Out of the frying pan into the fridge: the hysterical record of climate change

Since Queen Victoria’s time, climate “scientists” have been telling us climate change was going to kill us. But they keep changing their minds on whether we’re going to fry or freeze.

The media, of course, are happy either way, as long as they can scare us into reading all about it.

Read this timeline and weep — or steam. (Blue you freeze, red you fry.)

It’s nearly all from the interesting site But Now You Know — The Search for Truth in Human Action .

The Ever-Changing Climate Change Timeline

1895
 Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again 
New York Times

1902
Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with
a persistency that means their final annihilation…
scientific fact…surely disappearing.
 
Los Angeles Times

1912
Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
New York Times

1923
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada
Chicago Tribune

That scientist was Professor Gregory of Yale University, the US representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress.

1923
The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the
southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given
rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age
 
Washington Post

1924
MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age 
New York Times

1929
Is another ice age coming?
Los Angeles Times

1932
“If these things be true, it is evident,
therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age”
The Atlantic
This Cold, Cold World

1933
America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776;
Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
 
New York Times

 So now they claim global warming’s been going on for 25 years. Yet for that whole 25 years, they were warning of an ice age.

1933
“…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward
warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” 
Federal Weather Bureau

1938
Global warming, caused by man heating the planet
with carbon dioxide “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind
in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”

Royal Meteorological Society

1938
“Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago
is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world
which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward
warmer climate in the last two decades.” 
Chicago Tribune

1939
“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they
were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that
the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
Washington Post

1952
“…we have learned that the world has been
getting warmer in the last half century.”
New York Times

1954
“…winters are getting milder, summers drier.
Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.”
U.S. News and World Report

1954
Climate – the Heat May Be Off
Fortune

1959
“Arctic Findings in Particular Support
Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
New York Times

1969
“…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that
the ocean at the North Pole may become
an open sea within a decade or two”
New York Times

1969 
“If I were a gambler, I would take even money
that England will not exist in the year 2000″
Paul Ehrlich

(Erlich now predicts doom from global warming, so this
quote gets an honorable mention, even though he was
talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

1970
“…get a good grip on your long johns, cold
weather
haters – the worst may be yet to
come…
there’s no relief in sight”
Washington Post

1974
Global cooling for the past forty years
Time

 Huh? But for just about all of the previous forty years (whizz back to 1934) they’d been saying the earth was getting hotter!

 1974
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming
increasingly apprehensive, for the weather
aberrations they are studying may be
the harbinger of another ice age.”
Washington Post

1974
“As for the present cooling trend a number of leading
climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed”
Fortune
(Winner of a Science Writing Award
from the American Institute of Physics
for its analysis of the danger)

1974
“…the facts of the present climate change are such that
the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty
to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation,
and probably anarchy and violence.” 
New York Times

1975
Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing;
A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
New York Times

1975
“The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside
nuclear war
as a likely source of wholesale death
and misery for mankind.”

Nigel Calder
Editor, New Scientist

in International Wildlife

1976
“Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend”

U.S. News and World Report

1979
The Cooling of America

Time

1981
Global Warming “of an almost unprecedented magnitude”
New York Times

1988
“I would like to draw three main conclusions.

“Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than
at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.

“Number two, the global warming is now large enough that
we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause
and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

“And number three, our computer climate simulations
indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large
enough to begin to
effect the probability of extreme
events such as summer heat waves.”

Jim Hansen
Testimony before Congress

(For context, see His later quote
and His superior’s objection)

1989
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound
to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must
include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human
beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world
a better place, which in this context translates into our working
to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that we need to get some broad based support, to
capture the public’s imagination. That, of course,
means getting loads of media coverage.

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make
little mention of any doubts we might have.

This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find
ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.

Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
I hopethat means being both.”
Stephen Schneider
Lead author 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Discover

1990
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue.  Even if the theory
of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing –
in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Senator Timothy Wirth

1993
“Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall
patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain
consequences for agriculture.”
U.S. News and World Report

1998 
No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . .
climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity
to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart
Canadian Minister of the Environment
Calgary Herald

2001 
“Scientists no longer doubt that global warming
is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact
that humans are at least partly responsible.” 
Time

2003
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been
appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-
makers were relatively unaware of the global warming
issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil
and tar sands were receiving strong consideration”
Jim Hansen
NASA global warming activist
Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?

