Climatology Is Not A Science

Democrats refuse to listen to anyone who isn’t a professional climatologist about climate. This sounds like a sensible approach, until you realize who climatologists are. They are people whose living depends on pushing global warming alarmism.

Consider the Texas State Climatologist who predicted Texas would remain in a drought until 2020. He had no idea what he was talking about, but it made the kind of story which attracts press attention, and brings money in.


Texas A&M Climatologist Says Drought Could Last Until 2020 

Meteorologists have known for over 40 years that climatologists are incompetent hacks. This goes back to the time when climatologists predicted that global cooling was going to kill us all.

Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.25.26 AM-down

Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.28.06 AM-down

Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.30.02 AM-down

Lakeland Ledger – Google News Archive Search

Climatology is a political tool of government. It has nothing to do with science.

About stevengoddard

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

63 Responses to Climatology Is Not A Science

  1. Would you consider a teaching position?

    • RAH says:

      He has already created his own right here at his blog. And through this blog he has the potential to educate or reeducated and influence far more people than he ever could in any classroom. Besides from the impression I get there aren’t too many places in academia where he would be welcome.

    • Do you have something in mind?

  2. chaamjamal says:

    also to be a credible source, you have to go along with the narrative.

    for example, bill nye with a bs in mehanical engineering is a credible source because he is on their side and chaamjamal with an ms in chemical engineering is not a credible source because he is not on their side. i could go on. leo dicaprio would be mocked as unqualified to comment if he were a skeptic but instead he is celebrated as a climatologist because he is an affirmer and not a denier.

    • R. Shearer says:

      Where climate conferences are held it is common practice to have a code phrase for attendees to enter the official IPCC brothel. In Cancun, Al Gore walks up to the hotel bar and the bartender asks, “What will it be?”

      Al says, “How about a sex on the beach?”

      The bartenders points to a hallway and says, “First door on the left.”

      Michael Mann walks into the bar with swagger and makes a beeline to the bartender. “l’d like a sex on the beach, bartender,” he says.

      The bartender points to the hallway and says, “First door on the left.”

      Bill Nye enters the bar and he is wearing his conference badge. He sheepishly approaches the bar and the bartender notices the badge and says, “Let me guess, sex on the beach.”

      Bill replies, “No thanks, just the wireless code and a box of tissues.”

  3. vuurklip says:

    Weaseling out with the usual “could be” which the readers immediately translate as “will”. Thats how just about every Chicken(shit) Little narrative enters the uncritical collective mind.

    • RAH says:

      Oh they use all kinds of weasel words: May, could, can, possibly, etc……… And then the politicos and their press then pronounce such conjecture as fact.

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    For those who forgot how climatology got here, Richard Lindzen remembers and details the descent:

  5. omanuel says:

    Steven aka Tony, will you be at the London GeoEthics Conference on 8-9 Sept 2016? ,

    That is an opportunity for us to individually and collectively renew our responsibilities to help society understand and appreciate the nature of the forces that control human destiny and sustain our lives.

  6. AndyG55 says:

    This could be what’s needed to kill off the AGW zombie and return to world to some sort of sanity !!!

  7. tomwys says:

    Not the best comparison, Steve!

    Using the word ‘will’ is a prediction while the word “could” means a possibility. The State Climatologist is required to highlight probabilities so State planning officials can do their jobs.

    The “El Nino/La Nina” influence in Texas is strong, and the interim drought recovery will almost surely be followed by some local flooding followed by return to drought.

    It is “what they do” in Texas. Their climatologist is fulfilling his obligations, The Ninas fulfill theirs!!!

  8. Andy DC says:

    There has been a tremendous snowstorm in Colorado over this weekend and it is still snowing. Denver had received a foot as of midnight. Other later reports include 35″ near Boulder, 45″ near Golden. Several reports of 40-45″ in Jefferson County.

    I know, leading climate scientists tell us that hot air holds more moisture and creates lots of snow. Even though it is a thing of the past and despite the fact that the Colorado skiing industry is doomed!

