But Now You Know

The search for truth in human action

Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009

Climate Change Timeline | History of Economic Downturns8th Grade Final Exam

NEW: 4th Year of Global Cooling, NOAA Says <- Read!

There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…but it’s not what you may think:

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

  • 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again New York Times, February 1895
  • 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 AgeNew York Times, October 1912
  • 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
  • 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, Sept 18, 1924
  • 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
  • 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
  • 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise New York Times, March 27th, 1933
  • 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
  • 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.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
  • 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout 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, August 10th, 1962
  • 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
  • 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be OffFortune Magazine
  • 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, February 20th, 1969
  • 1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as 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 Magazine
  • 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 magazine, who won 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
  • Cassandras are becoming
    increasingly apprehensive,
    for the weather
    aberrations they are
    studying may be the
    harbinger of another
    ice age
  • 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be InevitableNew York Times, May 21st, 1975
  • 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 magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
  • 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
  • 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 thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
  • 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 hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
  • 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, 1998
  • 2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
  • 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?, 2003
  • 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 magazine, May 2006
  • Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for two 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...

Worse still, notice that in 1933 they claim global warming has been going on for 25 years…the entire 25 years they were saying we were entering an ice age. And in 1974, they say there has been global cooling for 40 years…the entire time of which they’d been claiming the earth was getting hotter! 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 permanant, 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, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at 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 at the 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, Monday, September 25, 2006
  • 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, Feb 6, 2007
  • 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 at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes
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.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

PLEASE COMMENT BELOW!

Please give me feedback. Criticism is even more welcome than flattery (which is very welcome).

Much of this data was organized from “FIRE AND ICE“.

NOAA’s global mean temperature data for the past century was gotten from here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Climate Change Timeline | History of Economic Downturns8th Grade Final Exam

79 Comments »

  1. Детали смотрите на моём сайте! Разделы статей в каталоге “Всемирный потоп и глобальное потепление” и “Иллюстрации к глобальному потеплению”

    Comment by Юрий Симонов | December 11, 2009 | Reply

  2. Паниковать незачем. Особенно в последние 50 лет видно даже невооружённым глазом потепление климата. Все эти явления свидетельствуют об окончании ледникового периода на Земле, начавшегося после всемирного потопа. Библия при поддержке данных честной науки приводит нас к выводу о генетической связи глобального потепления со всемирным потопом. Малый ледниковый период подтверждает общую картину, которая включает в себя и дрейф континентов. Потепление идёт по экспоненте как это происходит поздней весной. при наступлении глобального лета придёт Иисус Христос – Хозяин нашей планеты!
    Слава Богу!
    Ей гряди, Господи Иисусе!

    Comment by Юрий Симонов | December 11, 2009 | Reply

  3. [...] Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009 – But Now You Know There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…but it’s not what you may think: For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming. [...]

    Pingback by Ironic Surrealism v3.0 » The Great Global Warming Swindle | November 28, 2009 | Reply

  4. [...] often go to far, showing lists of general media headlines warning about global cooling (examples here and here).  [...]

    Pingback by About those headlines of the past century about global cooling… « Fabius Maximus | November 1, 2009 | Reply

  5. SIMPLE COMMON SENSE TELLS YOU ITS ALL A SCAM FOR FREE MONEY ,NONE OF THERE PREDICITIONS HAVE EVER COME TRUE ,IF C02 WHICH IS NOT A POLLUTANT AND METHANE WHICH IS WERE BUILDING UP ALL THE TIME WE WOULDNT HAVE ANY OXIGEN AT ALL AFTER 4 BILLION YRS BUT METHANE IS NON SUSTAINABLE AND IS KILLED OFF BY THE SUN .

    Comment by jack | October 28, 2009 | Reply

  6. [...] [...]

    Pingback by Climate change is a religious belief - Page 2 | September 20, 2009 | Reply

  7. [...] flopped from warming scares to cooling scares and back again almost at the drop of a thermometer. Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009 But Now You Know shows how the consensus has changed since the end of the 19th century. Do you blame me for being [...]

    Pingback by Climate change is a religious belief | September 20, 2009 | Reply

  8. NO NO NO!!!! way too much common sense. you cant expect the Goracle to understand this. better to be safe than sorry and just tax the snot out of us instead of showing the stupidity of the human collective.

    Comment by brad maynard | September 15, 2009 | Reply

  9. [...] Year of Global Cooling, NOAA Says I was reading over some discussion of the Climate Change Timeline, and realized that people are failing to notice the most important news it [...]

    Pingback by 4th Year of Global Cooling, NOAA Says « But Now You Know | September 11, 2009 | Reply

  10. “It’s the sun, stupid.”