2006
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation
of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,
as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are, and how hopeful
it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Al Gore
Grist

2006
BE WORRIED. BE VERY WORRIED.
Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s
already damaging the planet at an alarming pace.
Time

Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

The actual Global Warming Advocates' chart, overlayed on the "climate change" hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it clear that they take any change and claim it's going to go on forever and kill everyone, but notice that they often get the trend wrong...
 

The actual Global Warming Advocates’ chart, overlayed on the
“climate change” hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it
 clear that they take any change and claim it’s going to go on
forever and kill everyone, but notice that they even
sometimes get the short-term trend wrong.

Of course NOW they are talking about the earth “warming for
the past century”, again ignoring that they spent much of
that century claiming we were entering an ice age.

The fact is that the mean temperature of the planet is,
and should be, always wavering up or down, a bit,
because this is a natural world, not a climate-controlled office.

So there will always be some silly bureaucrat, in his air-
conditioned ivory tower, who looks at which way it’s
going right now, draws up a chart as if this is permanent,
realizes how much fear can increase his funding, and proclaims
doom for all of humanity.

2006
“It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming
over the past century.
The earth is always warming or cooling,
at least a few tenths of a degree…”

Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology
MIT

2006
“What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary
school science.
Climate always changes. It is always…
warming or cooling, it’s never stable.
And if it were stable,
it would actually be interesting scientifically because it

would be the first time for four and a half billion years.”
Philip Stott
Emeritus professor of bio-geography
University of London

2006
“Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling 
and 
warming scares during four separate and sometimes
overlapping time periods.
From 1895 until the 1930′s the media
peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920′s until the 1960′s
they warned of global warming.
From the 1950′s until the 1970′s
they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern
global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt
to promote
opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.”

Senator James Inhofe

2007
“I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and
three members
of the Canadian government, the environmental
cabinet, came up afterwards
and said, ‘We agree with you,
but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’
So what’s being
created is a huge industry with billions of dollars
of
government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.”

Dr. Tim Ball
Coast-to-Coast

2008
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated  NASA’s
official
agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did
not know enough to forecast
climate change or mankind’s
effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by
coming
out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his
testimony before Congress”

Dr. John S. Theon
Retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program 
NASA

Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global Warming Advocates' own chart, rendered in actual degrees like sane people use. I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making the temperature range much narrower.

 
Next time you see the usual “global warming” chart, look
carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE 
global warming is less than six tenths of one degree.

Here is the Global Warming Advocates’ own chart,
rendered in actual degrees like sane people use.
I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer,
but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED
the Climate Change side by making the temperature
range much narrower, and the chart needlessly
tall to stretch the up-down differences in the line.

JA: I made this other picture as a variation on the one at the top:

 
About these ads
Published in: on August 13, 2011 at 1:24 am  Comments (8)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fridge-the-hysterical-record-of-climate-change/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. The prostitution of science has been going on for quite a while. Dante’s twins: Morst & Forst being the pimps in modern science debasement.

  2. I am struck by fear.Will I freeze tomorrow or overheat next year?
    The end of the world is nigh.
    I think someone was saying that in Hyde park when I was there in 1980.

    JA: What annoys me is how they frighten the children.

  3. I agree that the media and some commentators are prone to hysterics. Look at that NBR editorial you posted and your subsequent commentary as a prime example. Laughable! But you’re right it does frighten little children.

  4. And some people make science their religion.

    Talk about building on sand!!

  5. To me I don’t just see scare tactics – I also see a psychological grooming. I mean seriously, I had NO IDEA they have been dropping these little head liners into the brains of the generations since 1895!!!!

  6. NZCPR Guest Forum

    Barry Brill

    4 September 2011

    Confidence in climate scientists plummets

    In a Rasmussen national telephone survey of American adults conducted last month, 69% say it’s likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Only 6% say it is not at all likely.

    Graphic kindly provided by International Climate Science Coalition.