    • RAH says:

      And of course never mind that they have blizzard warnings in places and that ITS THE MIDDLE OF APRIL!

      • R. Shearer says:

        Blizzards in April, May or even June are not uncommon in Colorado.

        • RAH says:

          Depending on the altitude. This one is well outside the norm for altitude at this time of year. For example Denvers average monthly snow fall for the entire month of April is 8.9″ .

          Right now in Denver they have new snow that has exceeded the entire months average in almost all locations. .

        • RAH, major historical blizzards in Denver dumped 23” on April 23, 1885, 19” on April 24-25, 1935 and 18” on April 17-19, 1920. The latest snow in both Boulder and Denver over the last 10 years was from first week of April to second week of May.

          This snowstorm was a typical “upslope”, counterclockwise spinning system bringing moisture from the south and dumping it from the east against the mountains. We may get several of them every spring. This one created record snowfall numbers because the center hung around for 3 days and wasn’t moving east as they frequently do.

        • RAH says:

          I’m just glad I don’t have to go out there right now for work. I hate chaining up a big rig and that’s what they’re going to be doing when the passes are open. Colorado, unlike most every other state, requires chains on all drive and trailer tires. And that is why we avoided I-70 if we possibly could.

        • R. Shearer says:

          It’s more the variance than the mean that rules around here.

        • RAH says:

          CW you guys are in for another good snow it looks like if Joes daily update for 4/18 is correct. He nailed the last one so I guess he’ll probably continue to do so.

  9. BobbyK says:

    Hi, long time reader, first comment on here. I come to this site every day and love reading all the information on here. Look I’ll admit, I’m 32 years old, I’ve never been very good at math or science but I want to believe more than anyone that climate change isn’t happening or at least isn’t as scary or dangerous as all the alarmists are making it sound. Reading everything on this site comforts me but it always seems like the alarmists can always turn around and debunk all the science claimed by skeptics and show why it’s wrong. Like saying that even though the sea ice is growing, land ice is decreasing at a very fast rate and it can be very dangerous and the only reason why sea ice is increasing is because of the heating in other areas. So so so many websites that say climate change will cause human extinction or at least a dramatic percentage of the human population will die within this century. I think and worry about climate change all day every day and I don’t want to. I don’t want to worry that all my loved ones and myself are going to die in some environmental apocalypse. I want to truly believe without a shadow of a doubt that all the information on this site is accurate and all other claims are just a money making scam but it can be really difficult with all the evidence that the alarmists present. It just seems like there’s more threats facing this planet and the human population than ever before. Can someone please provide evidence that can’t be debunked no matter what? Can someone please give me something that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change isn’t something that I have to worry about within my lifetime? I’m going crazy here and it doesn’t help that so many news and science websites are saying that we’re in the midst of a sixth mass extinction, that human extinction will occur within this century due to climate change, or the bee population going extinct or scientist Frank Fenner who before he passed said that we’ll eventually go extinct due to over population, or Guy Mcpherson who says the heat will increase to a point we can’t live in by 2030, it’s all very scary times and I need help, I just want to live a long and happy life without worrying that the end is near, so I’m begging, please, can someone put all of this to rest? Please?

    • Andy DC says:

      Please follow this blog and other skeptic’s blogs or even review posts going back in time. There is ample evidence, in terms of raw temperature data from reliable stations, that there is no imminent climate crisis or impending catastrophic warming.

      The extreme claims by alarmists are based on their bogus adjustments to the actual data concerning the past temperature records. Also exaggerated claims that weather is worse in the present than it was in the past. Claims that simply are not true.

      I would not lose any sleep worrying about a mass human extinction based on global warming. The worst threat by far would be a return to an Ice Age based on global cooling. We came out of the last one less that 12,000 years ago. Getting into that Ice Age and coming out of it had nothing at all to do with human activity. Our recent weather has been well within the range of natural variability.

