Don’t Be Arrogant – Listen To The Experts

Had we listened to the experts 40 years ago, global cooling and global warming wouldn’t have killed us all last century.

ScreenHunter_5353 Dec. 20 05.50 ScreenHunter_5350 Dec. 20 05.44 ScreenHunter_5349 Dec. 20 05.37 ScreenHunter_5345 Dec. 19 23.22

ScreenHunter_5354 Dec. 20 05.54


About stevengoddard

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

69 Responses to Don’t Be Arrogant – Listen To The Experts

  1. TSK says:

    Bwe-he-he-he. Dis vun’s hilarious, boyss. Der experts publish in der NYT, Windsor Star & Nova.

    How much you get paid to spread diz misleading notions? Ya know Willie Soon got paid $1m over der last decade by Koch, Exxon, Mobil Foundation and Texaco. It vouldn’t be to shill for dem about AGW. Naaa.

    • Are you a complete moron, or just pretending to be?

      • TSK says:

        The more obvious question is how you can post such nonsense with a straight face. You are obviously ignoring reason, preferring to post speculations from newspapers and avoid scholarly publications like the plague. Your approach is so reprehensible you should be ashamed, but I guess the remuneration is good.

        • Are you a complete moron and jackass, or just pretending to be?

        • TSK says:

          I don’t think I can reach down to your level stevengoddard. All you seem to be able to do is rehearse denialist claptrap and use mediocre insults. Could you try a little more flare? I mean your repertoire needs augmenting: moron, moron and jackass, jackass and moron. You need to lift your game. Step out of the shallows and evolve.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Great example of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
      RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works.

      RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.


      From WIKI about The Climate Research Unit (CRU) of Climategate fame:

      The CRU was founded in 1971… … Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell. The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor…

      Now explain why the IPCC had Ged Davis, VP of Shell as a Lead Author. Or explain why Peter Muller of BEST fame has Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey as one of his consultants at Muller Assoc.

      Explain why David Hone is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser but also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association.

      Explain why John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, who headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965, was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981. You remember WWF — All told, an extensive list of NON-PEER REVIEWED documents created or co-authored by the WWF is cited by the Nobel-winning 2007 IPCC report. Pachauri, had repeatedly claimed that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed material however a citizens audit of the 2007 IPCC report showed that statement was no where near true. For example, despite vigorous protests from its own expert reviewers, in Chapter 11 only 58% of the documents cited by the IPCC were peer-reviewed.

      The OIL FUNDED Grantham Foundation also funds or has funded the Imperial College based Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups.
      From our buddies at the Groiniad: Jeremy Grantham on how to feed the world and why he invests in oil

      The Rockefeller foundations (Standard Oil money) fund the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. (Exxon is part owned by the Rockefellers)

      And that is just the tip of the greenie oil funding iceberg.

      • TSK says:

        This is a sad little attempt to dodge the realization that denialism is inspired and funded by the fossil fuel industry.

        • Gail Combs says:

          If David Rockefeller walked up to you and TOLD you he was behind CAGW as a means of promoting a World Government you would still stick your fingers in your ears and yell NAH, Nah, nah I cant here you…

        • TSK says:

          What is this world government nuttery? I mean seriously, if you visited a few of the world’s nations and spent some time living in those other nations, you’d know just how foolish your thinking on the matter is. This world government stuff is not a denialist folly. This is one that you and some of your cohorts drag into climate denial. Is there the lurking lunacy of the Jewish plot behind your blather? Is David Rockefeller part of a conspiracy in your beleaguered brain?

          Who knows what stupidity lurks within the hearts of men (and women)?


  2. rah says:

    So TSK what is “misleading” about the the impression the articles convey. Do you deny that in the 70’s the hype was that we are in the declining years of the interglacial and that was magnified and broadcast in the press that a “new ice age” was beginning with all kinds of disasters from more severe weather to crop failures and famine being predicted? And/or do you deny that within 12 years or so many “scientists” suddenly flip flopped and started predicting devastating warming with the same consequences of severe weather, drought, crop failures that they had predicted before that would result from cooling?

