Wednesday, 19 November 2014

EX HOT AIR: What the mainstream media wont tell you about global warming


What the mainstream media wont tell you about global warming


Between the recent “deal” with China, reports of Obama taking climate action via executive fiat, and the debate over keystone, global warming has been over the mainstream media recently. But instead of debating whether or not the global warming hypotheses is a valid threat to the Earth, the media starts with the premise that the theory is real and anybody who contests global warming is the equivalent of people who don’t believe the holocaust actually happened, they are called deniers.
The “LA Times” refuses to print letters that disagree with global warming, CNN openly mocks them on air, the NY Times ran a cartoon suggesting climate change skeptics should be stabbed to death, and MSNBC and CBS only interview climate change believers on their programs.
The fact that the liberal skewed media refuses to look at both sides of the climate argument should be evidence enough that they realize global warming theory is flawed. But as one who likes to use facts, below are twelve facts the mainstream media isn’t telling you about climate change. They may not make one believe that global warming is a fraud, but they should at least destroy the argument that climate change is settled science.
1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.
2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth.  Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).
3) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant it’s what you exhale and it is what “feeds” plants. Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree, nor would there be the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food. Without CO2 mankind would get pretty hungry. Even worse the global warming proponents keep talking about population control because they don’t want more people around to exhale, and let’s not talk about what they say about stopping methane (no spicy foods, no cows, no fart jokes).
4) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels.
5) Even with the relatively high levels there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%. Exhale freely because carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.
6) The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.
7) You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them.  A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.
8) I changed my mind…this past February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, andthe co-founder of Greenpeace, the militant environmental group told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee “
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”
There are more like Moore.
9) Back to Ice Age– predictions. When I took Earth Science in college 38 years ago, the professor explained that the scientific consensus was we are heading toward an ice age.  That was just before text books were changed to discuss global warming. That was followed by calling it climate change. Now many scientists claim there is new evidence that the Earth may be heading toward an ice age (please stop crying Mr. Gore).
10) Droughts have not increased.
It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,”
Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
11) Polar Bears are alive and well and not dying out. In the Fall 2014 issue of RANGE Magazine Dr. Susan Crockford wrote,
“In a recent TV ad campaign, the Center for Biological Diversity said, “global warming is pushing polar bears to the absolute brink.” Results of recent research show this to be a lie – fat, healthy bears like this one from near Barrow, Alaska, are still common and many of the assumptions used by computer models to predict future disasters have turned out to be wrong.”
In case you were wondering, walruses are doing fine also.
12) No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:
We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.
The only thing “man-made” about global warming, is the argument that we should all stop thinking because there is a scientific consensus about global warming. There are too many questions still open.

Breaking on Hot Air


Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.



Comment pages:  1 2
All that Freon released into the atmosphere before the EPA banned it has made the earth colder!
viking01 on November 17, 2014 at 9:25 PM
In 1998 the Senate voted 83-0 to ratify the Montreal Protocol which included the phase out of ozone depleting substances. While the EPA is in the business of over regulation, we have our own Senate approving this treaty to thank for the phase out of refrigerants that actually work. They did this based on very shaky science, but then again, that is the only way for the greenies to get anything done any more.
Remember. They are all watermelons. Green on the outside, red in the middle. Take an environmentalist, peel back a layer, and you find a communist/socialist.
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 8:58 AM
My library of websites on climate change. I highly recommend them.
The world’s most viewed site on global warming/climate change:
Former Inhofe staffer Marc Morano:
Tony Heller:
Steve McIntyre (one of the first to demonstrate that the infamous hockey stick was statistical hogwash):
Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the fathers of satellite temperature monitoring networks:
Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech:
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 9:06 AM
Great work Jeff
gwelf on November 18, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Even if global warming is real and produces climate change, I do not believe future generations will be powerless to handle the phenomenon. I supported Newt in the 2012 primaries in part because of his space mirror ideas. A century from now, weather manipulation may be in practice.
The Bringer on November 18, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Great post with valuable information. But please, Hot Air, invest in a copy editor. This piece was riddled with grammatical errors, style problems, typos, and awkward syntax. It doesn’t do our side any good to make a strong case, but look like a bunch of amateurs in the process.