    Comment by bobon | September 11, 2009 | Reply

    • It’s either the sun, or it’s the decline in global dimming.

      I leaned toward global dimming, until we hit this four-year global cooling streak.

      Comment by kazvorpal | September 11, 2009 | Reply

  11. Very interesting discussions. Reminds me of my father who lived to be 99 and saw both sides happening more than once in his lifetime. Lets take what God gives us and learn to use it wisely for His Glory.

    Comment by Verla | August 28, 2009 | Reply

  12. Just like in the 70’s people said 1984 and fareinheigh 451 would be coming true, earth day people predicted that we would be covered in garbage by 1990, and “everyone” is convinced that global warming and refuse collection will kill all of us because we are “polluting everything.” I challenge all to read the GREENING OF AMERICA BY RACHEL CARSON who predicted that soon we would be in a bad way because of chemicals and made fun of the housing developments where children became disoriented because of all of the similarities of the developments. Her dire predictions did not pan out.Nor did those other doomsayers in the 1970’s

    Comment by mary anne cospito | August 24, 2009 | Reply

    • I agree with you, regarding the climate doomsaying; it is akin to the way that doomsday cults make predictions of specific dates, yet when those dates pass, they announce a new date and people somehow keep getting suckered in by it.

      On the other hand, the dystopian scenarios of Orwell and friends are actually based on observations they were making at that time, and are really fairly accurate satires of what was going on in their own day. For example, Orwell witnessed the rise of fascism in Spain, and was aware of the oppression of Stalin’s Soviet Union, which was at least as bad as 1984.

      And we are still moving, gradually, that direction in the US.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 24, 2009 | Reply

      • How do you criticize doomsday cults in one paragraph and make a doomsday suggestion in another?
        How is the United States moving to a dystopia? You’ve said so many intelligent, informed things in this blog about economics, and now you’re making a blatantly retarded statement. I am disappointed in you.
        What are you scared of?

        Comment by What | October 1, 2009 | Reply

        • My statement is slow?

          There is no question that the power of government in the US is expanding, and that natural rights are being violated because of it. Even those who are doing it don’t deny this, they just use Appeal to Cowardice to justify it.

          Sure, we have warrantless wire taps, free speech zones, massive new taxes intended specifically to control our choices, effectively nationalized banks and automakers, et cetera…but it’s all to keep us safe from terrorists, anthropogenic global warming and economic downfall.

          One would have to be completely ignorant of the political facts, in order to deny that it’s happening at all. The only real question is whether it’s justified, or even tolerable.

          Comment by kazvorpal | October 1, 2009 | Reply

  13. Theories are what scientists make. As one scientist may theorize that Climate Change is not occurring or relevant, another may do the opposite. We must use resources and logic to come to our own conclusions. Those that study it (scientists) are the experts and we must trust our intuition on what is true and what is just mere bullshit. Educate yourself without manipulation. Don’t be ignorant and pay attention. My intuition says that it is hard to tell about climate change, but that human habits are disruptive with the rest of nature, and that we must find a balance. Without that balance, the earth will go on, we will not.

    I do believe that there are tangible things that need immediate improvement that there is no argument to: poverty, lack of water (S. Cali, Arizona, New Mexico… all these desserts with thousands of people), over population, over filling landfills…

    By the way I drive a hybrid and there is nothing inefficient about it. The car runs amazing, has incredible turning radius, and gets better gas mileage than any other car in the United States. The jokes really on anyone not driving one… because I guarantee you, Climate Change or not, gas prices are not going down in the long run!

    Comment by Jackie | August 18, 2009 | Reply

    • First, your hybrid is environmentally destructive, because the chemicals used in its batteries require the creation of huge wastelands to extract.

      Here’s a pic of part of the vast wasteland around Sudbury, Canada, because of the extraction of one element in hybrid batteries:

      http://images.quickblogcast.com/14229-13631/nickelmineSudbury.jpg

      Check out how bad even the Prius is:

      http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188

      You are also wrong about landfills. All the trash produced by all Americans, combined, would fit in a tiny corner of one state. The “overfill” is simply that many cities refuse to let the landfills be built.

      And the solution to many problems is the opposite of what inductive reasoning would suggest. For example, the War on Poverty in the 60s and 70s created far more poverty. Giving poor people stuff just traps them in dependency.

      Oh, and you’re mistaken:

      The price of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, will continue to decline, as do most commodity prices most of the time. The price of oil went through the roof, temporarily, because of our insane foreign policy scaring commodities speculators…not because of any imaginary shortage.

      We have far more oil in the global reserve, now, than at any previous time in history, and it will keep increasing faster than we can extract it, because of technology.