    • gator69 says:

      Study history. These fearmongering stories all die out, and the planet just keeps rolling along. Once you come to understand that nothing we are seeing or hearing is new, you will sleep better. These are all predictions made on the first Earth Day, and some of these idiots are still blathering on…

      “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
      • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

      “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
      • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

      “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
      • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

      “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
      • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

      “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
      • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

      “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
      • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

      “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
      • Life Magazine, January 1970

      “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

      “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
      • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

      “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

      “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
      • Sen. Gaylord Nelson

      “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

      Also keep in mind that everything the alarmists tell you is based upon failed models, none of it is based upon historical or relevant observational evidence.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Bobby, hey gator! Yes, if you do not feel up to the science and math, by all means (as gator says) study history. Every day experience shows that people who have a track record of not telling the truth in the past, cannot be trusted in what they say today. The history of predictions from the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming crowd is so uniformly wrong that there is no pragmatic reason to trust their predictions for the future.

        Pay attention to the details of the CAGW reports you hear. You will begin to notice that most of the news stories they put out will have a phrase in there like, “This is the worst blah-blah-blah since records began (in 1958).” Read up on your history and you will find that 1958 was not that long ago and some much worse example of the same blah-blah-blah happened quite a few time previously.

        A couple years back I saw a news report where some group reported the “worse tornado event that they had ever recorded.” Well, it turns out that the group had only been in existence for about five years — so technically it really was “the worse tornado event that they had ever recorded.” That sounds MUCH more impressive than “the worse tornado even in the past handful of years.”

        Anyway, Bobby, I sympathize with your concern about CAGW. I have friends who literally cannot sleep at night from worry. The fact is, frightened people will pay any price, both in money and in obedience, to those who claim the ability to take away the fear. The bottom line is that you are being lied to by unscrupulous people, so that you can be controlled. Read your history. Do the research. You will find that your future is better than you are being told — if you are willing to make your own judgements about what the world is like.

        • gator69 says:

          “Neo-Malthusianism” may be used as a label for those who are concerned that overpopulation may increase resource depletion or environmental degradation to a degree that is not sustainable with the potential of ecological collapse or other hazards. The term is also often immediately connected with eugenics.

          Malthus was wrong. Instead of the Earth being unable to sustain humanity, we have shown over and over again that man’s technological advances overcome the fears of chronic hand wringers.

    • R Shearer says:

      Most will die before mankind goes extinct. Make that all.

  10. Jim Schmidt says:

    Climatology has more in common with Astrology than Meteorology…

  11. smamarver says:

    So many years of debating and arguing on this subject…. Maybe the definitions underlined here – – will help people understand the science of climate change.

    • Latitude says:

      that’s about it…..

      asking a bunch of people who can’t predict the weather…
      …to predict the accumulation of weather

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey latitude! “asking a bunch of people who can’t predict the weather…
        …to predict the accumulation of weather”

        Ha! Yes — climate (just like such intangibles as “global average temperature”) is not a thing; it is a STATISTIC about things. This is not to denigrate the concept of “climate”. There are, in fact, branches of science (such as quantum physics) that are based on statistical predictions of certain likely states. The difference between climate science and quantum physics is that climate scientists don’t know physics — or if they DO, then their so-called “climate models” certainly don’t reflect that knowledge.

        • cdquarles says:

          Hi Jason.

          Weather has fascinated me since my early youth. I recall the definition being a statistical summary of the previously realized weather. Weather being the moment to moment physical chemistry state of the atmosphere. I note the key word being previously realized. Another way of saying it is that climate is what you’ve gotten in the past given a fixed location on the surface of the Earth and a sampled volume of the air above that spot. Weather is what you’re getting and will get in the future. The statistical summary can give you a more or less complete approximation of the bounds you can expect in statistical terms. Those bounds tell you little about what is going on in real time. That’s what I have to live in, survive and be fruitful and multiply in. I have to adapt to what is happening right now and in the near term, knowing that I am subject of bodily death at any point in the next hour.

  12. BobbyK says:

    Why aren’t my comments posting?

  13. BobbyK says:

    Hi, long time follower of this site, first time leaving a comment. I love all the info I read on here, it helps me a lot. But I’ll be honest, I’m 32 years old, I’ve never been very good at math or science. I want to believe more than anyone that climate change is a scam and not happening or at least not as scary or dangerous as the alarmists are making it sound. It just seems like no matter what evidence skeptics provide to debunk climate change the alarmists can turn around and provide evidence debunking the claims made by the skeptics. Like that even though sea ice increasing, land ice is decreasing at a dangerous rate and the reason why sea ice is increasing is only because of heating going on in the area. So so so many news and science websites talking about how climate change is a real dangerous threat and shouldn’t be taken lightly and saying skeptics don’t understand the difference between weather and climate and are working for oil companies trying to make money. Saying climate change will make humanity go extinct or at least decrease human population to a low percentage within this century. I don’t want to worry about my loved ones and myself dying in some environmental apocalypse. Scientists say we’re in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, Guy Mcpherson says climate change will kill us by 2030. Another scientist by the name of Frank Fenner, before he passed said we’ll go extinct this century due to overpopulation. Then adding on everything about the bees going extinct, it’s very scary times. So many people saying that where they live the summers are longer and hotter and the winters are shorter and not as cold, all I think and worry about all day every day is climate change and what will happen within my lifetime and it’s driving me crazy. i don’t want to worry. Can someone please provide evidence that can’t be debunked that climate change isn’t happening? Something that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it really truly is all a scam and no warmist could dispute dispute the evidence? Please, I just want to live a long, happy, worry free life, I need help. Give me something concrete. Please?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Can someone please provide evidence that can’t be debunked that “climate change” IS happening that is not totally natural.

      No-one has yet done this.

    • I don’t know if this helps, Bobby, but climate change is real. We believe so because climate’s been changing through the entire existence of the Earth and there is no reason to think it stopped changing.

      Quite recently, the so-called Little Ice Age consisted of several particularly nasty and long periods of cold climate and we are fortunate it had ended by the mid-19th century. Since then, we’ve been enjoying a period of very favorable warmer weather but the problem is that at some point it will start turning cold again and we have no way to prevent it.

      Now, you may appreciate that according to expert opinions the world should have ended at least 45 times since your birth. 1994 was an especially dangerous year when the world was supposed to be annihilated on three different dates. When it comes to future apocalyptic events, Guy McPherson has a lot of competition in the prediction business. Before the Earth becomes uninhabitable for our species by 2030 as he says, it will have already ended by 2020, 2021 or at the very latest by 2026 according to end-of-the-world authorities.

      On the other hand, concerning our extinction during the 21st century, James Lovelock now thinks that he was wrong 10 years ago when he calculated that climate change will kill us all by the billions except for a few remaining human breeding pairs in the Arctic. Of course, we must ask ourselves:

      What if Lovelock was wrong when he said he was wrong? What if his original prediction was right?

      I don’t know because I haven’t seen his original calculations but I understand people who think the end is near. There are plenty of terrifying signs all around us.

    • gator69 says:

      See my post above, and know this about extinction scares…

      As long as species have been evolving, species have been going extinct. It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct.

      List of all species that may have gone extinct since the invention of “CAGW”…

      1979 – Last sightings of the Javan tiger.
      1981 – The Puhielelu hibiscadelphus becomes extinct.
      1981 – Last sighting of the green-blossom pearlymussel
      – The 24-rayed sunstar.
      1985 – The platypus frog
      1989 – The golden toad
      – The Atitlán grebe
      1990 – The dusky seaside sparrow
      1994 – Saint Croix racer
      1997 – The Hainan ormosia

      Ten in forty years. How many species are there? Good question!

      About 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth.

      So they are predicting 1,450,000 species extinctions? Well, at the current rate, that would take 5,800,000 years 😆

      Alarmists just aren’t real good with math. Maybe instead of using models, they should try a calculator.