If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now.
Nicole Coulter on November 18, 2014 at 9:41 AM
Even if global warming is real and produces climate change, I do not believe future generations will be powerless to handle the phenomenon. I supported Newt in the 2012 primaries in part because of his space mirror ideas. A century from now, weather manipulation may be in practice.
The Bringer on November 18, 2014 at 9:39 AM
This is a great deal more frightening than political manipulation of science. Progressives now actually think that it makes sense to play God with the weather.
Who here wants the imbeciles that think they can manage an economy (but have never succeeded at anything other than ruining one) to attempt to manage the biosphere?
The most likely outcome will be the biosphere laughing at them for the fools they are, as their attempts to alter the weather fall flat. But there’s a reasonable chance that they’ll end up deliberately poisoning the planet in their misguided efforts to “save” it (from things that are perfectly normal).
The culprit in all this is human arrogance, which lies at the core of Progressive ideology.
philwynk on November 18, 2014 at 9:51 AM
Back in the 30′s we young grade school students would draw our pictures of houses with smoke curling up from the chimney. Cars had no anti pollution devices on the vent pipe for oil pan. Local steel mill belched smoke and soot. Soot that fell on the clothes mother hung on the clothes line. Can’t tell how much cleaner our air is today but can see it. How can we believe an administration and government that lied so much over health care and now wants us to sing Hossanas to Obama for sky rocketing costs of electricity and putting coal miners out of work?
Herb on November 18, 2014 at 10:00 AM
The culprit in all this is human arrogance, which lies at the core of Progressive ideology.
philwynk on November 18, 2014 at 9:51 AM
While agree that the arrogance of progressives is frightening if they are allow to go unchecked, it is the ignorance of the masses that makes it possible.
The left is trying their best to stifle dissent in the climate change debate precisely because they know that the ignorance of the masses is required in order for them to reach their ultimate goals of their arrogant betters.
We recognize that ‘scientists’ like Obama’s science czar John Holdren have been on both sides of the issue (first cooling/then warming), but have not changed their prescription for the problem.
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 10:00 AM
GruBal Warming!!!!
BigWyo on November 17, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Nicely done. :)
Arnold Yabenson on November 18, 2014 at 10:06 AM
philwynk on November 18, 2014 at 9:51 AM
Great points, but I stand by the speculative premise that if needed, future generations will likely be able to deal with climate change issues technologically should any arise.
The Bringer on November 18, 2014 at 10:06 AM
Maybe if it was….I don’t know…..WARM….this whole global warming might be taken more seriously.
In Michigan it was 11 degrees this morning. It’s November. Average high is supposed to be 50ish. Haven’t even been over 40 much in the last week.
NBC ran a story trumpeting the carbon deal with China last week immediately followed by a story on the weather and how cold the whole country was going to be. That was something you might see on Weekend Update on SNL but it was the actual news division. (As a rule I don’t watch NBC, it happened to be on. Honest.)
jjjdad on November 18, 2014 at 10:15 AM
One thing you can’t factor in, the alarmists are adamant they’re right, are willing to lie to prove it, and will never let it go, no matter what you say to them. Remember, it ISN’T about the climate it’s about money and control.
bflat879 on November 18, 2014 at 10:16 AM
Yes, the global warming scare has been proven wrong and so is waning.
But, now we have a new enviro crisis to worry about and legislate against!! It’s the groundwater depletion crisis!! Eleventy!! Just google it–every nut job on the left is pushing it.
I am sure this will become the new crisis until 2016 and someone like Hillary will claim to be the water depletion savior. Just like they did with global warming.
PattyJ on November 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM
You deniers go ahead and yuck it up – I’m sure Galileo’s detractors cracked jokes too.
The time for talking is over, you people refuse to be swayed by science or facts. President Obama needs to take action now – by Executive Order if needed.
The only way to control carbon-spewing, fossil fuel addicts is through the use of federally rationed carbon credits. Unlike financial wealth, concentrated in the hands of greedy capitalists, the government can ensure all credits are equitably distributed.