      People were imagining we were running out of oil in the late 1970s, too, and yet the price of gas/oil fell throughout the 1980 and 1990s, as supply outpaced demand.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 19, 2009 | Reply

      • Check out how bad the Ford Explorer is:
        http://www.chandlerswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/9-11-1.bmp
        Poorly engineered and inefficient cars fund unstable governments in the Middle East and South America that directly fund terrorism.
        Crude oil, like all resources, is scarce. It will not continue to exist forever unless some means of artificially producing it en masse comes about. Even then resources must be found to produce it, and those will be subject to consumption. No resource is infinite. Economies of scale to produce goods develop and lower prices, but after the resources become more scarce, the price of goods rise again until it is no longer profitable to develop the resource into a good. Prices do not shrink over time.
        By the way, the nickel used in those batteries isn’t just used for the Toyota Prius. It’s also used for stainless steel alloys and chrome finishes. Can you think of all things you own that contain these? The environmental degradation from a single Canadian nickel plant is not the fault of the Toyota Prius alone. Practically any car that has shiny rims shares this fault.
        Here’s the reality of that misconception you and many other people have: http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/pagenum/all/#page_start.
        The Toyota Prius is green. It will become cheaper and greener as time goes by. Demand for them will not go away, and technologies will only improve. Stop being Luddites and deal with the fact that some people don’t like funding terrorism.

        Comment by What | October 1, 2009 | Reply

        • The United States government directly and openly funds those middle east governments that fund terrorism, like Saudi Arabia, which funds the hate schools that train them, and Pakistan, that actually put the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan with our backing.

          Crude oil is not scarce, except in the sense of not being infinite. There is more oil in the Global Reserve today, than there was 30 years ago when we were told it would all run out within a decade.

          What’s more, there’s strong scientific evidence that it’s not actually a “fossil fuel”, but is generated by other means and may be effectively in infinite supply, by human standards:

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm

          If you actually understand economics at all, surely you grasp that supply and demand ensure that any resource that is actually running out will increase in price, which will naturally regulate its use. Either more will be produced, alternatives located, or people will choose to do without. There is no need to force changes in behavior, when the free market does it with relatively perfect efficiency.

          People who buy a chrome-plated pipe don’t have delusions of helping the planet. People who buy a Prius do. When they push to impose their will on others because of this ignorance, they need to be set straight.

          Who fund terrorism through oil are the people who support the bans on extraction of oil in the United States. We have more oil than all but one Islamic country, but most of it is illegal to extract, because of the kind of people you apparently support.

          Comment by kazvorpal | October 1, 2009 | Reply

  14. [...] James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006, See the pattern of ice age/warming claims here This chart shows the alternating claims of coming ice age and global warming, overlaid with [...]

    Pingback by Fear Equals Funding « Words of the Sentient | August 12, 2009 | Reply

  15. I’m an Aussie. Our nation is dying due to climate change. Our view of this type of cherry picked junk science is remarkably patient. Perhaps knowing people profit and rejoice in the misery of others has a way of crystalising priorities.

    Well, Mr. First Blogger [who ironically doesn't have a domain name]. Perhaps deflate that ego, remember that “snapshot trick” [yeah, we get a lot of that down 'ere] is intellectually absurd and present a thesis that is based on facts – not ideology. Google the company you’re in. Which are you? Book of Revelations? Eye on an oil company job? Acquired Brain Injury? Comic farce? Religious ‘figurehead’ – the chosen one syndrome? Or are you in a nut-case category of your own?

    Meanwhile, I’ve got some slop on the shower floor I need to scoop up for cooking tonights dinner.

    Climate change is anthropogenic. To deny it is – as Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty said – a crime against humanity.

    http://atheistage.org/?p=1164

    Yup, up there with HIV/AIDS denial, condom denial, refusal to supply clean syringes to control HIV spread into all communities [also for ideology - god], denial of the Holocaust [also for ideological reasons], failure to vaccinate [also ideology].

    Pseudoscientific piffle and the anthropomorhising of “the other” who dares think differently to you. That’s all I see here mate.

    Comment by Atheist Age | August 5, 2009 | Reply

    • Fortunately, not everyone is as gullible and obedient as you…if you’re actually an atheist, it’s a waste of a lot of blind faith. Then again, certainty that there is nothing supernatural is even more impossible to prove than the global warming myth. But at least having blind faith in atheism doesn’t require coercing other people.

      Robert Heinlein once said, through the character Lazarus Long: “If “everybody knows” such-and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”

      And that, really, is what you Global Warming Faithful are forced to rely upon: “Everyone we worship KNOWS this is true, so it must be!”

      I’ve read the major IPCC report, and much of the other “science” on the subject, have you?