      • RAH says:

        I guess they are modeling extinctions based on some of the millions of species they have not yet identified disappearing before they know about them.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, it’s like the billions of dollars I lost in the stock market, that I never knew I earned.

  14. I sure am glad meteorologists understand the science behind global warming because I sure don’t, The science I know says CO2 is already high enough concentration to cause all the warming it can by absorbing couple small wave lengths. More CO2 will not cause any effect. Then they ignore water vapor which is 97% of greenhouse gas. Beyond my comprehension.

  15. AndyG55 says:

    ENSO prediction of -0.8C, falling rapidly

    AMO starting to roll off the top.

    EU power supplies in turmoil and borderline collapse.

    If the La Nina does hit hard, combined with the somewhat sleepy sun, there are going to be some real issues in many NH countries over the next several years.

    Hopefully, those who bought this about (“r” left on purpose), will face serious karma.

  16. pa32r says:

    You folks all do realize that science isn’t done in newspapers, right? It’s awesome how Steve/Tony gives them credence in making quotes that fit his message and disparages them when they don’t.

    • Darn it, I did not know that science was not done in newspapers. I am grateful you mentioned it.

      Are you saying that John Nielsen-Gammon was not doing science when he made his drought forecast for Texas when it got published in newspapers and on TV?

      Please help. I am really confused about this whole science thing now.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Colorado! “You folks all do realize that science isn’t done in newspapers, right?”

        I can clear that up for you, Colorado. Yes, not only is science NOT done in newspapers, it is not done in journals either. You can’t write it down. You can’t put it on the news. You can’t even publish it in book. The only way to get science is to hear it first hand (first ear?) from someone who has a diploma. And they have to show you the diploma while they are telling you the science. Reporters might get their cooties on the science if they try to pass it along to you. Remember how you thought you saw Apollo 11 land on the moon? Doesn’t count… That was on the news, so it was not science and it never happened. The only way you can know whether humans landed on the moon is if you were there when it happened and Armstrong told you. “That’s one small step for Colorado. One giant leap for mankind!” There… THAT’S science!

        Glad I could clear that up for you.

        • Thank you, Jason! I understand science now. It’s the same thing with the likeness of the Prophet! You can’t draw it, and you can’t publish it in papers, magazines or books. It can’t be shown on TV or a website. People who try get the cooties and worse.

          The only way you can see the Prophet is in person. I think followers who met him personally and imams with diplomas can describe him to you. I also know you may have dreams and visions of him. I wonder if pa32r has visions of science when he gets in a trance but I can’t ask him in person. I know Al Gore has visions of global warming all the time. Too bad he put them in a movie. Science must never be put in a movie.

          I just had a horrible revelation. I can’t trust the scientific explanations you and pa32r gave me either because you published them on a website. That’s just like the New York Times but without their layers of editors and fact-checkers.

          I will try visions like pa32r is having. That’s the safest way.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Curses! Beaten by self-referential logic!


    • David A says:

      Other then straw, do you have something intelligent to say?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Then why do the AGW alarmists ALWAYS publish HEADLINES in the newspaper before they release their papers?

    • gator69 says:

      These scientists do their science on newspapers…

      • RAH says:

        I agree pa32r
        Take the LA Times for example. Not only is no science done in that Newspaper, they absolutely refuse to report scientific information on climate from anyone who disputes AGW no matter how convincing the evidence and no matter how impressive the credentials or standing of the author is. And they like many other papers that regularly parrot about anything, no matter how silly, from those that are true believers of AGW while censoring comments from those that do not agree in their online versions.

        When it comes to climate these days almost all newspapers treat it as a political issue and not one of science.

    • R Shearer says:

      I think you meant journalism.

  17. Dave N says:

    Here’s more astrology:

    Where a study bases its conclusion purely on history, and totally ignores economy and other factors from the present. This is the level of stupid we have to put up with.