    And this leads to the next question. Exactly what temperature and conditions do you claim are optimum? The temperature and conditions that will lead to radical decreases in severe weather, drought, floods, crop failures and the resulting famine?

    • Gail Combs says:

      TSK persists in thinking we are mushrooms he can continue feed bovine feces to.

      However it is TSK who hasn’t read the 1974 CIA report: “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”

      Or Nigel Calder’s Prophet of the Next Ice Age

      …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. 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….

      That CIA report is one of the results.

      • TSK says:

        Still ignoring what scientists were publishing in peer reviewed journals. Anything else is the sort of bovine waste product that you (and stevegoddard) seem to relish wading in.

        • You really are a world class wanker.

        • TSK says:

          So you have no argument whatsoever. You just want to use simple vulgar insults. But “world class”? That’s just unthinking on your part, like the blogpost that tries to convince that there was scientific support behind the newspaper nonsense regarding global cooling. Why not do something about your ignorance of the history of global warming rather than reheating other denialists’ leftovers?

        • You are a world class bovine excrement wanker, who appears unable to read any of the massive volume of information I post on this blog.

          Do you have some sort of brain disorder which makes you unable to read?

      • TSK says:

        You can keep up with this foulmouthed tomfoolery forever, stevengoddard. It won’t change the fact that you are just a cog in the denialist mill spreading the same failed nonsense as all the others. This one is the stupidity of using newspapers to try to fake scientific consensus. You are unable to enter into a discussion about it and lead with your biggest skill: the banal insult. Why can’t you do better? I could give you insult lessons if you can meet my fee. You don’t want to seem challenged all your adolescent life do you?

        • You are a complete moron who is unable to actually discuss any of the huge volume of content I post on this blog. If you don’t stop being a moron and actually discuss content, you will soon be spam here. Last warning.

        • TSK says:

          Gawd, once again with moron. I’ve been trying to get your to discuss your blunder in this blogpost from the beginning. You have refused to open your mouth except for expletives and ad hominems. You’re being apathetic hypocrite.

          So, stevengoddard, are you going to deal with your use of newspapers rather than scholarly publications of the period to reflect the scientific consensus of the period or are you going to continue wilfully posting deception? If you want to talk business, I’m eager to hear what you have to say.

        • Do you also believe that Holocaust didn’t happen, because it was reported in newspapers?

        • TSK says:

          Stop being a clown, stevengoddard. Bringing in the holocaust is pure Godwin. You are behaving doltishly and should shut up until you get over yourself.

        • This moron actually believes that it was the newspapers of the 1970’s that made up global cooling, but each of those newspapers gives its sources. It’s unbelievable. This guy is such an idiot he could be head writer at SkS

    • Gail Combs says:

      Seems TSK flubbed another set of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

      RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

      RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

    • TSK says:

      Newspapers exist to stimulate readers, so when they publish stuff there is no necessary factual basis to it. I’m sure you’d find features reflecting the claims of ancient extraterrestrials, but you wouldn’t tout it on the basis of their appearance in newspapers. That’s why stevegoddard is being dumb.

      If you want to know what scientists thought in the 1970s, read what they published in peer reviewed journals or academic press books. If you read what they were publishing on climate you’d find global warming back then as well. The scientific heritage goes back to Arrhenius in the late 1890s and the understanding that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature through trapping infrared radiation.

      Optimum conditions? Not really a useful notion in our context. What would be more interesting is to understand what would result without the influx of anthropogenic carbon. What would develop in the climate system that currently sustains the status quo….

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Dr. Judith Curry did not listen to the ‘Experts’
    On December 16th her Twitter account was blocked by Mikey Mann.

    Seems Mikey is throwing another temper tantrum… ROTFLMAO!

    Judith Curry

    @tan123 @ClimateDepot @ClimateOfGavin @MichaelEMann My twitter account has just been blocked by Mann, as a case in point
    Retweeted by Watts Up With That

    • rah says:

      He is a very childish arrogant ass. I think once Stein gets done with him in court he’ll be blocking a whole lot more people.

      • nielszoo says:

        I believe it would be better for all concerned if Mikey was in a block with a whole lot more people… I’m thinking Marion Illinois, Lompoc California or maybe Allenwood Pennsylvania, isn’t that close to home for him?

  4. Robin B White says:

    Trying to recall when I stopped watching NOVA. About the same time I dropped my subscriptions to Scientific American, National Geographic and Smithsonian. One evening I realized that NOVA was just PBS’s pseudoscience green baloney shop. And then there was Rock Star Carl Sagan in his turtleneck. Time to hope out of bed and feed the pig. W

    Enviado desde mi iPod

    > El Dec 20, 2014, a las 3:03 AM, Real Science escribió: > > >

  5. scizzorbill says:

    Speaking of alarmist predictions that didn’t pan out, In a local blog, I started a discussion about this subject using an article I found @ WUWT website. The warmists went on the attack. After almost 1300 views, and 101 comments, the blog author, a liberal warmist, closed the discussion. I mentioned Steve Goddard as a reference who was immediately attacked by David, the alarmist in chief. I blog as SirShrek. Here is the discussion:

    • Gail Combs says:

      Warmists often either block all comments, block skeptic comments (Groiniad) or edit comments to mean something entirely different than what the commenter was actually saying, preferably in a way designed to make them look like a fool. (Skeptical Science)

      Here is an example of a deleted comment. The comment was made by a physicist at the Skeptical Science blog

      (Name deleted)
      doug_bostrom, you just don’t get it. The station drop off problem is real so why not admit it? You can’t make your case by denying reality! With regard to Tamino, he seems to be very good at what he does but remember the quote that Mark Twain attributed to Benjamin Disraeli: “Liars, damned liars and statisticians”
      Reason: I’m gonna call this ad hom

      A wee bit thin skinned aren’t they.

      Station drop out:

      • scizzorbill says:

        Thin skinned is a symptom of Liberal Mental Disorder which is under the category…Cerebral Narcissism. I joined the Boquete Blog to refute his insane we’re all gonna die Climategeddon discussions. Now, he is confined to a group blog where is ‘teaching’ climate science,,er, climate astrology to all interested sheeple. He does not tolerate dissent. He’s off the main page. I consider it a win for me.

        • Gail Combs says:

          GOOD, Climastrology can not stand the light of day or dissection by real scientists. That is why M & M were so prominent in the Climategate e-mails. The Climastrologists knew the cobbled together crap they had would not stand up to dissection by an informed observer.

      • Sparks says:

        It’s easy to observe issues like “station drop out” understanding how it all works is the goal.

      • TSK says:

        Ooh, we’re getting a rehash of the station drop nonsense now. This stupid thread is certainly attracting denialist nonsense more thickly than usual. Instead of acknowledging the fact that the thread itself is wrongheaded and parochial—attempting to use opinions published by newspaper journalists rather than looking at what scientists publish to say what scientists thought—, you prefer to crap on about something else. The um *cough* station drop conjecture. (If you want to go into that in detail you’ll only do yourself a disservice.)

        • The thread does appear to have attracted an imbecile. I’m responding to him now.

        • TSK says:

          Imbecile, moron, jackass… You must have failed finishing school. I guess what you lack in finesse, you make up in with credulity. You need to wake up and admit that you have been gulled with this newspaper nonsense about global cooling. That’s the topic of your thread, so can you focus?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Ever notice how the useful idiots always spout nebulous nonsense about ‘peer-reviewed’ papers but if you hand them any like I did on the other thread they are always Denialist Nonsense?

        • TSK says:

          Peer review is nebulous nonsense to people who conscious of lacking evidence.

  6. Sparks says:

    Exploitation of how it all works is someone else’s job! and they are wrong!

  7. Lamb was right in general – he just mistimed the peak of the 1000 year cycle by about 1/2 of the 60 year cycle.
    In fact every thing the Met Office and IPCC modelers have done since his days has been a useless waste of time and money and resulted in the great CAGW delusions of the last 20 years and the literally lunatic and quixotic ( windmills) climate and energy policies of most western Governments.
    For the timing and amount of the coming cooling for the next six hundred years or so see.

  8. TSK says:
    December 21, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    You must have failed finishing school.

    Heh, Little Miss Charm School class of 2012, are you?

    I love it when hipsters with art-school degrees try to sound intelligent.

    • TSK says:

      This is typical denialism… take things out of context and from that come to an erroneous conclusion. Science does not preclude wit or erudition, but it attempts exclude evidence tampering. This blog entry is just badly intentioned, aiming to misrepresent reality. You should call stevengoddard out for it, rather than be complicit.

      • If you have an objection to something technical I have posted then state it. You appear to be just one more useless Internet stalker at this point.

        • TSK says:

          How many times do I have to say that you are using newspapers to represent a scientific consensus that only exists in the minds of denialists? You have not attempted to find any peer reviewed material from the period to justify your imputation.

        • You have no idea what I have done or haven’t done, because you are a complete moron who hasn’t spent any time reading the 30,000 posts on this blog.

        • TSK says:

          “Complete moron”! Oh, I get it now, you’re trying to bore me to death with this repetitive nonsense.

          You wanna rest on your laurels because you’ve amassed 30000 posts? Well, grow up. You can’t even enter into a discussion about one of them. And I have looked at your standard faire and that standard seems to me to be amateur hour. Do you or do you not realize that your use of newspapers here is rubbish? It does not reflect any scholarly reality at all.

        • Yes, you are a complete moron. Your repertoire consists of assuming anything published in a newspaper is incorrect. How dense can you get?

        • TSK says:

          Your repertoire consists of assuming anything published in a newspaper is incorrect.
          Actually I have indicated that you have made no attempt to represent scholarly consensus. You have just cited newspaper sensationalism. Now try to show that that sensationalism reflects the scientific consensus. You and I both know you cannot. Because what you are doing is pure non sequitur.

        • Do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you just a whining ivory tower academic?

        • TSK says:

          I’m sorry you surrender without a fight.

        • Goodbye TSK – you are now spam.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Hey kid,when are you going to post a counterpoint against the post Tony made?

  9. TSK says:

    Note generally that I am happy to discuss issues reasonably. I do not appreciate non-stop crass insults as stevengoddard seems restricted to.

    • sunsettommy says:


      Who is the one who posted this as his FIRST comment in the thread?

      “Bwe-he-he-he. Dis vun’s hilarious, boyss. Der experts publish in der NYT, Windsor Star & Nova.

      How much you get paid to spread diz misleading notions? Ya know Willie Soon got paid $1m over der last decade by Koch, Exxon, Mobil Foundation and Texaco. It vouldn’t be to shill for dem about AGW. Naaa.”

      Now what were you saying,HYPOCRITE!

  10. sunsettommy says:

    Tony is the man who runs this blog.

    Meanwhile you make clear you don’t read those newspaper clippings Tony posted.

    Try a counterpoint instead,than do the brain dead ad homs and personal attacks you are doing.

  11. sunsettommy says:

    It has become clear this is another warmist troll who can’t post a counterpoint against the blog post.

    He doesn’t even know what the CIA report is about,that alone shows his profound ignorance.

  12. Gail Combs says:

    I tried to post on Retreat Of Glaciers In 1939 Revealed Medieval Gold Mines three times and my comments all got booted into orbit.

    I have no trouble on this thread.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s