      You link to the blog of some frightened man-child, who is terrified that we will all suffer because a few don’t fall in line and submit to your masters on this or that Article of Faith…was that supposed to convince anyone here?

      The pseudoscience, in this issue, is largely on the side of the Global Warming Profiteers that you worship. Even the “certainty” violates all principles of science, which require that one never lose sight of fallibilism.

      And what, precisely, is it that you think “anthropomorphizing” (which I’m guessing you meant to spell…government schools Down Under must be as lacking as up here), that you would accuse me of doing this to people who think differently than I do?

      Frankly, I think the opposite is true, in this case. I look down on the sheep.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 5, 2009 | Reply

      • You may have read the IPCC report, but unless you’ve actually studied science (the hard kind), you probably don’t understand what it says as well as a real scientist would, therefore your opinion on the report is baseless. You would read over words you don’t understand and interpret them to mean what you heard is true.
        For all us non-scientists, the choice of whether or not global warming is real depends on what we want to believe. For those of us who like big business and don’t like regulation, climate change CAN’T be happening. It is a conspiracy by our enemies to destroy our economy. For everyone else, climate change probably is happening, because a bunch of smart people said so and I noticed it is rather hot out today.

        This observation aside, I like to think of it like this:
        -Is carbon dioxide pollution poisonous and dangerous?
        Yes. If you don’t believe me, inhale your car’s exhaust for a while. Or, just travel to any industrial city in China and observe the lack of sky.
        -Whether global warming is happening or not, is the aim of a preventing carbon dioxide emissions a good idea?
        Yes. Carbon dioxide is not good for us and probably should be produced less. If we find more efficient ways of manufacture without all this CO2, the world might look nicer and people would be healthier.

        You can also think of it in terms of game theory:

        -If global warming isn’t happening, what would be the result in overhauling our economy to produce less carbon?
        At most, a raised cost of entry for businesses who must comply with environmental standards. After increased production of “green” products for business to comply with standards, though, prices would drop. Therefore, the result would be a temporary shock to the business cycle.
        -If global warming is happening, what then?
        We would have suffered economically for a short time in order to preserve the Earth.
        -If global warming isn’t happening, what would happen if we didn’t overhaul our economy?
        Nothing at all. Business as usual, except more pollution.
        -If global warming is happening, what would happen if we didn’t act?
        We are all fucked.

        I hope you don’t call me a sheep. :/

        Comment by What | October 1, 2009 | Reply

        • Where, precisely, would I obtain a “real scientist” to interpret the report? Certainly few “climatologists” are real scientists.

          Not only have I studied hard science, but one can read the report autodidactically, doing the research to understand any part they do not already, as they go through it.

          You are confusing carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, by the way. Carbon dioxide is one of the most important gases on the planet, it is essential to the existence of life as we know it. It is NOT poisonous, except insofar as too much of anything, even water, is.

          And no, the idea of accepting something that may not be true, just because one fears carbon dioxide, is not only foolish, but is literally evil…because the proposed solutions involve violating people’s will, the core definition of “evil”.

          CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem, which is designed specifically to regulate it, to keep it at a certain natural level. It is a negative feedback loop, which is why the level has not gyrated crazily throughout natural history.

          Whether or not global warming is happening, forcing our industries to “overhaul” is economically crippling, to the point of risking the destruction of our entire way of life. If “going green” really were more efficient, then it might be otherwise, but in fact it’s terribly inefficient, which is why it doesn’t occur when people are free to choose.

          Even if global warming were happening, and so far we only have less than one degree of temporary increase in calculated surface temperature, we have no reason to think that these nation-destroying changes would actually stop it.

          Comment by kazvorpal | October 1, 2009 | Reply

    • I stumbled across an interesting quote by another Australian, this morning while checking out referrers to this article:

      Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

      As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

      –Senator Steve Fielding of Australia’s Family First Party

      …so maybe not ALL Australians are sheeple. I wonder how he feels about the peasant-like surrender of firearms by his people.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 11, 2009 | Reply

  16. one shame about this AGW hysteria is that it is accomplishing one of it’s political goals … to encourage us to make better choices when it comes to the environment. true it’s using vast(?) amounts of our tax dollars to achieve this, true there’s fearmongering and bogey-man stories. unfortunately some governments are going completely overboard, intending to be reliant on unreilable renewable sources, and massive expensive now and (i predict) in the future.

    @cmb, i’d ask, can you prove that the ice melting is due to AGW ? which leads to another tennant of the AGW dogma, can we afford to be right ? (ie if this is due to AGW, and we do nothing, and hell freezes over (or boils over), we’re doomed).

    Comment by russell | August 5, 2009 | Reply

    • One can more reasonably say “if we are wrong, and we do something, could we just make things worse?”

      Note that a more likely explanation for the increase in surface temperatures than the greenhouse effect, is the decrease in “global dimming”, which is what they were blaming for the cooling that happened in the 1970s.

      See, the “dimming” was apparently from particles in the atmosphere, reflecting head before it could warm the surface. Those particles declined dramatically by the 1990s, resulting in a reduction of global dimming…and that decline may have been from anti-pollution measures. Meaning that the anti-pollution measures of the 1970s-1980s may have CAUSED “global warming”.

      So what if reducing our greenhouse gas emissions actually did reduce the greenhouse effect, and drive us into an ice age?

      Historically, civilizations fall when the global mean temperature falls, and prosper when it gets warmer.

      But no, this scare is NOT driving us to make better choices. Remember that Going Green is Bad for the Environment:

      http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/going-green-is-bad-for-the-environment/

      Green measures that are BAD:

      * subsidized or mandated recycling
      * avoiding using paper
      * avoiding styrofoam and plastic
      * using biofuels,
      * hydroelectric power

      Hybrids cause far more ecological harm than good.

      CFC replacements, protecting wetlands, and reforestation all PRODUCE GREENHOUSE GAS.

      Buying locally grown food increases your carbon footprint.

      >

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 5, 2009 | Reply

      • surely driving more efficient cars is “good”.

        surely rampant pollution is “bad”.

        i’d accept that most subsidised things (recycling, hybrids, bio-fuels) are ineffective/inefficient.

        i accept that we’ve really very little idea about what is causing climate change because it is so complicated. All the models make simplifying assumptions, and none are making reliable extrapolations (IMHO).

        as for “buying locally” and “CFC replacements” producing greenhouse gases (or carbon footprint) … so what … i don’t accept that this is having an appreciable (or provable) impact on climate change. i’ve read somewhere that most of the ozone hole was caused by solar flares, maybe, maybe not. i think investigating the phenonomen we found CFCs where we didn’t expect them. reducing them (3rd world countries still use them i think) was a reasonable action … the cost was acceptable.

        anyways a couple things are sure … the world’s climate is going to keep changing, people will extrapolate their local conditions (temporal and spatial) and cry “doom” (freezing or boiling), governments will sting us for all the money they can, some people will make bags of money, and some people will regret their actions (however well intentioned).

        Comment by russell | August 6, 2009 | Reply

        • No, driving more efficient cars is not automatically good, any more than adding more fertilizer to your tomato plant’s soil is automatically good.

          I’ve had more than one friend complain that no matter how much they fertilized their tomato plant, it wouldn’t bear fruit…but if a tomato plant has enough fertilizer, it just grows leaves. It doesn’t bear fruit until the fertility declines.

          Smaller cars, literally, kill people:

          http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/its-ok-if-it-kills-people/

          Check out the numbers…THREE TIMES as many owners of compact cars die in accidents, versus mere mid-sized cars.

          While I agree that the global warming “greenhouse gas” thing is nonsense:

          * It’s still noteworthy that the climate change profiteers are being hypocrites, advocating all kinds of other things that go against their mythology.

          * The “ozone hole” was even bigger nonsense. The only significant thinning was the natural one that occurs over the antarctic every winter, purely because there is no sunlight to make more ozone, combined with a huge, dry landmass to create a convection current, cleaning the old ozone out of its normal “layer”. The US was harmed, economically, for no reason whatsoever…conveniently, the big funders of the CFC ban were the very chemical companies that had patents on replacements…and they started lobbying for it right when the patents on the CFCs were running out.

          So far, I’ve seen very few of the fearmongers and profiteers admitting they regret their past, now-disproven, actions. Where are the liars who said we’d be out of oil by 1990? We have MORE oil now than we did when they said that in the seventies. Where are the people who pushed for the economy-crippling pollution controls of the 1970s, now that global dimming’s reversal may be heating up the earth’s surface?

          These kinds of people are sociopaths. They only care for their own selfish benefit.

          Comment by kazvorpal | August 6, 2009 | Reply

  17. You left out the satellite results. The Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenalnd are all rapidly losing ice mass.

    Ice age, indeed. All you guys need to do is explain this away:

    http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/sounder_tutorial/gif/SPECTRA.GIF

    …And you’re in like Flynn.

    Comment by cmb | August 4, 2009 | Reply

    • One of the most famous contextual lies of the global warming profiteers is exactly what you are describing: They take isolated changes in local weather, and pretend it’s a sign of “global warming”. Some glaciers are actually growing faster than ever before…but some others are shrinking. This is because glaciers are ALWAYS in flux…either growing or shrinking. Given a short history of observation, it’s normal for any one glacier to be setting a record.

