Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London, points out that in AD1200 Britain was so warm that the Normans made wine in the Welsh Marches.
“Every generation has had an apocalyptic climate myth. The Noah’s flood myth is a classic,” Stott said.
“When the Danes were trying to get Queen Anne of Denmark across to marry King James of Scotland, they couldn’t get her across, year in, year out, because of atrocious storms. They put it down to witchcraft. Then between 1970 and 1990 we were terrified that we were plunging into another ice age.
“The language of climate change is also becoming religious. Part of the myth is that it has to be our sin that causes it. The second part of the myth is that you have to offer up a sacrifice — and here we have to flagellate ourselves, cut down on products, stop the car, actually sacrifice to the earth.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- arn on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Greg in NZ on Ellen Flees To The UK
…and there is still a vinyard in the Welsh Marches today at Wroxeter (site of a Roman city) in Shropshire, I cycled past it this morning.
Ah yes, the myth of the religious nature of science.
Funny Steve, you have forgotten to post all those scare stories of the coming ice age between 1977 and 1990, since i am sure this guy would NEVER exaggerate.
I am still waiting for someone to post more ice age scare stories in the 70’s than I found for North Korea nuclear scare stories for May, 2010.
Al Gore invented the Internet in 1970, but it drowned when sea level flooded Hansen’s Manhattan office. All of the 1970s Internet records were lost.
Steve,
Ah, that explains it. Sounds like another peer reviewed paper for you to write!
Tony Duncan?
Have you used other names to post comments here?
Amino,
Nope never posted as other than Tony Duncan. Nothing to hide.
That Forbes article has climate trolls aplenty all over the comments page. Perhaps the trolls are sponsored by Media Matters and/or the Tides Foundation. The trolls are claiming that CAGW was the backbone of science for over 200 years. I guess that’s why when the 20th centuries temps were falling for 4 decades guys like Stevie Schneider were spreading ice age alarmism.
Joe, at the risk of being censored for constantly repeating the truth,
the ONLY reason Schneider suggested cooling was because there WAS cooling that was attributed to aerosols from pollution. Schneider ALWAYS considered AGW, just didn’t give it quite as much agency as others, and he did not consider the large reduction in pollution from developed countries..
And as stated above, I found more articles about the Korean nuclear threat in one month than I have seen posted for a decade of “ice age alarmism”.
Sorry Bud, I can’t just brush off when a purported expert does a complete 180 from peddling one crisis to peddling the opposite crisis. I see a guy that for some reason needs a crisis. If someone tried to pull that kind of 180 in any other (read legitimate) industry they’d be laughed off the stage no matter how reasonable the explanation.
As far as the Korea media coverage deal. The media is 100 times more prolific now than it was in the 70’s. Anything found out about the 70’s has to be scrounged from archives. In terms of media the 70’s impending ice age crisis was real I was alive during that period. Also you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Stevie Schneider was a very arrogant and strident person even by warmist standards.
OMG – what a hero. You have exposed how I forced Hansen to predict that Manhattan would drown.
Schneider suggested cooling was because there WAS cooling that was attributed to aerosols from pollution.
Tony, you conveniently ignore the fact that Schneider and the other experts were hopelessly wrong then but expect us to trust them totally now.
How convenient!
Steve,
as long as you don’t say he predicted it in 2008 and neglect to mention the doubling of CO2 we are on solid ground.
What kind of moron (or charlatan) would have predicted a doubling of CO2 in 20- 40 years from 1988?
Steve,
Obviously Hansen is the kind of moron who would predict flooding of the westside highway due to sea level rise from global warming in 42 years with a doubling of CO2 during that period.
Equally obviously NO ONE was enough of a moron to do so in 20 years. But here I am again, threatening to get banned for being accurate with the facts.
You are avoiding the question. Why is Hansen going to the press trying to scare people with scenarios that can not possibly happen?
