Erasing The 100% Consensus

In 1961, there was 100% consensus that the world was cooling.

screenhunter_92-feb-03-07-49

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change – View Article – NYTimes.com

Government scientists now get paid to push warming, so they have erased the inconvenient cooling before 1961.

ScreenHunter_357 May. 12 00.12

Fig.A.gif (656×446)

About stevengoddard

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

10 Responses to Erasing The 100% Consensus

  1. Ben Vorlich says:

    Steve,
    is that chart their data or your real data?

    • squid2112 says:

      And what is your point?

    • Ernest Bush says:

      If you put those plots on a chart using the daily extremes in temperature as the scale, you would get a slightly wavy straight line with a barely detectable slope. It will be that way even with all the “adjustments” to the record.

  2. Morgan says:

    Global cooling was just one article in Newsweek. It’s a myth the anti-science deniers just made up, while they were taking money from Exxon-Mobil, watching Fox News, and helping the tobacco companies deny lung cancer.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    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 [Nigel Calder] 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. But the improving knowledge of glacial history, and especially the apparent brevity of warm interglacials, prompted anxiety about a full-blown ice age. George Kukla, together with Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a conference in 1972 entitled “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?”, and reported it in Science magazine.

    Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon, and as a result the US Administration set up a Panel on the Present Interglacial involving the State Department and other agencies. None of us knew then that the mid-century cooling was about to be punctuated by a warming spell from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s….
    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/

    Nigel Calder who wrote the above and reported on these meetings graduated from Cambridge University, and spent two years as a research physicist for the Philips Group. He was a science writer on the original staff of New Scientist in 1956 and became editor in 1962. He wrote books, articles and TV scripts winning the UNESCO Kalinga Prize for the Popularization of Science… Bio

    The resulting 1974 CIA report: A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems

    Pg 7
    In 1972 the Intelligence Community was faced with two issues concerning climatology:

    * No methodologies available to alert policymakers of adverse climatic change

    * No tools to assess the economic and political impact of such a change.

    “… Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

    pg 9
    The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

    Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration.

    [Page 18 talks of coming glaciation]
    Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions… will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the nexy 2,500 years they are quite positive; that it may occur sooner is open to speculation.

    page 22
    The climate of the 1800s was far less favorable for agriculture in most areas of the world. In the United States during that century, the midwest grain-producing areas were cooler and wetter and snow lines of the Russian steppes lasted for longer periods of time. More extended periods of drought were noted in the areas of the Soviet Union now known as the new lands. More extensive monsoon failures were common around the world, affecting in particular China, the Philippines and the Indian Subcontinent.

    The Wisconsin analysis questions whether a return to these climate conditions could support a population that has grown from 1.1 billion in 1850 to 3.75 billion in 1970. The Wisconsin group predicted that the climate could not support the world’s population since technology offers no immediate solution. Further world grain reserves currently amount to less than one month; thus any delay in supplies implies mass starvation. They also contended that new crop strains could not be developed over night… Moreover they observed that agriculture would become even more energy dependent in a world of declining resources.

    So yes there was concern about a cooling planet and what it would mean to food production. This is also the time period Holdren and Erhlich were writing “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” and other doom and gloom books. This is the time when Maurice Strong hosted the UN First Earth Summit. Strong invited activists and paid their way and then told them to go home and raise He!! thereby shifting political power from the adults to easily manipulated spoiled teenagers.

    Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:

    It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise he!! at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.

    So it would seem that by 1972 the powers behind the UN already knew the climate was cyclical and took advantage of it. In 1944 W. Gleissberg published A Table of Secular Variations of the Solar Cycle

    The 80- 90 year solar cycle was detected by Gleissberg (1958, 1965) and the 200 year cycle was found by (Suess 1965, 1980) The Milankovitch cycle theroy was already under discussion and by 1976 Shackleton, Hays and Imbrie had published the paper confirming the Milankovitch cycles. “Variations in the Earth’s orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages”

    However you can not use variations in the sun to beat the sheeple over the head with to lend “legitimacy” to the need for a world goverment. Former Director-General of the WTO laments The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Therefore the political necessity of ignoring the sun’s effects on the climate while CO2 is made the boogeyman. After all it is for our own good.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    What the general public is unaware of is the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.

    The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

    This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at

    Click to access ipcc-principles.pdf

    Near its beginning that document says

    ROLE
    2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    The IPCC exists to provide
    (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
    and
    (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

    Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.

    The IPCC reports and especially the Summary for Policymakers is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions – WorldwIde Lysenkoism – that was agreed to by the USA and other countries by the signing of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change The USA signed on 12/06/92 and ratified the treaty on 21/03/94.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein

    What is rather amusing is the amount of apathy and inertia the movers and shakers are running into.

    You would think they would learn from experience.

    The Plymouth colony of the 1600s was an attempt to set-up a society based on Communism.

    In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”
    …”all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

    This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving…

    After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization….

    …in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

    Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites.
    The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

    These obvious and repeated failures of the socialist/communist form of economic organization did not deter the preditors and parasites from trying again and again to use ‘Socialism’ as an excuse to grab power and wealth.

    “Our cause is an international cause, and so long as a revolution does not take place in all countries our victory is only half a victory. Or perhaps less.” ~Vladimir Lenin, October 1917.
    Yet the reality was the “workers” were not interested in “The Cause” or in revolution.

    …The assassination attempt in August 1918 created a growing urgency in his [Lenin’s] restless thoughts. The global workers revolution, in which the proletariat would rise to overthrow their oppressors, the capitalists, was stalled. His tactics of manipulating the infant Russian democracy, followed by violence and a coup would be difficult to mimic in other countries.

    The “science” of Marxist historical evolution was proving to be more than a little off in its predictions.

    The pesky workers were not rising up across the globe. In fact, even the Russian workers had not done that. Lenin and his Party faithful had been forced to use various covert tactics to prod and poke the workers into any action at all….

    Lenin had learned well the failings of Marxian theory when faced by human nature. But he had also learned well how to overcome those failings. Covert actions and conspiracy were powerful tools…
    From : Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

    Unfortunately the Blood Baths of the 20th century Democide: MURDER BY GOVERNMENT STILL has not convinced the parasitic academics and bureaucrats that ‘Socialism’ does not and can not work.

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