      But the climate profiteers specifically mention the shrinking ones, as if it were not a local phenomenon, which of course it is.

      When there was a record set of hurricanes, a few years ago, they said “oh, look, this is because of global warming! You must give us more funding lest it get even worse!”, yet when the next few years had a record LOW number of hurricanes, they said nothing.

      In fact, parts of the antarctic ice sheets have set new records, in recent years…yet you hear nothing about that.

      The normal condition of ANY planet is that half of it is abnormally warm, and half is abnormally cool. These fearmongers simply pick local weather from the warm half, and claim it proves doom.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 4, 2009 | Reply

      • Of course glaciers are always either growing or shrinking. You omit the fact that right now, across the globe, well over 90% of them are shrinking. No merely local phenomenon will suffice there, sorry.

        And of course, “their” “saying nothing” about the record low number of hurricanes is simply a falsehood you made up.

        Your reply is based on nothing but your own prejudices. As with all denialists, you wish to argue without evidence. In science, it is the experiment that can be reproduced that rules the day. Contentless blather has no standing, and neither do newspaper articles.

        If you redo your list above using scientific sources, instead of popular press and denialists, your althernating-theories phenomenon will vanish instantly.

        Comment by cmb | August 6, 2009 | Reply

        • No, in fact a reproduceable experiment is NOT what rules the day, in science.

          If it were, then many kinds of junk science would be “science”, like some forms of new age healing.

          In fact, what is required in actual science is that you produce a model, a test that is guaranteed to prove the model wrong if it is in error, and then if that test does indeed fail, throw out the model.

          Climate profiteers, of course, have done nearly the opposite…their models failed 100% of the time, originally…so they imply adjusted the equations to match the outcomes, until they would appear to work, but without changing the underlying model. If that were valid, then it would be easy to prove that dryads live in willow trees, a single molecule of duck flesh can cure the flu, et cetera.

          And note, by the way, that the stories above are often written BY “climate scientists”, meteorologists, et cetera, and certainly cite the opinions and “science” of them. ALL of the New York Times articles are available online and linked to, many of the others you can find yourself (and send me the link, if you do).

          Comment by kazvorpal | August 6, 2009 | Reply

  18. ‘But now you Know’

    Well actually we don’t know yet.

    I used to think AGW was all a big fuss as the ‘facts’ didn’t fit the ‘theory’.

    Then I took the trouble to read through climate history written by someone with a little more knowledge than the newspaper reporters whose job is to look for headlines rather than explain good science.

    If anybody has an attention scan that can lasts longer than just browsing newspaper headlines, I recommend:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    The jury really is still out, and will take decades to decide.

    Comment by Paul | August 4, 2009 | Reply

    • Yes, the only valid scientific stance is that we don’t know.

      And, not knowing, we definitely should not coerce people and cripple economies “just in case”.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 4, 2009 | Reply

  19. Nice job! Best collection I’ve seen.

    Comment by Bob Strauss | August 4, 2009 | Reply

  20. I had not see this complete of a list of MSM hysteria before. Thanks.

    Out of curiosity, which web site did you pull Fahrenheit temps from for your chart? (I’d like to download that data.)

    BTW, I maintain a large grouping of charts at my site, http://www.c3headlines.com if anyone wants to see more damning evidence against the AGW hype.

    C3H Editor

    Comment by C3H Editor | August 3, 2009 | Reply

    • The Global Mean Temp chart above links directly to my source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

      NOAA’s own data.

      What I did was download it and script a little Centigrade-Fahrenheit converter.

      I should take a moment to sneer at centigrade, while I’m at it…of all the metric system, it’s the most useless. It simply widens the gap between degrees, making the granularity slightly less useful, meanwhile it’s no more objective, still using the freezing and boiling points of water just like Fahrenheit, AND there’s no benefit to it being decimal, as you’re not going to be converting between it and meters or grams.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 3, 2009 | Reply

      • I think sneering at a measurement system is a little odd, it feels like sneering at decimals, fractions or percentages.

        What would be more informative is to put four graphs side by side – Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit (I forget the name of the absolute scale that corresponds to Fahrenheit divisions) and let folks pick their own.

        I favour absolute scales personally, because people seem to have a lot of trouble with understanding that 20 degrees is not twice as warm as 10 degrees.

        A fun collection of headlines though, I had a great laugh. AGW has it all really, both death and taxes, for everyone! Must go, my laughter is becoming hysterical…

        Comment by darren | August 5, 2009 | Reply

        • I sneer at the coercive nature of the metric system in general, but especially when its advocates’ sole rationale for forcing it on everyone falls flat.