Is he dishonest, or just severely lacking in intelligence??
Steve,
I am not avoiding anything. You can call it what you like as long as you are not attributing things that didn’t happen.
As I have shown you repeatedly Hansen was RESPONDING to a question of doubling of CO2, he did not bring it up.
and while I do not think his most extreme scenarios are at all likely, it is stretching things to say they are impossible. As Mike and others have pointed out there have been rather rapid shifts in local climate, such as the YD that had profound effects on things like sea level.
he is clearly responding to what he sees as a lack of action regarding the effects of a large GHE, and has said what he considers to be conceivable consequences, and has specifically stated that they are not based on accepted current scientific models.
i find it remarkably similar to those that are saying that actions to mitigate ACC are going to destroy the economies of the world and lead to an authoritarian socialist takeover. That is certainly not impossible, but it is not something I think anyone should take seriously at this point.
Honest answer – *CO2 can’t double that quickly*
Dishonest answer – flooding, high winds, heat, crime, windows blown out, crime, changes in fauna
Complete bullshit from Hansen, and you defend him. Pathetic.
Tony
You are still avoiding the inconvenient truth that Schneider was wrong.
How convenient!
Paul,
How can I be avoiding something if I am acknowledging it?
Show me a scientist who wasn’t wrong about something and I will guarantee you he isn’t a scientist.
the key thing is WHY was he wrong, and does he acknowledge that. Both Schneider and Hansen have understood both those things, at least in the particular cases we are talking about.
Steve,
I am NOT defending Hansen. I am just countering your distortions by providing the actual facts. I have never said Hansen was right about any of this, THAT would be defending him.
You are right on the verge of back to spam. You are completely irrational and you repeat the same crap over and over and over and over again.
Steve,
it is your blog and you can censor whoever you want for whatever reason. While you constantly accuse me of repeating the same crap over and over again, you do not offer anything to counter the facts as I state them.
As for CO2 doubling by 2040 from 1988, I agree that a more appropriate response from Hansen would have been to say that it would take an fantastic increase in CO2 production to cause something like that. But again HE did not suggest it.
Obviously what I am saying is not irrational or you would explain how my facts are wrong. You never do so, so cutting off my comments is just plain censorship. But again you are entitled to that, it is your blog
Hansen is full of crap, and you appear to be too.
Steve,
then point out which facts I have stated that are wrong.
Repeat after me :
Hansen made idiotic unsupportable predictions. They are Hansen’s responsibility and no one else’s. Blaming other people for Hansen’s behavior is a sign of a weak mind.
Steve,
and if someone was doing that you would have every reason to criticize them for it.
I have never blamed any one for attacking Hansen’s predictions, just insisted they attack his real ones.
He forecast that Manhattan would drown. What part of that don’t you understand?
Steve,
he forecast the West Side highway would be underwater, by 2030 with a doubling of CO2 by then. he did not specify exactly what that meant. Did he mean storm surge flooding, or actual sea level rise of a meter or more? it was an off the cuff remark, and you are perfectly within your rights to ridicule him for that. I have said that over and over again. You are free to attack him for his actual statements.
A storm surge on the Hudson River? ROFL
“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Not this again.
Steve,
you aren’t quoting from the thoroughly discredited Salon article again are you?
Am I going to have to explain to all your readers why you are lying AGAIN?
(Glacierman, cue the threatening violin music)
Oh right, Hansen never said any of those things. I hacked the web site and put all that stuff there.
“When did he say this will happen?
Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.
Does he still believe these things?
Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.”
Steve,
OK. let’s look at this rationally.
1. 13 years after an interview, maybe a year after writing the BOOK which has the ACTUAL quote, Reiss (not Hansen, REISS)has a phone interview with a leftist magazine.
2. Off the top of his head he quote Hansen.
3. The article is printed. The article HIGHLIGHTS the book. it mentions the book numerous times. It lists all the publication information and even has a LINK to buy the book. the article is a PLUG for the book. the book is printed BEFORE the article.
