for the last couple of decades. This is why I have an interest in Drake Passage.

      21 June insolation 65◦ N

      This paper, gives the solar insolation and CO2 for termination of several interglacials. Current values are insolation = 479 and CO2 = 400 ppmv

      MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2, CO2 = 256 ppmv
      MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2, CO2 = 259-265 ppmv
      MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2, CO2 = 225 ppmv
      MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
      MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv

      So we are darn close to Glacial Inception.

      Are we headed into glaciation? Who the heck knows the battle is still raging among the experts. However since “…Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes…” I certainly do not see a ‘Tipping Point’ towards warming.

      I sometimes wonder if taking energy away from most humans corralling us in Transit Villages (the goal of Agenda 21) and making it hard for us to travel, is to make sure most of us die in the event of a sudden drop into glaciation. (Remember the USA just got rid of her strategic grain storage too in 1996.)

      It is not the glaciers that will kill, it is the ‘sudden’ drop in temperature. The earth has about ten degrees to drop to get into the stable ‘cold’ system. That will kill the majority of humans via starvation especially if it happens within a decade.

  5. As the little boy asked: “Why is the king naked?”

    The answer is that fools can easily be scammed by charlatans. Way down deep where it really counts, the fools know they are fools and don’t want that fact to be discovered – especially by themselves. Yet, their every word and every action demonstrates that fact to everyone except other fools. Who, themselves, don’t want the fact they are fools discovered – especially by themselves.

    This continues recursively until it reaches that lone boy, of heroic mind and spirit. He looks upon the world, sees it for what it is, and asks the question that no one else dares to ask or even think. At that moment, it is as if nothing else exists except that lone boy and his question. Everything else fades into nothingness, as the morning fog does in bright sunlight.

    “Why is the king naked?” The king is naked because he is a fool and desperately doesn’t want to know it.

  6. John Smith says:

    We.hold these truths to be self evident……….updated blog with more self evident truth http://www.earthquakescauseglobalwarming.blogspot.com

  7. Andy Oz says:

    So do the kings have money invested in this CAGW scam?
    That should be subject of an FOI request.

  8. barry says:

    A couple of newspaper clippings? How about a review of the scientific literature of the time? Handily, someone has done it.

    Click to access sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf

    Or if you can’t be bothered reading the study, the graphic says it all.

    • gator69 says:

      Sorry Barry, but many of us here lived through the global cooling scare, and remember it well. And just like today, there was NO consensus, just alarmists getting all the press. Nice survey though. 😆

  9. barry says:

    I lived through the 70s too and read a couple of articles like that. but I also remember ones on global warming from that period.

    If you want to complain about the press you’ll get no argument from me. If you want to know where the weight of scientific opinion lay in the 70s, read the literature.

    Yes, it’s a pretty good survey. Nice someone actually bothered to check. 🙂

    • gator69 says:

      It’s a ‘survey’ with an agenda. The only agenda that interests me is seeking the truth, and that is why I despise alarmists and 99% of the press. Revisionist history is for trolls.

      • barry says:

        You can’t claim that the history of 70s climate science was revised in that study unless you have researched the subject yourself, or have access to some equally well-researched work.

        You seek the truth? Then no doubt you can supply some. Not from the despised press, of course.

        • gator69 says:

          I said they have an agenda. The title of the propaganda at your link is “THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS”.

          When one starts out to prove a certain viewpoint, one is not giving an honest assessment.

          And again, I lived through that history and remember it well. Peddle your nonsense to someone else.

        • barry says:

          Scientific consensus on global cooling during the 1970s is a myth. The title is apt. The title of your paper might be, “News Articles on Global Cooling”. That’s what’s being peddled here, top to bottom.

          But if I can’t prise you away from the despised press, I can at least help out with the nostalgia. 1979.

        • gator69 says:

          1979 was after the scare ended, but I guess either you are too young, or were too stoned to remember.

          The lie is that there has ever been a consensus on climate. Why do you lefties always want to rewrite history? Inconvenient?

        • Wow, newsweek article from 1979 that makes exactly zero substantiated claims. I’m convinced that global warming is true now!

          “Now, if the icecaps melt, . . .” ignoring the fact that if you do a little basic math you’ll realize that it’ll take 10,000 years or more, unless the sun goes nova . . . oh man, I’m sure scared now!

          If we start to produce rain where there has been no rain, and take away rain where there has been rain, man cannot respond with his agriculture fast enough to adjust.

          I’ll just let that little nugget of delight sit there.

        • Holocaust deniers and global cooling deniers both have the same goal of erasing the 1930’s and 1940’s

  10. Gail Combs says:

    I lived through the 1970 global cooling scare too.

    Nigel Calder was actually one of the ones doing the writing. He tells the story:
    Milankovitch and the ice ages – welcome back to 1974

    …Why am I chuckling? After he’d had misgivings about the Milankovitch theory of the comings and goings of the ice sheets, Luboš Motl now says in The Reference Frame…..

    “… the Milankovitch orbital cycles do describe the glaciation cycles in the recent 1 million years very well and nothing else – CO2 or random internal variations – is needed to account for the bulk of the data.”
    [Paper under discussion]
    Roe, G. (2006), In defense of Milankovitch, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027

    The reason for my chuckles is that the “change in perspective” that Roe adopts was available more than 30 years earlier in the first formal verification of Milankovitch, which I published in Nature in 1974….

    A nice summary of what happened a half century ago by Nigel: Next ice age Predictions Revisited: Prophet of the Next Ice Age

    …A more definitive confirmation of Milankovitch came in 1976, in a paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton, using Shackleton’s data in the figure above. But long before either that paper or my own, there was widespread behind-the-scenes acceptance of Milankovitch, and Kukla, for one, was concerned about the implications.

    Kukla warned President Nixon

    Those who rewrite the history of climate science to suit the man-made global warming hypothesis hate to be reminded that global cooling and the threat of a new ice age rang alarm bells in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Orwellian manner they try to airbrush out the distinguished experts involved, and to say it was just a scare story dreamed up by stupid reporters like me.

    No, we didn’t make it up. I was present in Rome in 1961 when global cooling was already the main concern at a conference of the World Meteorological Organization and Unesco (see the Unesco reference). The discussions were led by Hubert Lamb of the UK Met Office, who went on to found the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

    A persistent concern of Lamb and others was that the world might return to a Little Ice Age like that of 300 years ago….

    Who is Nigel Calder?

    ….After army service, graduation from Cambridge University, and two years’ work as a research physicist for the Philips Group, he began his apprenticeship as a science writer on the original staff of the New Scientist in 1956. He became editor of that magazine in 1962. Since 1966, he has worked as an independent author and television scriptwriter. For his work for BBC-TV in scripting and sometimes presenting a long succession of “science specials”, filmed world-wide and typically 2 hours in duration with accompanying books, Calder won the UNESCO Kalinga Prize for the Popularization of Science. These and other programmes for BBC-TV spanned the years 1966 (“Russia: Beneath the Sputniks”) to 1981 (“The Comet is Coming!”)….

  11. barry says:

    The lie is that there has ever been a consensus on climate. Why do you lefties always want to rewrite history? Inconvenient?

    The lie is that there was a scientific consensus on global cooling. As the only evidence offered to the contrary is (always) a handful of newspaper articles – from the despised press – I take it no one’s got anything more substantial. No point continuing here.

    • gator69 says:

      Nice strawman Barry. The fact remains there was and is no consensus on climate, just alarmists getting most of the press. I know you deniers like to deny actual history, actual data and natural variability, but that does not make them go away.

      If you like your doomer theory, you can keep your doomer theory, but the rest of us prefer reality.

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