    • Jason Calley says:

      I am not sure where it is now, but I used to have a chemistry text book from about 1930 or so that matter-of-factly included the tidbit that petroleum would certainly run out by the 1960s.

      • RAH says:

        Yea that darn oil just won’t go away:
        Lets take a trip in the way back machine.

        Here is President Jimmy Carter telling us that we are running out and it is a crisis only exceeded by war.

        But Carter wasn’t even close to the first to make this claim:

        • 1857 — Romania produces 2,000 barrels of oil, marking the beginning of the modern oil industry.

        • 1859, Aug. 25 — Edwin L. Drake strikes oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania

        • 1862 — First commercial oil production in Canada, also 1863 in Russia.

        • 1862 — Most widely used lamp fuel (camphene) taxed in US at aprox. $1 a gallon; kerosene taxed at 10 cent per gallon.(Kovarik, 1997)

        • 1863 — John D. Rockefeller starts the Excelsior Refinery in Cleveland, Ohio.

        • 1879 — US Geological Survey formed in part because of fear of oil shortages.

        • 1882 — Institute of Mining Engineers estimates 95 million barrels of oil remain.With 25 million barrels per year output, “Some day the cheque will come back indorsed no funds, and we are approaching that day very fast,” Samuel Wrigley says. (Pratt, p. 124).

        • 1901 — Spindletop gusher in Texas floods US oil market.

        • 1906 — Fears of an oil shortage are confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Representatives of the Detroit Board of Commerce attended hearings in Washington and told a Senate hearing that car manufacturers worried “not so much [about] cost as … supply.”

        • 1919, Scientific American notes that the auto industry could no longer ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of U.S. oil was left. “The burden falls upon the engine. It must adapt itself to less volatile fuel, and it must be made to burn the fuel with less waste…. Automotive engineers must turn their thoughts away from questions of speed and weight… and comfort and endurance, to avert what … will turn out to be a calamity, seriously disorganizing an indispensable system of transportation.”

        • 1920 — David White, chief geologist of USGS, estimates total oil remaining in the US at 6.7 billion barrels. “In making this estimate, which included both proved reserves and resources still remaining to be discovered, White conceded that it might well be in error by as much as 25 percent.” (Pratt, p. 125. Emphasis added).

        • 1925 — US Commerce Dept. says that while U.S. oil production doubled between 1914 and 1921, it did not kept pace with fuel demand as the number of cars increased.

        • 1928 — US analyst Ludwell Denny in his book “We Fight for Oil” noted the domestic oil shortage and says international diplomacy had failed to secure any reliable foreign sources of oil for the United States. Fear of oil shortages would become the most important factor in international relations, even so great as to force the U.S. into war with Great Britain to secure access to oil in the Persian Gulf region, Denny said.

        • 1926 — Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 4.5 billion barrels remain.

        • 1930 — Some 25 million American cars are on the road, up from 3 million in 1918.

        • 1932 — Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 10 billion barrels of oil remain.

        • 1944 — Petroleum Administrator for War estimates 20 billion barrels of oil remain.

        • 1950 — American Petroleum Institute says world oil reserves are at 100 billion barrels. (See Jean Laherre, Forecast of oil and gas supply)

        • 1956 — M.King Hubbard predicts peak in US oil production by 1970.

        • 1966 – 1977 — 19 billion barrels added to US reserves, most of which was from fields discovered before 1966. (As M.A. Adelman notes: “These fields were no gift of nature. They were a growth of knowledge, paid for by heavy investment.”)

        • 1973 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions due to Middle Eastern politics.

        • 1978 — Petroleos de Venezuela announces estimated unconventional oil reserve figure for Orinoco heavy oil belt at between three and four trillion barrels. (More recent public estimates are in the one trillion range).

        • 1979 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions due to Middle Eastern politics.

        • 1980 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 648 billion barrels

        • 1993 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 999 billion barrels

        • 2000 — Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1016 billion barrels.

        • 2005 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions and heavy new demand

        • 2008 — Oil price spike; supply restrictions and heavy new demand, global economies collapse when oil reaches over $140 USD/bbl.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey RAH! I can just imagine some ship captain out of New Bedford back around 1859. “Oil?! Getting oil out of the ground?! That’s the craziest thing I ever heard of. There AIN’T no whales under the ground!”

    • R. Shearer says:

      It’s just simple supply and demand. Just convert 97% of food into fuel and demand for fuel will fall by about 97% in no time at all.

  18. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “climate change is the perfect pseudoscientific theory because it can never, ever, ever be disproven.” Cruz

    Hot, cold, wet, dry, drought, blizzard, wind, rain, snow, sleet or ice…it’s all ‘global warming’ and it’s all your fault.

  19. When Americans finally realized the socialists could not trust their slaves with nuclear weapons and the Strategic Defense Initiative came into being, communists everywhere published handwringing prophesies that nobody could ever debug a million lines of code and that any attempt to impede the march of dictatorial altruism was doomed to failure. Now those same international and nationalsocialists prefer slanted computer models to the facts of reality.

  20. BobbyK says:

    Hey I really appreciate the responses, they do help, a lot. Still some concerns though, what about the claims that even though sea ice is increasing, land ice is still melting at a dangerous rate. I’ve tried searching land ice on here but all I get are posts about Greenland. Plus claims that the only reason sea ice is increasing is because of other heating that’s going on and even though climate change is cyclical, activity done by us is pushing it too fast and it’s producing a dangerous amount of Co2? I’m not saying I know these claims to be true or false, just asking if evidence can be provided to debunk them

    • RAH says:


      The Arctic is a place where the North pole is more or less surrounded by land masses and the pole it’s self lies under frozen water. Thus most of the ice in the Arctic is sea ice. The melting of sea ice has very little effect on sea levels just as if you have an glass full of water and ice to the brim the water will not overflow even after the ice melts.
      Greenland is the largest mass of land in the region and thus we tend to pay attention to what the ice and snow in that permanently frozen land is doing. We also pay attention to Greenland because those that claim we’re all going to drown because of melting ice claim that Greenland is the “Canary in the Coal Mine”. The hypothesis is that melting of the ice in the Arctic will cause a significant decrease in the Albedo (the proportion of the incident light or radiation that is reflected by a surface, typically that of a planet or moon.) and thus that loss will cause runaway warming. It hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to.

      The fact is that Greenland had much less Ice and was considerably warmer than it is now even just 1,000 years ago when the Norsemen settled, farmed, and lived there for several hundred years.
      From the beginning it has been claimed that the effects of Anthropological global warming were supposed to show up in the Arctic before they did at the Antarctic and that the decrease in albedo would result in a positive feed back loop that would result in catastrophic warming. But that did not happen 1,000 years ago so why would one think it would now? No time in the past known natural history of this planet has CO2 driven the temperature and in fact is appears that actually CO2 spikes AFTER there has been a rise in temperature due to natural variability. Thus why would anyone believe that all of a sudden the rules have changed 180 deg.?

      The Antarctic, is nearly the opposite of the Arctic in that it is a land mass completely surrounded by water/ice. There circumpolar currents of water are stronger than they are at the Arctic being uninterupted by significant land masses and so are the circumpolar air currents. But despite the fact that there is much more land ice that could cause significant sea level rise if it melted at the Antarctic somewhat less attention is paid to it. This because of the AGW hypothesis I mentioned above and because frankly the vast majority of people on this globe live in the northern hemisphere.

      I am going to suggest a book. Not expensive but it provides a tremendous amount of information on the known natural history and our ever changing climate presented in Laymans terms. If you bother to purchase and read it you will know more about these subjects than 90% of the people. It is the book that opened my eyes to much and the basic knowledge gained from it provided enough information that I knew the right questions to ask and thus seek the answers when I read some of the doomsday stuff we are being bombarded from.

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 )

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