    This is a shocking result. Not long ago, scientists consistently polled as the most trusted profession of all. Now they are dismissed as cheats.

    This is the outcome of several years of a globally-orchestrated PR campaign in which all government-funded scientists declared in unison “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Several years of filtering “non-mainstream” opinions, refusing debates and ad hominem attacks on sceptics.

    Several years of endless mainstream media stories claiming it’s “worse than previously thought” accompanied by “might” and “could” flights of fancy. Several years of solemn assurances regarding “multiple lines of evidence”, but never a fingerprint or even a peer-reviewed paper – let alone a smoking gun.

    This will become a case study for communications classes. That huge and famous New York PR firm grossly under-estimated and insulted the intelligence of its audience. They overlooked the wisdom of crowds. Surrounded by elitist group-think, they never tapped in to the discussions by the water-cooler, or in the pub, or over the barbecue.

    Another surprise is the level of outright disbelief in the face of the never-changing mantra “there is a scientific consensus.” Sometimes spun as “90% (or even 97%) of scientists believe …”

    The Rasmussen poll finds that one person in four believes that scientists agree on global warming – while 57% believe that there is significant disagreement within the scientific community.

    It’s ironic that these results came out in the very same week as the failed PR programme reached its apogee in New Zealand. The Rasmussen poll must surely deliver a very clear message to the Green Party, which pulled out of a Q&A debate against Lord Monckton on the grounds that “the debate is over.” And to Greenpeace, which persuaded Close-up to decline on similar grounds. And to the Auckland Council’s Treasury Department, which sent a 12-page letter to a private club defaming its guest and declaring “the science is settled.” And to the Herald, which found a Melbourne psychologist to heap insults on Lord Monckton and inveigh against coverage of “fringe” opinions.

    That same week also saw Science Media highlight a quote from the DomPost’s agricultural reporter, Jon Morgan:

    “As reporters, we should not ignore [challenging views], but we should be careful of crossing the line into dangerous territory. We don’t want to put uncertainty into readers’ minds when the science is clear or make radical views appear to be mainstream.”

    How patronising is this? Is this reporter peddling propaganda or news? Does he feel he has a Pravda-like mission to re-educate readers? Did it occur to him that adult readers just might want to form their own opinions about what is “clear” and what is questionable?

    Mr Morgan’s level of iconoclasm is almost guaranteed to deliver perverse results. Nobody wants sermons from their daily paper. Editors don’t seem to realise how transparent (and boring) they are when they cleave relentlessly to the party line. Most readers lean against it and arrive at an opposite conclusion.

    Repetitive reporting of perceived future horrors is particularly boring. Everybody knows the science is as chaotic as the weather. There are not just two viewpoints – for or against – as in politics. A Latin tag comes to mind (perhaps because I mentioned Lord Monckton) – quot homines, tot sententiae – there are as many opinions as there are people.

    But political correctness has robbed the reportage of all nuance and depth. Pick up a three-year-old newspaper and you’ll read exactly the same head-banging as was served up last week.

    And now two out of three Americans think climate scientists are “cooking the books.” Gallup polled people in 111 countries and found that most of the world did not “believe in” human-caused climate change.

    All sides of the debate know that public opinion polls are important. In the final analysis, they will influence the politicians more than any scientific refinements (short of a paradigm shift). But the polls everywhere have been uni-directional for two years in a row. The well-funded campaign based on “we know best” paternalism has been exposed as a bankrupt failure.

    Article copied from http://www.nzcpr.com/guest257.htm

    JA: Without the blogosphere, this couldn’t have happened. Keep doing what you’re doing, folks.

  7. Public Opinion Polls? Opinion massagers. Spin doctors. Champions.

    Bah! Humbug. I vomit in their general direction. As Television and now social meddling (media) is the nouveau opiate of the masses, so public perception is the new doyen of NZ’s deception denizens.

    “It doesn’t matter if you have no experience of . . . . , it’s your perceptions we’re interested in,” goes the modern mantra of the corporate ego manipulators.

    Bah! Humbug! Again.

    As a nation we lost our senses,
    simultaneously and collectively;
    to regain them as a people, slowly,
    one at a time.

  8. hehehehe ;-)


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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 191 other followers

%d bloggers like this: