1939 : “Imaginary Changes In Climate”


“This myth arises over and over again”

In 1939, the Des Moines Register reported how people constantly confuse cyclical weather changes with imaginary climate change.

06 Oct 1939, Page 6 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

Since then, the Des Moines Register has written nearly 14,000 articles confusing cyclical weather changes with imaginary climate change.

Including these classics.

07 Oct 1974, 14 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

30 Dec 2006, Page 14 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

19 Jun 2015, Page A9 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to 1939 : “Imaginary Changes In Climate”

  1. Griff says:

    The Des Moines Register is not a peer reviewed journal of climate science….

    So its 1939 ramblings are irrelevant…


    If like other media it accurately reports current climate science, then we should perhaps (after checking through to the original papers/data) accept that it is presenting accurate reports – there is a warming climate caused by human CO2…

    • AndyG55 says:

      cis griff has never been near a peer-reviewed journal.

      …. its mindless brain-hosed rantings are totally irrelevant, basically just mind-numbed nonsense.

      There is NO WARMING caused by CO2.

      The idea is nothing but a baseless suppository.

      If cis griff has empirical scientific evidence that there is warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2, then let it PRODUCE that evidence..

      … or stop it’s moronic anti-physics fantasies.

    • David Reich says:

      What does peer-review have to do with accurately reporting the temperature drop from 1945 to 1974 as was done in the 1974 article that has been essentially wiped out by government funded climate liars ? Or what does peer-review have to do with looking back though history at the experts of the day and exposing the lies down through history as reported in the press about climate change which continues to this day (see James Hansens’s failed predictions of his 1988 Congressional Testimony)? And if we grant that peer-review is the litmus test for everything to do with climate (and nothing else printed about climate including your comments is sound and valid), then what are you going to with the latest peer-reviewed paper by Judith Curry in the Journal of Meteorology…..https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1….. that concludes that the impact of CO2 is overstated by as much 45%? What are you going to do with the FACT that peer-reviewed articles after article exposes the fact that arctic sea ice for example is no different today than it was in the 1940’s? Or that natural variation explains all the climate of Antartica or that subsurface geothermal phenomena is driving ice pack in Greenland and not CO2? Are you then going to propose that the litmus test be “Griff’s cherry picked list of peer-reviewed papers” as the litmus test criteria for climate science? And has your cherry picked list been “peer-reviewed”???

      • AndyG55 says:

        ““Griff’s cherry picked list of peer-reviewed papers””

        They will be the very dregs of pal-reviewed climate NON-science.

      • R. Shearer says:

        Inevitably, the majority of peer reviewed literature should be retracted, but it isn’t.

    • tonyheller says:

      Peer review provides a mechanism for junk science which would fail an elementary school science class, to appear like it has something to do with science.

      • Gator says:

        The peer of a fraud is a fraud. We need open public scientific review, and for science to be held to the same standard as soap salesmen.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Does anyone else notice that the Grifftard is getting ever more desperate in his rantings to support his GLOBALONEY apocalypse? I wonder if he is having some kind of a mental breakdown?

    • GW Smith says:

      Two truths do not a third make. A warming climate (estimate and relative to what?) plus human produced CO2 (an approximation relative to what?) does not prove cause or effect. It’s the blind leap of faith that undermines one’s credibility.

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.