Meteorologists Have Known That Climatologists Are Incompetent, For Over 40 Years

In 1974, climatologists were predicting global cooling, erratic weather and food shortages. Meteorologists knew that they were clueless then, just as they do now.

2015-10-28-07-26-162015-10-28-07-26-312015-10-28-07-33-52

TimesMachine: December 29, 1974 – NYTimes.com

MIT professor Jule Charney said that climate forecasting was like talking to the dead.

screenhunter_1326-jan-07-17-58

Lakeland Ledger – Google News Archive Search

Only 52% of professional meteorologists believe that global warming is primarily man-made, much less dangerous.

2015-10-28-07-42-22

2015-10-28-07-39-24

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

Climatology is a non-scientific profession. These people are simply government prostitutes who spread propaganda in exchange for pay.

About stevengoddard

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

21 Responses to Meteorologists Have Known That Climatologists Are Incompetent, For Over 40 Years

  1. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    No change then, just ‘hand waving’ comes with draconian punitive laws.

  2. Political activism 101….How to become a scientist in less than 6 months:

    1. Flunk every science class you ever took
    2. Wear a white jacket
    3. Start a periodical with a sciency name with government funds
    4. Write a paper that sounds like science
    5. Get your friends to pee on it

  3. sword_of_truth says:

    Well, we moved on a bit in the 40 odd years since 1974, didn’t we – in science, in computing power…

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    Opinion 1979: “This is obviously the decade in which climate is coming into its own. You hardly heard the word professionally in the 1940s. It was a layman’s word. Climatologists were the halt and the lame. And as for the climatologists in public service, in the British service you actually, had to be medically disabled in order to get into the climatological division! Climatology was a menial occupation that came on the pecking scale somewhat below the advertising profession. It was clearly not the age of climate.“
    F. Kenneth Hare, 1979; „The Vaulting of Intellectual Barriers: The Madison Thrust in Climatology“, Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1124
    h/t Dr. Arnd Bernaerts

  5. oz4caster says:

    I wasn’t surveyed, but count me in as one of the meteorologists who does not believe that possible slight global warming since 1950 was caused by man-made CO2 emissions and I certainly do not believe that global warming of even as much as 2C could be net detrimental. There is evidence that global average temperatures may have been as much as 2C to 4C higher in each of the last four interglacial periods with no evidence of serious problems for life on earth. The serious problems have been during the extremely cold glacial periods when CO2 levels were so low as to barely support plant life and deserts expanded greatly, in addition to all the massive glaciers in North America and northwestern Europe. If anything, a little warming now might help delay the next glacial period that looks pretty inevitable based on past cycles over the last million years.

  6. mogur2013 says:

    Meteorologist know that weather changes. They are very skilled at looking at radar scans and weather maps and predicting what is going to happen in the next few days. That is their job. They have been getting better at that task for many decades. We all applaud them.

    Climatologists also have been getting better at predicting longer term trends and that is their job. They also have been getting better at that task for many decades. Some of the smarter of us applaud them. Some of you on this site do not applaud them. Some of you go back, quote them and chide them for failed predictions from decades ago. Many more of you chide them for what the NYT and other mass media distorted their position used to be.

    Let’s be honest. If you chide climatologists for their failed predictions decades ago, why do you not chide meteorologists for their failed predictions last month? And why are exaggerations of the mass media used to disparage climatologists and not meteorologists? The New York Times sells news, it does not verify the veracity of their sources.

    • rah says:

      They’re getting better? HOW? Tell me EXACTLY what predictions the climatologists have made that have come to pass? And BTW meteorologists have been “chided” longer than we’ve been alive and still are when their forecasts turn out to be wrong.

      And the NYT claims to be the “Newspaper of record”. Glad to see you know that claim is pure Bull Shit! And I’m also glad to see that you understand that as long as any person is saying what they want to hear because they think it will make good copy can be a “source” and can say what ever crap they want without NYT journalists or editors checking on the voracity of their claim. In short, you just made a good argument for exactly what I have always thought. That is that anyone that reads the NYT for information is an IDIOT!

      • mogur2013 says:

        Calm down, rah. The NYT is a normal sensationalist publication. Who the hell doesn’t know that. My point is that by aligning the NYT opinion pieces with only chicken little scenarios, you are missing half of the BS.

        You can’t have it both ways. The NYT in the seventies was all (well, actually, they played both sides of the scary scenarios) about global cooling. Either that proves that ‘scientists’ were full of it decades ago, or that the NYT was full of it. If you want to prove that climatologists were full of it, then you need to show that THEIR research overwhelmingly demonstrated global cooling. It didn’t, and it actually mostly showed global warming. Their data is even more convincing now that technology has marched on, and old articles that Heller shows here from the sensational media isn’t going to demonstrate anything other than their goal to sell sensationalism.

        Just stop mixing politics and science. That is just sad. You seem to claim that the scientists are politically motivated, yet if you really knew a scientist, you would understand that politics is as scary to them as your conviction that they are financially and politically motivated to sell their souls. All hallowed, my weenie.

    • Mogur woke up and turned on the TV. He felt good. He listened to the weatherwoman and cheered her on through her presentation. He lit his bong and realized that all his friends applauded the weather reports. He’s been doing it as far back as he could remember. One of his early memories was playing in the living room while the whole family watched the forecast and praised the weatherman. He made his dolls clap hands and an aunt told him he was smart. He liked to think about it.

      He took another hit, looked at his computer screen and wondered if there’s anyone who doesn’t do that. No, he thought, we all applaud the weathermen. He took a few more hits. He was getting hungry. Suddenly he had a thought: He had applauded the experts every time they predicted long term climate trends. All his smart friends did. The predictions for the rest of the century were getting better and better. Only dumb people don’t applaud that. He was smarter than that.

      He took another hit. He read somewhere that long term predictions were wrong in the short term but getting better further out. He liked to think about the future. He wondered where he left his bag of weed the night before but forgot about it again. He sat down to his computer. He had another thought. He knew it was something about the New York Times but he couldn’t think what it was. He thought hard. He took a hit and suddenly it all came together. He felt great. He started typing his name. It was good to be smart, he thought.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Colorado! Dang! You have me in a quandary. I do not normally approve of flame wars, but that really was such a very nice piece of writing that I had to at least acknowledge its high quality.

        “He made his dolls clap hands and an aunt told him he was smart. He liked to think about it.” Holy cow! I am still laughing! 🙂

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey mogur! “Climatologists also have been getting better at predicting longer term trends and that is their job. ”

      Like rah, I am puzzled by exactly which successful long term prediction you are thinking of. I would politely request a bit more information on their context, as well. For example, how long is “long term”? How do you differentiate between “scenarios” and “predictions”? One of the problems we sceptics have is that often the CAGW folk will publish multiple scenarios. “It could be as mild as this or as extreme as that.” If even one of the scenarios comes true, then it is claimed that there was a successful prediction. If none of them come true then the claim is made that “natural variation” is masking the effect. One more problem — and one that is especially pertinent considering Tony’s work here; we do not agree what the facts are. You seem to think that whatever chart NASA puts out is “fact”. Most sceptics think that a chart is only factual if the data shown has been vetted and any changes explained enough to allow reproduction.

      So— what long term predictions have the climatologists made that you find most convincing?

      • mogur2013 says:

        Jason, I believe that climatologists have clearly demonstrated that arctic sea ice extent is declining faster than even they predicted a few years ago. Heller can show an equality with 2006 ice extent occasionally between extremes, and he can claim an unprecedented recovery following unprecedented loss, but he can not show a recent equal to the 2006 minimum. The northwest passage was open for more than a month this year.

        Because idiots like Gore exaggerated arctic ice decline does not make it less real. My god, just look at the data.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “…My god, just look at the data.”
          >>>>>>>>>>>>

          We HAVE!
          Hudson Bay was the growth center for the main ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age. (WIKI)

          August 13, 2015: 2nd highest ice coverage for Hudson Bay since 1971 at mid-August – only 1992 higher

          Directly south of Hudson Bay are the Great Lakes which have had record ice the last two years.

          The Northern Hemisphere Snow cover has also been at record levels.

          In Febuary 2010 there was snow in all fifty states and on Nov 18, 2014 all fifty states had freezing temperatures. In 2013 Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent Was Greatest On Record In December with snow all the way down into Mexico.

          On the other side of the Atlantic Scotland was also under ice.
          Almost 300 “snow patches” remained in the Highland mountains in 2014 — (wwwDOT)bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-33581400

          2015 was even worse.

          Finally, the Arctic. Even NASA admits the loss of sea ice was due to storms driving ice out Fram Strait and into the North Atlantic where it melts quickly. A warm North Atlantic also makes ice melt from below in the Arctic basin. Now that warm North Atlantic is turning cold as Solar Cycle 24 winds down. So don’t expect the Arctic to continue ‘a melting trend’.

          From NORTHERN HEMISPHERE NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVERS

          Warmist never realize it is MERIDIONAL JETS that are the hallmark of colder weather and glaciation. A ‘global temperature’ means diddlesquat.

          Shocking Polar Vortex From 20,000 Years Ago

        • rah says:

          mogur2013 says:
          October 31, 2015 at 12:45 am

          Jason, I believe that climatologists have clearly demonstrated that arctic sea ice extent is declining faster than even they predicted a few years ago.
          ———————————————————————————
          Check your meds. And then start actually looking at the information from reliable sources that is out there for anyone with internet access.

          https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/arctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2015_day_305_1981-2010.png?w=1024&h=682

        • rah says:

          Oh and BTW, Joe Bastardi at weatherbell.com has something to say about that “collapse”. check out the daily update video for today. http://www.weatherbell.com/
          He also has something to say about the current El Nino and how that Scripts Institutes forecast indicated it will be followed by a strong La Nina. If that happens then the AGW scam will be even more difficult to sustain.

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