          Overall, a binary system is far more effective. Unfortunately, Fahrenheit is not that…but at least it has finer granularity than centigrade.

          Comment by kazvorpal | August 5, 2009 | Reply

  21. How about the REAL tree hugers stand up. They are NOT WHO THEY SEEM. Carbon TAX, NO Drilling in N America (but the east can drill HERE with no stink from YOU). None of this is cool with me and I AM Loving my land. FAKES!Plant a few trees and quit buying into the sucker controlism (yes I just made that up). Real liberals don’t camp or hunt or fish or conserve… they blame…BLINDLY. LOL

    Comment by Tony | August 3, 2009 | Reply

  22. Excellent piece.

    Can I just point out to anyone who doesn’t realise – this idea that “global warming” has been changed to “climate change” is not a good debating point – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in the 1980s, so it’s hardly a recently invented term.

    Comment by mark | August 3, 2009 | Reply

    • It is within the last two years that climate pseudoscientists have started really pushing to replace the phrase “global warming” with “climate change”, though…and for good reason, since we’ve had two years of global cooling; they need to start emphasizing that ALL change is bad.

      Comment by kazvorpal | August 3, 2009 | Reply

      • But change is bad – it requires thinking to adapt to it.

        Comment by dietwaldclaus | October 24, 2009 | Reply

  23. [...] Via But Now You Know [...]

    Pingback by An Honest Climate Debate « The World As I See It | August 2, 2009 | Reply

  24. [...] Custom Search But Now You Know has a interesting post on the history of climate change hysteria. Be sure to check out the entire post. [...]

    Pingback by Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009 | August 2, 2009 | Reply

  25. [...] Via But Now You Know [...]

    Pingback by Climate Change Alarmism Timeline 1895-2009 « An Honest Climate Debate | August 2, 2009 | Reply

  26. “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
    hope that means being both.”

    Comment by Mike | July 31, 2009 | Reply

    • Which are you? A scientist or propagandist? You cannot be both. As a scientist you should tell it as it is warts and all, the data and models? should be reproducible by others. As you know temperature data, gathered at public expense, is being withheld in highly dubious circumstances, that in itself is suspicious.
      You do not have to offer up scare stories, you are a free man having free will to decide between right and wrong, a lesson you seem to have missed.

      Comment by Derek W. Buxton | August 4, 2009 | Reply

      • You are addressing me?

        I am not the one offering up scary stories; in fact what I am doing is debunking them.

        The climate pseudo-scientists are the ones offering up unscientific, scary stories.

        The media is the one accepting them at face value, even going to far as to repress rebuttals from real scientists opposing the bad methodology of them.

        What I am doing is laying out the facts, so you can see this happening.

        Comment by kazvorpal | August 4, 2009 | Reply

        • No, I was addresing Mike who appeared to want to be on both sides. He seemed to be condoning the people who insist that the question is settled, which it isn’t.
          Sorry, an unintentional blunder on my part.

          Derek

          Comment by Derek W. Buxton | August 5, 2009 | Reply

          • No, that was my fault; the blog owner interface doesn’t show me the context of the comment, like who the reply was to, so I thought it was another root reply to myself.

            Comment by kazvorpal | August 6, 2009 | Reply

  27. If the amazon jungle was replaced by a desert the soil would dry out and the CO2 cycle would slow also the microbs O2 needs would fall and the atmosphere would heat up. Where are you going with this?

    Comment by jrbudinski | July 30, 2009 | Reply

    • I am illustrating the absolute falseness of the claim that the amazon jungle is important to the earth’s oxygen needs. In fact, it doesn’t even produce enough oxygen to meet its own consumption needs.

      Thats why that biodome experiment failed…because the very bacteria in the soil, even in relatively cool and dry conditions in the experiment, consumed more oxygen than the land plants could create.

      Comment by kazvorpal | July 30, 2009 | Reply

  28. So I guess we don’t have any new tools or data about the science behind global warming at right, I mean come on now how much new stuff have we really discovered in the past 10 years or 150 for that matter… I mean electricity and cars and stuff aside we really don’t have anything to assure us we’ve got more smarts than we did 5 years to 500 years… I mean for crap sakes we still use our legs to walk and our mouths to talk.. Surely we are clueless apes..

    Comment by Erich Nolan Bertussi Davies | July 30, 2009 | Reply

    • Thank you for making another point against the global warming fearmongering, Erich.

      In fact, we have radically more accurate instruments now, and yet the pseudoscientists act like they know, within one tenth of a degree, what the global mean temperature was 150 years ago…when, in fact, they don’t even know within that factor what it is now, despite better technology. They still only take the temperatures around weather stations, and average them together in a way they wildly guess MIGHT represent the global mean.

