Climate Fraudster Bob Ward Takes The Bait!

Bob Ward having difficulty coping with reality again today.

In 1961, the New York Times reported unanimous consensus of scientists that the Earth was cooling.

January 30, 1961 – NYTimes

Arctic ice was expanding, worrying the US and Soviet Union.

TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 –

Norwegian glaciers were growing for the first time in 200 years.

18 Jul 1963 – Glaciers Grow In Norway

The National Center for Atmospheric Research confirmed this global cooling trend.

14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal

Facts don’t fit the agenda of climate alarmists, so they simply lie and accuse the honest people of doing what they are doing themselves.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Climate Fraudster Bob Ward Takes The Bait!

  1. spren says:

    It is amazing to hear the current alarmists “deny” that the meme back in the 60s and 70s was global cooling and even questions if we were entering another ice age. This is especially so when you lived through the time period and observed it first hand.

    I even remember that late warmist, Stephen Schneider wrote a forward for one of the cooling alarmist books (I can’t remember the name of it).

    • richard verney says:

      Back in the day, Schneider was the lead author on a GISS paper that assessed Climate Sensitivity to CO2 as very low.

      The GISS assessment was that an 8 fold increase in CO2 would lead to less than 2 degC of warming.

      We are always told that AGW is based upon principles of basic physics and has a long history. So at the time of that paper, what was not known about the radiative properties of CO2 and/or what has changed in the basic physics between then and now so as to support claims of high Climate Sensitivity to CO2.

      • richard verney says:

        The Schneider Paper was published in Science Volume 173, in 1971. Here is a link:

        Straight from the horses mouth:

        It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 degK

        Funny how they warmists never like being reminded of past assessments/predictions/claims.

        What a moveable feast Climate Science is.

        • arn says:

          The reason global cooling promoters have problems
          to remember global cooling maybe that the consensus never was 97% but just 96.99%.

          Some say the real reason was that no one paid them
          for promoting global cooling,indoctrination or defaming people who though otherwise
          as it was at that point just a theory you can agree with or not as noone cares.
          Now it is an agenda which can extract tons of money from the people on a global scale
          and ‘experts’ have the choice between:

          a)getting rich and promoting BS

          b)getting ridiculed,jobless and their reputation
          being assissinated.

          Guess what 99%(97%:)
          would do if they have to choose?

          You don’t need to bribe someone to tell the truth.

          • Andy DC says:

            Even if you go by the ridiculous 97% figure, it is probably true that 97% of skeptical scientists believe that there has been a degree or so of warming since the Little Ice Age. Where skeptics disagree with alarmists, is whether that small amount warming is dangerous, currently trending incresingly higher, or outside the range of natural variability.

            It is also probably true that 97% of the scientists that are paid to say there is dangerous warming, say there is potentially dangerous warming.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “… it is probably true that 97% of skeptical scientists believe that there has been a degree or so of warming since the Little Ice Age.”

            True, though I would say it’s not just “skeptical scientists” who believe there was some warming since then but rather anyone with basic knowledge of history. Show me anyone saying otherwise and I’ll show you an idiot.

            And if he admits that it warmed since then but we’d be better off at Little Ice Age temperatures I will show you an idiot or a mankind-hating criminal.

            Percentages we can calculate later.

        • oldbrew says:

          Note that theoretical increase figure in the Schneider paper was ‘2 degK’ i.e. Kelvin, so less than the 2 deg C that was quoted in the previous comment.

  2. CheshireRed says:

    This is a cornerstone policy for the likes of Ward, he does it on auto-pilot. No wonder Donna laframboise called him ‘Rattlesnake Bob’. (Hey, how’s it goin’ Bob, ya old rattlesnake? Sssssssstill up to your old trickssssss, I sssssssee)

    They select every single point of argument made by sceptics and flat-out contradict it, whether by their own claimed evidence, ad hom character smear or by an outright lie. There’s no room allowed for doubt. Literally not one point is accepted, not even those where their own evidence is lacking. (eg no Tropospheric hot spot, uncertain estimated climate sensitivity, poor modelling etc.)

    See how SkS have a ‘rebuttal’ for every single sceptical point. (They insultingly label them as ‘myths’) There’s no subject on earth where a lively debate can be won by one side on every single point but – amazeballs! – SkS thinks it’s a slam-dunk 195-0 win for climate alarmism. Whether it’s a strong and valid point doesn’t come into it; propaganda rules, OK?

    Snakes, the lot of em.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      There is 0nly one other group that uses the same method of argument and claims to be scientific: Marxists.

      I developed early skepticism about man-made global warming claims mostly because I recognized that unique pattern. The methods you list tipped me off. I have never seen a Marxist admitting a loss in an argument. I have never “won” an argument with a Marxist the way we are used to win or lose in an honest discussion. Their theory is universal and all-explaining. There is no new event or discovery that doesn’t fit in. They contest everything, everywhere, all the time.

      And one only needs to type “Marxism” and “climate change” in a search engine to understand they all come from the same nest.

      Marxism and climatism are so much alike and so different from everything else because neither is science.

      • richard verney says:

        Our leader of the opposition, Mr Corbyn who is a Marxist, will not even criticize Venezueala. It is still a fine model of Marxism in action, not a state rapidly failing.

      • neal s says:

        There may be some parallels between the rabid CAGW pushers and Islamic Jihadists. But I daresay that there are far more Moslems who see the light, than the pitifully few CAGW pushers who do so.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Yes, I see some of the same parallels but I’ve have excluded religions because they do not claim to be scientific. Marxism did since its founding.

          Man-made global warming believers not up to snuff on their Marx can purchase Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism by Frederick Engels at Walmart online for $9.95. They can get the paperback primer by Thursday, Aug 10. It has a nice modern cover and it will look good on the coffee table.

          • Kris Johanson says:

            Yes, Marx was very adamant about calling it “scientific”. That was definitely the operative phrase back in the mid-1800’s, when chemistry and physics was making big strides. And other economists just prior to, and concurrent with, Marx, were developing economics into a modern “science” after all

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            True, though “scientific socialism” remained an operative phrase long after 1918 and morphed into “scientific communism” by 1963.

            Millennial Marx freaks can get their scientific fix straight from Amazon.

            These pompous scientistic asses never dropped the pretense.

  3. LES JOHNSON says:

    Tony: These are some Tweets I made today, regarding the consensus on cooling, and your conversation with Ward.

    Referenced is the NOAA own history of climate offices; the UNESCO conference of 1961 documents; and NoTricksZone list papers missed by Peterson et al.

  4. Michael says:

    Q: How do you know Bob Ward is lying?
    A: His lips are moving.

  5. gator69 says:

    Bob showed his ignorance on the subject when he claimed that the mechanism for climate change was “basic physics”, after the climategate emails were leaked.

    Basic physics can be succesfully modeled.

    • arn says:

      if mechanisms of climate change were just basic physics,
      those climate change freaks would have never been able
      to predict global cooling before they turned to global warming.

      And basic physics would have never ever made it possible to make such wrong predictions in the past three decades as they did.
      Basic physics do not need adjustments,lies and apocalyptic scenarios.
      They don’t need thousands of parasites calling themselves scientists getting tons of taxpayers
      as a single scientist is enough to prove basic physics.

      (and basic physics will tell you instantly that a very very tiny amount
      of their “man-made co2″(man can NOT make co2 nor any other matter)
      is not enough to turn planet earth into a fireball-especially when co2 is a very very weak climate gas)

      There are scientists who made right predictions about climate change-
      and they were right because they used basic physics instead of apocalyptic scenarios and indoctrinations and data tampering.

  6. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    And now for something completely different.

    The fundamental premise of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse theory is that the earth without an atmosphere is 33 C colder than with. (255 K cold, 288 K warm)

    This is incorrect.

    Any object in the path of the sun’s expanding photosphere, 1,368 W/m^2 at the earth’s average orbital distance, i.e. the moon, the international space station, satellites, will be exposed to an equivalent radiative temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot, sort of.

    So, what would the earth be like without an atmosphere?

    At 394 K the oceans would boil away removing the giga-tons of pressure that keeps the molten core in place which then pushes through the thin ocean floor flooding the surface with dark magma, reducing albedo and increasing BB emissivity. With no atmosphere, a steady rain of meteorites would pulverize the surface to dust same as the moon. No clouds, no vegetation, no snow, no ice a completely different albedo, certainly not the current 30%. The earth would be much like the moon with a similar albedo (0.12) and large swings in surface temperature from lit to dark sides. An albedo of 0.12 produces a radiative balance of 1,203 W/m^2 and an equilibrium temperature of 382 K, 109 C, 228 F. The naked earth would be hotter by 94 C not colder by 33 C.

    The earth’s atmosphere and albedo do not keep the earth warm, they keep it cool.—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Ah…. thank you for changing your graphic!

      “At 394 K the oceans would boil away” etc etc….. Yes, and cell-based, carbon-constructed life wouldn’t exist obviously. Everything seems to be balanced on a knife-edge, because it is designed that way. I know, I know, jump all over that statement…. I don’t really care

  7. McLovin' says:

    Man I miss the 70s – they were so cool!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.