4. 8-9 years later right wing bloggers unearth this quote, which had almost no notice up to this point, and they proceed to ridicule Hansen for saying Manhattan would be underwater by 2008.
5. There is NO OTHER INSTANCE of Hansen saying this. NONE. There is nothing in his writings that support such a statement.
6. in early 2011, Reiss, publicly states that he had misquoted Hansen. He apologized and explained that it was a casual interview and he had not used his notes (or the book). Hansen publicly states that he was misquoted.
7. The book (which I have read) has a similar quote, but says 2030, and also says If there was a doubling of CO2 by then. The QUESTION was ASKED by Reiss to Hansen. So hansen was being asked to speculate.
8. Steve continues to post that Hansen said Manhattan would be underwater by 2008. He does waffle on this occasionally, but then he posts things like the comment above. The quote is proven to be wrong. Both Reiss, Hansen and the BOOK say it is wrong.
9. (repeat of #5 for emphasis) There is no other documented case of Hansen saying anything like the quote Steve keeps posting about. There is no documented case of Hansen being asked about this particular quote and him saying that he said it.
10. there is no evidence whatsoever that the quote form Salon is right, so continuing to print it as accurate is printing a lie.
11. Whenever Steve prints this lie and I see it, I feel obligated to present that actual facts. last time Steve censored me when I did so, and there were numerous comments after my last comment that completely misunderstood the facts and I was unable to correct them.
So you think that Hansen predicated one garbage prediction on a second garbage prediction – and that nullifies both of them in your mind. Brilliant logic.
Steve,
Who are you talking to? it can’t be me, your last comment has nothing to do with anything I have said.
I have repeatedly said you have every right to ridicule him for the things he actually says.
I have never said anything agreeing with the validity of Hansen’s predictions. IF your recent posts are correct that sea level is not increasing or is in fact decreasing., in a few years you will be hailed as one of the visionaries that stood up to the crazed Hansen and all those global warming idiots. In which case you don’t ned to perpetrate a lie about something that you are sure is already crazy regardless of the date or amount of CO2.
I really have no idea where you are coming from. His predictions – whatever the details you are obsessing over – were ridiculous alarmist tripe.
TonyD:
You need to AGAIN find the list of climate trends over the recorded period of history. In the 70s it was the fad to blame human released particulate matter for natural cooling just as it has been the recent fad to blame a natural trend of warming on CO2. These “TRENDS” towards warming and cooling have been going on since the earth has had a climate. there are short term tends , medium term trends , long term trends and even longer term trends all mixed together . Separating the various signals can be done and many have found the signal they were searching for. Most considered the other signals to be noise as the signal they found supported their pet theory.
Hansen’s problem was to latch onto the beginning of the warming trend and extrapolate it out as a given without considering the existence of variations in long term weather patterns of 60 to 80 years.
How long does it take the water to cool off to room temperature when you remove the heat under a boiling pot?
How long does it take water to boil from a frozen state using a sterno can?
Mike,
those are all very reasonable assertions.
Paul,
neither I nor the other experts ignore that they were wrong. I have clearly stated they were wrong. Schneider has as well. So has hansen regarding his doubling of CO2 being 4.2°C, which Steve always manages to ignore in his comparison charts
Right, It is the pollution messing with his science. Otherwise Manhattan would be underwater.
Steve,
FINALLY you are paying attention! although you forgot to add “with a doubling of CO2 by 2030”
It is impossible for CO2 to double by 2030. You are willing to let him off the hook for one dishonest prediction, because you think he he predicated it on a second dishonest prediction.Pretty lame.
Steve,
UH. No.
Tony Duncan,
would you provide the data that shows human made aerosols caused either warming or cooling?
Amino,
there is plenty of research on aerosols and their relative effect on warming and cooling, I do not know enough to be able to tell you how accurate it is.