      Comment by kazvorpal | July 30, 2009 | Reply

  29. One can make any graph look pointless by adjusting the scale. The only difference between a heatwave and an ice age is a few degrees so your scale is purposely deceptive.

    Also, why are only media sites listed as references and not actual scientific journals, especially considering how much we know the media hypes and distorts everything?

    Comment by James | July 30, 2009 | Reply

    • No, the global warming terrormongers are purposely deceptive. And I say that as someone who worked with them in the past.

      Their ridiculous scale, showing this huge increase that actually adds up to less than a single degree is insanely deceptive.

      And yes, the media hypes and distorts everything…which is the point. That’s what people are falling for, today. Note that the media is also citing scientists and journals, and in fact some of the entries ARE journals.

      Comment by kazvorpal | July 30, 2009 | Reply

  30. There is a real big row developing in one of the American journals that may just be the “turning point” to this mass hysteria / brainwashing. Best covered at WUWT to my knowledge so far,
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/

    and as another really well written piece / article that explains the Hockey Stick fiasco, which is one of the main AGW fiasco building blocks let’s be honest, I suggest,
    http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

    Comment by Derek | July 30, 2009 | Reply

  31. That really puts things into perspective, eh? It’s amazing how fast the opinion changed between warming and “new ice age” as well, several times within the space of a couple of years.

    And yes, I suspect they will soon be crying about global cooling. That’s why it’s no longer global warming, it’s “climate change” and “climate chaos.” They want to have plausible deniability when the weather inevitably shifts against what they’ve been saying all along.

    Comment by Illumnarch | July 30, 2009 | Reply

    • Yes, they started going out of their way to call it “climate change” about two years ago, when the global mean temperature began to decline. This shows that they are not simply wrong and easily panicked, but greedy, disingenuous, and corrupt.

      Comment by kazvorpal | July 30, 2009 | Reply

  32. slightly off topic: i remember being at school in the 70s… by now we shouldn’t have any oil left…

    Comment by gordon | July 28, 2009 | Reply

    • Yes, some bureaucrat came to my grade school and showed us on a computer-like device, how we’d be out of oil very soon, and that we must use alternative energy, cut our energy uses, et cetera, in order to not run out of energy by 1988 or so.

      The big irony is that we, now, have MORE oil than we did back then. This is because there is far more oil undiscovered, than all the oil we’ve ever known about, and probably will be for some time…and they knew this, back then.

      In fact, they exploited the artificial shortage of the embargo to create the FALSE impression of declining oil supplies, when if they were experts, they had to know it was untrue.

      Of course they did the same thing during the speculative oil price bubble, last year.

      Comment by kazvorpal | July 28, 2009 | Reply

      • Well, we may not be running out of oil anytime soon, but I’m pretty sure there is only like, I don’t know, one acre of rain forests left. I mean, if my science teacher in junior high had her numbers right.

        Comment by Stuart | July 30, 2009 | Reply

        • I hope you’re being sarcastic.

          In fact, the amazon jungle is gigantic, which is why they are able to make it sound like it’s shrinking so quickly…by posting raw numbers instead of percentages.

          And, for the record, the amazon jungle contributes NO net oxygen to our breathable atmosphere. The very soil under its trees consume more oxygen than the trees produce. That soil also produces more CO2 than the trees consume.

          If you replaced all of the amazon jungle with desert…which I would oppose doing anyway…you would actually end up with a net gain in oxygen, a net loss in CO2. Of course there is a negative feedback loop in the oceans that makes up for this, either direction.

          Comment by kazvorpal | July 30, 2009 | Reply

          • It was sarcasm completely. Bogus numbers are bogus.

            Comment by Stuart | July 31, 2009 | Reply

      • I think your missing the point of the whole “Curb our oil addiction” bit. Truth is, we don’t know how much is left. However, we know the supply will run out eventually and it would be best not to be caught with our pants down.

        Comment by Steven | August 4, 2009 | Reply

        • It seems to me that you are implying that pretending that we need to cut carbon emissions in order to fight global warming is an acceptable way to scare people into complying with addressing your concern that we might be running out of oil.

          Is this true?

          Comment by kazvorpal | August 4, 2009 | Reply

        • It seems to me that prices will induce individuals to curb their own ‘addiction’ to oil. As the supply of oil falls, or the expected future supply falls, we will see a rise in prices. At higher prices, new technologies become more feasible, and R&D for new technologies becomes profitable. If we don’t expect oil supply to fall, then their doesn’t seem to be a reason to ‘curb our addiction’. Unless it’s pollution your worried about. In which case, like the great majority of the world’s problems, over pollution is only a symptom of poorly defined property rights.

          Comment by Jesse | August 11, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment