Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Larry Webster on Taking America Over The Cliff
- arn on Climate Terror At The Palace
- Steen Højrup on Making The Pause Disappear
- CHRISTOPHER HIGGINSON on Ten Years Of Early Spring
- Pamela Matlack-Klein on Ten Years Of Early Spring
Archives
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
New Video : The Ministry Of Climate Truth – Erasing The 1970’s Global Cooling Scare
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
I lived in Chicago from 1976 to 1981. I can tell you from experience that the winters from 1977-1979 were cold, miserable, and had everyone believing that a new ice age was coming. You did not need to do much persuading.
Snowflakes came after that, however.
Well-now ask yourself why they have to persuade people so much about global warming.
Maybe because it looks now much less like global warming than it did between 76-81 like global cooling.
You’re getting very good at these Tony. Presented before a neutral court they’d be damning.
Re the individuals and organisations that you constantly refer to, it seems to me that if there was a case for slander or libel against you they would’ve already taken it, so they’re afraid of suing because they’d have to defend their ‘handiwork’ in open court which they’re obviously reluctant to do for some reason.
*Ahem, rubs chin, scratches balls and wonders aloud ‘if their case is so good why don’t the NOAA experts sue this guy whose constantly dissing them’?*
Is it time to launch a really hard-hitting accusatory video? To call out Tom Wigley and Phil Jones for specifically removing the 40’s blip. To call out NOAA as being wilfully complicit? And GISS. Name, accuse, challenge. Likewise call out Gavin Schmidt. Call out William Connelley.
I realise it’s easy for me to say this sat here without possibly being on the end of a law suit but if it’s viable – and I think we can all agree the last thing these guys want is to testify in open court, then why not? Would it serve a purpose? Naming on Twitter and FB would really amplify the pressure on their side, which we know has been cheating for years.
The global MSM would definitely pick up on a very targeted very specific set of extremely serious accusations, especially now Trump is in Office and has just exited Paris. Tony if you’re going to do such a thing maybe now is the moment? Once Trump leaves Office the moment may pass forever, and on another note none of us are getting any younger!
It just seems to me that whilst you’re doing your vid’s on your (with all due respect) modest-reach site they’re ok with the relative lack of critical exposure they’re getting. Maybe it really is time to go on a much bigger platform and shine a stronger light into their corner? Make them squirm and push this agenda to the front of the Presidential queue? Just a thought.
CheshireRed wrote “The global MSM would definitely pick up on a very targeted very specific set of extremely serious accusations”. I disagree.
The MSM are run by those who have globalist interests and are willfully complicit in spreading CAGW lies. Until and unless the owners of MSM are changed, I would not expect them to ever offer up truths instead of the lies they continually push at present.
As they say, read the whole thing.
“The process is the punishment”
That is the whole goal. Tim Ball and Mark Steyn are examples of what will happen to you if you dare publicly question the orthodoxy. The lawsuits are not meant to be won or lost. They are a 6 year (and counting) totem of warning to all others.
Yeah I’m aware of Mark Steyn’s battle and you’re dead right. It’s a valid point.
However I disagree about the prospective failure of MSM to pick up on such accusations. The UK Daily’s Telegraph, Mail and Express would be all over it, while the Times has lukewarmer Matt Ridley on the payroll. The Guardian, Independent and BBC wouldn’t be able to contain their rage which would just stir up the hornets nest. (Notice how EVERY time a major event falls against AGW the Guardian runs a counter-article, usually by Dana Nutti’ or John Abrahams, to ‘debunk’ the new narrative. Every time.) Plus there’s Breitbart, oodles of commentators on Twitter and Facebook and every climate / political blog on the planet.
Don’t kid yourselves, global media coverage of ‘formal accusations of cheating, manipulation and data fraud by X, Y and Z persons at A, B and C organisations’ would be absolutely huge.
That’s just the UK. The EU would be in meltdown and the US would obviously be well and truly triggered. Could be Climate Armageddon!
Here are more in support of Tony’s hard work:
1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
English language is hard to learn when one uses science – language.
A sharp increase/decrease of temperatures
as they happened in the 40ies/70ies they use to call a simple blip
but a non existing increase of temperatures is so spectacular that it has to be called hockeystick.
It is not just about who controles future,present and past,
it is about who controls the laguage and how it is (miss)used
and how much statistics are abused and blown out of proportion.
Result:
A system where criminals and violent ideologies are worshipped and called peacefull.
A system where massmurderers get noble peaceprizes.
A system where one president could wage war on 6 countries
and kill many people and is still considered a Messiah
while another president hasn’t done a thing a being opposed heavily-
just because oligarchic tv(hiding its real owners behind the mask of corporations) told you so.
I have a comment in moderation.
Everything in moderation, a rule I live by.
gator , you really must learn NOT to be so moderate and “PC” with your blog comments ;-)
Moderation is one of my greatest faults. That and being so darn good looking.
You have a magic mirror ??? ;-)
Well… not exactly. But judging by the song these very knowledgeable and trustworthy ladies wrote about me (which was peer reviewed), let’s just say that I’m a…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vlAdMeZSfw
Gator, I always thought you were extremely moderate.
I try to avoid commenting “in moderation” ;-)
If I want to say something, I will.
This is a very important video presentation, but the full significance of the data tampering is no fully explained.
It is difficult to over emphasise the importance of this amendment to the historical record since but for the amendment to the record, observational data would suggest that Climate sensitivity to CO2, if any at all, is zero or close thereto. Let me explain:
1. Both Phil Jones and James Hansen in separate papers published in 1981 fully accepted the Northern Hemisphere temperature record as compiled by NAS/NOAA showing the 1940s as the warmest period and with a cooling of about 0.5degC from 1940 to early/mid 1970s. In the James Hansen 1981 paper he suggested that as at 1980, the Northern Hemisphere was some 0.3degC cooler than it was in 1940.
2. Phil Jones had noted (and this is also to be found in the Climategate emails) that there is no proper data on the Southern Hemisphere and it is largely made up. James Hansen in his 1981 paper accepts what Phil Jones observed namely that due to lack of historical data, poor spatial coverage and the absence of sampling, the temperature of the Southern hemisphere is not known with any degree of certainty and is speculative.
3. The upshot is that due to lack of sampling and poor spatial coverage, we do not know what the temperature profile of the Southern hemisphere, or the equatorial/tropical region looks like. We have no global data, only data on the Northern Hemisphere.
4. Since 1980 (ie., the date mentioned in both of the Phil Jones, and the James Hansen papers), according to satellite data, it would appear that through to 2015/17, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed bu about a third of a degree C.
5. Thus, it would appear that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are about as warm today as they were in 1940. Thus there has been no measurable temperature rise since manmade CO2 emissions started becoming significant after 1940. Thus on the basis of observational data, this would put Climate Sensitivity to CO2 at about zero.
6. We also know that temperatures in the USA, Iceland and Greenland are at their highest in about 1940 and today they are no warmer. We know that Russia has complained that its high latitude data is no longer being included in the global data sets and this high latitude data suggests no warming since 1940. We know that had Mann included the tree ring data through to the late 1990s in his hockey stick, it would have shown that the 1990s were no warmer than the 1940s and thatis why he had to drop the data, and hide the decline.
7. if one reviews the Fernandez & Fernandez 2017 paper on Greenland glacier melt, it is clear that there has been a very dramatic slow down in the rate of glacier retreat/melt as from 1946, again suggesting that the 1940s were the warmest period.
In summary, if the temperatures today in the Northern Hemisphere are no warmer than they were in about 1940 (as the propensity of evidence suggests to be the case), then Climate Sensitivity to CO2, if any at all, must be zero or close thereto.
Thanks for a very well organized and written addendum.
(Sorry for the duplicate post, but I mistakenly put this under the main thread previously.)
Nice post Richard. I think there’s a LOT of mileage in this sort of detective-style posting, where multiple different events and lines of evidence are linked together to produce a very strong case. Tony’s done some belters along these lines already. Piecing that ‘route map’ together could make another great video for Tony.
Sorry Richard, but 97% of climate experts agree that there is heat hiding at the bottom of the oceans, and in pipelines somewhere. It’s settled science, and we’re all doomed.
Panic and raise taxes.
I follow what you are saying, very logical. However, you are assuming that CO2 is your only independent variable. If you try to present this, expect someone to bring it up. FYI
Solar input actually climbed in the latter half of last century.
There SHOULD have been some warming…
.. but since 1940.. there has been only a cycle down then back up.
I think we might have dodged a bullet because of that Grand Solar Maximum.
Unfortunately, it has now gone.
With Climate Science, one always comes back to the same problem of either no data, sparse data, or data that has been so bastardised that it is no longer fit for scientific inquiry and evaluation.
The really big unknown quantity is clouds.
Without good data on the pattern and extent of cloudiness, the cause for any observed change in temperature is extremely speculative.
Further, there is a presumption that humidity has remained constant, but once again, the underlying observational data is sparse at best, and without being able to couple temperature and humidity together, we have no inkling as to whether there is an energy imbalance.
Hey Richard, this is likely my favorite presentation on modelers with their heads in the clouds…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
Best laughs… hand held calculators match super-computer models… 12:28, climate model uncertainty (error bars)… 24:25
“Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”
Dr Patrick Frank has presented his paper to 6 Journals, has had 16 reviewers, 13 of which were modelers. The count is 13 to 3 against publication, all 13 modelers voted against it. All 13 critics were incompetent in their reviews, making basic errors in comprehension.
Thanks for a very well organized and written addendum.
I’ve read that Tom Wigley email a lot of times but though it always showed manipulation when incorporated into the video really makes a big impression and really cements the case for the cooling theme and leaves a sick feeling. How could they let themselves do this- i just don’t get it.
Would I have done the same to get more funding, to keep my job.