My current postdoc is in aerosol measurement, and that’s what I did my Ph.D. work in. I know of no measurements from the 1940s-1970s that could make any indication of significant warming or cooling during that period. People assume cooling because of aerosol increases that reversed with the Clean Air Act. They assme this because there was slight cooling then that can’t be explained retroactively by models any other way. There just isn’t the measurement data to confirm this.
What it comes down to is that pretty much no one cared about aerosols until the 1952 London Smog Episode….and a lot of initial aerosol reduction was in the area of soot…which seems to cause net warming. Sulfates have also been decreased considerably by the Clean Air Act, and typical inorganic sulfates seem to cause net cooling…thus their reduction would agree with the assumption that increased aerosol loading caused cooling. However, recent (the last 2 years) reasearch has shown that mixtures of sulfates/soot (specifically, aged sulfate particles) actually cause more warming than pure soot particles themselves. Because no one knows the chemical speciation of the individual sulfate particles in the past (heck, even in the present), there’s really no way to know what the forcing from aerosols was in the past.
Aeosols are still a major uncertainty…particularly in their indirect effect.
Note that my work focuses on aerosol measurement, not aerosol forcings (past, present, or future), so my knowledge may be lacking a bit since I only get it from what I see in conferences, proposals, review articles, and a paragraph or two in the introductions to papers I’m interested in.
-Scott
Scott,
thanks,. Can you point to any research on forcings of various forms of aerosol and particulates?
Hi Tony,
The paper I was refering to is here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/11872.abstract?sid=029ce982-6701-4c2f-bef9-e97c1b0a51e7
Looks like I botched my description…aged soot (not sulfate) mixed with sulfate absorbs more strongly than soot itself (still a mixture of soot/sulfate…though what they measured was formed backwards from what I said).
Note that this paper is about the direct effect of aerosols…scatter vs absorption of light. Most of the current research is trying to address the question everyone wants answered…the indirect effect. This includes cloud formation, rainfall, etc. It’s much tougher to answer and potentially depends even more strongly on chemical composition and aerosol mixing state.
-Scott
Scott,
thanks again. interesting article. I skimmed it for the parts I could understand, and it is quite fascinating reading both the complexity of the subject and the ingenuity in figuring out all the factors of the issue.
“…Show me a scientist who wasn’t wrong about something and I will guarantee you he isn’t a scientist.” -TD
That’s something pretty big to get wrong and should temper people’s willingness to re-order civilization based on Schneider et al’s subsequent climate histrionics.
Well 10 years ago I was saying that the role of regulator genes and various epigenetic interactions wool dlikely mean a much smaller number of human genes than the 100K plus many scientists were predicting. I was right and they were wrong, and I have no problem trusting those same scientists about the vast majority of work they do. They were wrong about a very basic question in biology. Horribly wrong, but it was not because they were bad scientists, it was because they were using different assumptions, and the question was one that was only recently capable of being determined.
You’d have an apt comparison if your colleagues were wrong due to their over-arching desire to push their political agenda like Schneider was.
TD, Your problem is every two bit academician that can claim to study anything remotely having to do with the climate has taken the authority unto themselves to dictate social “climate justice” policy, energy policy, economic policy, taxation policy, and health policy on a global scale. They’re out of control and not about to relinquish any newly aquired clout.
Arguing over man-caused climate change on a rational basis is to disregard the religious/mythological nature of the social phenomenon. You aren’t going convince a True believer in the Flood-cult of global warming that it’s a sham any more than you’ll convince a Christian that Christ didn’t rise from the dead through rational discourse. Claims of “scientific” authority, tend to disregard what science is…a method, nothing more. When the underlying methodology of global warming is put under scrutiny, one realizes it is a religious mindset where the Truth is unquestioned and conflicting data dismissed as heresy, not a scientific methodology where one must revise their hypothesis to explain ALL observed data.