The New York Times just published another fake climate article – this time about the Arctic. They start the article with the claim that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in 1979.
We Charted Arctic Sea Ice for Nearly Every Day Since 1979. You’ll See a Trend. – The New York Times
Given that we traveled to the moon in 1969, it is absurd to suggest that satellites weren’t used to study the Arctic before 1979. Here is a 1964 satellite image of the Arctic which was published in National Geographic in 1965.
The National Geographic Archive | February 1965 | page 1
Here is a detailed National Geographic Arctic sea ice map from 1971.
Here is a detailed satellite image of Antarctica from 1976, also published in National Geographic.
The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1
The 1990 IPCC report included NOAA Arctic satellite data back to 1973, when it was much lower than 1979.
In a spectacular display of scientific malpractice, NOAA now hides all of the pre-1979 peak Arctic sea ice data. By starting right at the peak, they produce a fake linear downwards trend.
This 1985 DOE climate change report had Arctic data back to 1925, which showed little ice from the 1930s to the 1950s.
Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect
So why did the New York Times cherry pick 1979 as their start date? Because it came at the end of three of the coldest US winters on record , and Arctic sea ice was at a century peak. The graph below combines the 1985 DOE graph with the 1990 IPCC graph.
If the New York Times authors had bothered to research their own paper, they could have found this out for themselves. It was very warm in the Arctic in 1958
The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times
Three years later, the New York Times reported a unanimous consensus that earth was cooling.
By 1970, the Arctic climate was becoming more frigid, the ice was getting “ominously thicker” – and scientists were worried about a new ice age.
U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times
The polar ice cap had expanded 12% by 1975, after shrinking 12% before 1958. Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in the 20th century.
March 2, 1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? | Chicago Tribune Archive
National Geographic : 1976 Nov, Page 575
By hiding all the data before the 1979 peak, the New York Times is defrauding its readers. Arctic climate is cyclical – not linear.
Ninety-five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.
2 Nov 1922, Page 1 – Great Bend Tribune at Newspapers.com
Eighty years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.
17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier
Sixty five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.
18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING
Then the New York Times went on to obscure their graph (below) to hide the fact that there has been a large increase in minimum extent since 2012. Note the “End of summer minimum” label is at the 2012 minimum – not the 2017 minimum.
The Arctic minimum extent has been increasing for a decade. The New York Times doesn’t want their readers to know this.
The New York Times is defrauding their readers at many levels. It is the fake news we have learned to expect from them.
Great post Tony!
Facts, like our Constitution and Bill of rights, are living breathing entities that have needs and lives of their own. Some facts die, and new facts are born. Celebrate life!
Some facts don’t die but become deeply ashamed of themselves. They know that what they’ve done was misogynistic and racist, and they don’t like to talk about it. Some other facts are stubborn but life goes on without them.
It really is one MASSIVE, DECEITFUL, CON-JOB.
the late 1970’s was a time of EXTREME sea ice. Of course it has recovered a bit from that freezing time.. and thank goodness, too !!!
But the extent is STILL in the top decile of the last 10,000 years.
The ONLY time it has been higher was during the Little Ice Age and the late 1970’s.
I repeat, this is one MASSIVE, DECEITFUL, CON-JOB.
It is hard to believe that with NORAD and the vital military importance of Arctic sea ice during the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s, that both the US and USSR did not have excellent maps of sea ice conditions during those years. To contend that we had no such records until the record high sea ice conditions of 1979 is completely ludicrous.
The history would not be complete without the 1974 CIA report:
“A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”
Nigel Calder a science reporter at that time writes about how Kukla warned President Nixon
Excerpts from that CIA report.
And Alarmists wonder why we think they are trying to blow smoke. Especially those of us who remember the global cooling scare and suffered through minus 30 F and frost bite.
Global warming??? — Bring it on!
Very cool (pun intended) compilation – full marks.
Don’t you people realize our statistical mastery has grown to such unprecedented heights we are now able to go back in time and actually correct measurements made in the field by pure computation. We can actually derive the true extent of instantaneous deviation from measured to true at any time and in any place, regardless of specific instrumentation originally used or potential bias either then or now. We literally don’t care! We can actually correct for unwanted bias before any measurements are made, thus eliminating the need for measurements entirely. Because we have the “now” and the instantaneous magnitude of change so insanely well calibrated it isn’t necessary to validate the “then”. It goes without saying the “then” conditions are necessitated by the “now” conditions. Only a science hating idiot could fail to see the logic of that. Similarly, future state conditions are entirely dependent, predetermined even, by the “now”. Because of our complete mastery of now and the unprecedented accuracy, infallibility even, of our statistical methods, the now is all we need.
Now is everything. Now is all. Now is complete intersectionality between past and future. Embrace it or be left behind.