Those who demand unnecessary earth-destroying toys, such as fossil-fueled automobiles, big screen tvs, air-conditioning, and guns should have to buy “luxury credits” from the government. This money can then be redistributed to the groups who have victimized for hundreds of years by powerful white exploitation.
Frank Lib on November 18, 2014 at 10:42 AM
Agent of the Cross on November 17, 2014 at 9:11 PM
It’s what I call Chinese Fortune Cookie funding. You know the joke about adding out loud when you’re with friends at a Chinese restaurant “in bed” to the end of any Chinese fortune you get in a cookie…”You will be very successful”…”in bed”. You laugh and have fun. With the funding that students and professors try to obtain for research proposals, the joke has been for a LONG time, whatever your central question is, you add at the end “and it’s effect on global warming” OR “and how it is affected by global warming.” So, “Streptomyces bacteria symbiotic relationship with Panamanian attine ants and the fungus they culture, implications for pharmaceutical research” becomes ” Streptomyces bacteria symbiotic relationship with Panamanian attine ants and the fungus they culture, implications for pharmaceutical research and how they are affected by global warming” and wow, you just boosted your chance for an NSF grant by 95%!!! Chinese cookie fortune grants!!!
patechinois on November 18, 2014 at 10:51 AM
The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.
Climate models are the modern equivalent of reading tea leaves. The Earth’s climate is an enormous and chaotic non-linear system with hundreds of variables, and it’s preposterous to believe we have the technology to predict the future behavior of such a system to any reasonable degree of accuracy.
Those models require countless assumptions as to the output of the relationships between all of those variables simultaneously interacting with one another, both in the past and the future. We are asked not only to believe those assumptions will be reliably accurate, but that those making them are immune from the confirmation bias which plagues mere mortals.
The CAGW hypothesis has not only been falsified on its own terms, but has always been based on a faulty premise.
RadClown on November 18, 2014 at 10:54 AM
My understanding is there is about 3 feet of global warming in Buffalo. When Detroiters got up this morning, it was a balmy 11 degrees.
Global warming has made millions for Al Gore and RFK, Jr. and thousands of well-connected insiders.
bw222 on November 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Great work Jeff
gwelf on November 18, 2014 at 9:26 AM
What Gwelf Said!
CiLH1 on November 18, 2014 at 10:57 AM
Lord Christopher Monckton at the 9th International Conference on Climate Change does an outstanding job of skewering this nonsense.
If you have time, the whole series of ICCC9 presentations by actual climate and weather experts such as Dr. Roy Spencer & Anthony Watts is online and well worth your time.
F X Muldoon on November 18, 2014 at 11:03 AM
Here’s another thing the media won’t tell you: ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that first temperatures rise, then CO2 concentrations increase. In other words, exactly the opposite of global warming fraudsters claim.
InterestedObserver on November 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM
the right ever find a scientist when it wants to talk science?
jaxisaneurophysicist on November 17, 2014 at 9:37 PM
“The right” brought three licensed physicians to Obama’s health care summit. Obama brought Pelosi, Reid and Sibelius.
Don’t talk to us about “finding scientists” for a debate.
The Schaef on November 18, 2014 at 11:18 AM
Congress should ban hot weather.
BobMbx on November 18, 2014 at 11:26 AM
“I see. Warming makes it colder! Everything is the opposite of everything! Ladeedadeeda…”
The Rogue Tomato on November 18, 2014 at 11:34 AM
If you like your global warming, you can keep your global warming.
Norky on November 18, 2014 at 11:45 AM
challenge you to produce “text books”, in the plural, from the 1970s declaring a consensual opinion that earth was cooling catastrophically.
The perpetual fantasy that the enviro-lunatic left (and its acolytes in the climate sciences) unanimously expected an ice age in the 1970′s is a myth as stupid as that of catastrophic anthropogenic warming (tho arguably less dangerous to progress…).
The vast majority of scientific publications expressing an opinion on the future movement of the global climatic temperature distribution were already predicting warming by the 1970s. While there were scattered predictions in the opposite direction (as there always are), the assertion that the climate-scientific establishment was during the seventies united in its predictions of cooling is entirely contrary to the record.
Certainly there were no university-level text books of any credibility ever declaring any “consensus” of the then- (still- ?) nascent science of long-term climate forecasting.
jaxisaneurophysicist on November 17, 2014 at 9:37 PM
“the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next coming ice age”
Science 9 July 1971:
Vol. 173 no. 3992 pp. 138-141
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.13
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973) – Washington, D.C.
Author: By Victor Cohn; Washington Post Staff Writer
The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says
Time Magazine
Monday, Nov. 13, 1972
Science: Another Ice Age?
The arrival of another ice age has long been a chilling theme of science fiction. If the earth’s recent history is any clue, says Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, a new ice age could become a reality.
SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change
January 30, 1961
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder
Lakeland Ledger – Dec 29,1974
By: Alan Anderson Jr.
A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustmed. They point to signs both great (a steady global cooling trend since World War II) and quaint (the southward retreat from Nebraska of the warmth-loving armadillo) to support their claim that the coming years will feature colder, more erratic weather. Some recent warnings, from reputable researchers in Japan, Europe and the US., have so worried policy-makers that last January certain scientists at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences propose the evacuation of some six million people from their parched homelands in the Sahel region of Africa.
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 11:46 AM
From Anthony Watts:
Links to each provided through his site linked above.
1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎)
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972‎)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974‎)
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974‎)
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ‎December 5, 1974‎)
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975‎)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ‎January 17, 1978‎)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM
The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.
Al Gore’s movie showed some disaster scenario of much of Florida being flooded if sea levels rose by 20 feet, or about 6 meters. Tide gauges show that the average rate of sea level rise is less than 2 millimeters per year, meaning that it would take over 3,000 years for Gore’s disaster scenario to be realized.
Unless, of course, the climate cooled in the meantime, like it did between AD 1350 and 1750, and after the fall of the Roman Empire. So if the climate naturally turned colder twice in the last 2,000 years, how does Al Gore know that it can’t cool again during the next 3,000 years?
But don’t bother Egobama with the facts. He still wants to shut down the electric power industry and petroleum refining industry to stop the seas from rising. Because he said so.
Steve Z on November 18, 2014 at 11:52 AM
The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? – 1976
by Lowell Ponte
“But the Leftist press continues to quote bug and flower scientists about global warming – including doomsayers who three decades ago were predicting a fast-approaching, planet-freezing ice age. (I should know, being author of the 1976 Prentice-Hall bestselling climate book The Cooling.)
As you probably recognized, all such Leftist doomsaying – hothouse or ice age, wet or dry, population explosion or drastic decline – calls for the same remedy. We must have bigger government, more political regulation and control, higher taxes, and permit less individual and private sector liberty if we are to survive whatever is this year’s fashionable danger.”
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM
Superb, succinct thread with credible links!
A Q & A with Elliot Abrams, senior vice president and chief forecaster for Accu-Weather, the State College company that provides forecasting services worldwide appeared in the Tribune-Review newspaper in an interview with Eric Heyl.
Two outtakes about the term “polar vortex”:
Some people think it’s a run-for-your-lives type of thing, but there’s actually a polar vortex on the weather map every day of the year.
In the summer, it’s a weak fixture in the upper atmosphere. But when it extends south, that’s when we get the cold air. Last winter, it did so repeatedly and so our air constantly came from the frozen hinterlands of the Arctic.
(The term polar vortex caught on) like wildfire because we live “in an age of hashtags and trens and trick clicks to get eyeballs onto a website.”
A polar vortex is a slightly different term than one meteorologists learn about very early on in their studies called the circumpolar vortex, which means that it circulates around the North Pole.
The termi is in most of the textvooks and has been used for decades. Blut splitting it off and calling it a polar vortex just sounds like something that would cause headlines.
onlineanalyst on November 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM
Co2 is a pollutant, there is no difference between males and female humans since gender is simply a feeling, and if you argue with a Democrat it is because you are a racist.
The undisputed truths of our time, preached by those who also claim Islam is the religion of peace.
Hening on November 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM
the right ever find a scientist when it wants to talk science?
jaxisaneurophysicist on November 17, 2014 at 9:37 PM
There are plenty of scientists who don’t subscribe to the doomsaying tactics that the left is employing in furtherance of their government control objectives.
Dr. Judith Curry:
Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, 1st Edition: V1-6 (Idel Reference Works)Dec 13, 2002
by James R. Holton and Judith A. Curry
Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, Volume 65 (International Geophysics)Feb 3, 1999
by Judith A. Curry and Peter J. Webster
Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of CloudsAug 25, 2014
by Vitaly I. Khvorostyanov and Judith A. Curry
Dr. Roy Spencer:
The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda (Encounter Broadsides)Jan 26, 2010
by Roy W. Spencer
Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies…Jan 12, 2010
by Roy W. Spencer
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate ScientistsSep 4, 2012
by Roy W Spencer
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Co2 is a pollutant, there is no difference between males and female humans since gender is simply a feeling, and if you argue with a Democrat it is because you are a racist.
The undisputed truths of our time, preached by those who also claim Islam is the religion of peace.
Hening on November 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM
A must watch video for those who insist that CO2 is a pollutant:
Plant Timelapse CO2 Carbon Dioxide Concentration Global Warming Experiment
Video shows the difference between a plant growing at 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2 and 1270 ppm CO2. Today’s atmosphere is just shy of 400 ppm.
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM
There is no evidence to demonstrate that this inter-glacial period is any different than past ones.
The null hypothesis is just that.
It has yet to be shown to be false and yet it is falsifiable.
ajacksonian on November 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Updated list of 52 excuses for the pause in global warming:
The science is settled!
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM
Fun Fact: All 50 US States will experience temps below freezing tonight somewhere within state lines!
airupthere on November 18, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Small correction. It’s not an Arctic ice cap, it’s an Arctic ice pack.
IcePilot on November 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM
Has anyone looked at all the data tampering going on over at NASA?
Axion on November 18, 2014 at 1:19 PM
This is a really good list.
I love how the lady next to me thinks that no one opposes climate change rhetoric and policy unless they are paid off by the oil companies.
timoric on November 18, 2014 at 1:25 PM
13. Ice core and tree ring data show that historic increases in atmospheric CO2 LAG BEHIND increases in temperature, sometimes by thousands of years. It is more likely that increases in temperature cause an increase in CO2, rather than the reverse.
Dexter_Alarius on November 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM
The climate change crowd is finding it hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube. First step, get rid of the dumb face…algore. It’s clear the green agenda is a religious tool of the progressives.
StevC on November 18, 2014 at 1:49 PM
That is the most fun I have had reading an article in days!
James1754 on November 18, 2014 at 2:41 PM
Did anyone who wanted to talk science ever find jaxisaneurophysicist?
rogerb on November 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM
I don’t remember where I read it, but a few years ago there was an article saying that all the polar bear preservation efforts were endangering Eskimos. The increase in polar bear population has been hell on the indigenous humans.
Zoomie on November 18, 2014 at 5:46 PM
I’m cold!!!
Guess I’ll buy the wife some hair spray…
…and leave my car running while I’m shopping for it…
…and feed peanuts to some cows (cow farts)…
…and fire up my spark gap ozone generator and cell phone jammer…
…and empty all of the recycle bins into the trash…
…and replace a dozen annoying twisty bulbs with incandescent!
Yeah…that’ll make things really toasty!!
(…or I could just turn the heat up until our liberal masters frown…)
/science> (read: the end of ‘science’)
landlines on November 18, 2014 at 6:29 PM
The undisputed truths of our time, preached by those who also claim Islam is the religion of peace.
Hening on November 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM
I assumed the preaching took place slightly before the beheading!
On the other hand, a lot of the “truths” sound like the beheading had already taken place….
….I’m soooo confused!
landlines on November 18, 2014 at 6:35 PM
It’s as much the fault of these Christians, with their insistence in believing the Genesis record, as it is these “global warming” proponents within the field(s) of science.
listens2glenn on November 17, 2014 at 9:56 PM
“As much”? Probably not. But significant contributors, particularly for people in the hard sciences? Almost certainly.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Comment pages:  1 2

No comments:

Post a Comment