Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Big Business, including Big Oil, has been in the thick of it since the very first fairytales.
BP and Shell contributed in 1971 to the formation of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which is where the infamous Phil Jones lost or deleted or locked away raw data. The founding of UEA CRU on money from Big Oil is described on p285 of “The History of the University of East Anglia, Norwich" by Michael Sanderson.
At that time, the first Director of CRU, Hubert Lamb (ex-UN) promoted global cooling and predicted an Ice Age within 10,000 years. This was the start of pointless predictions which would not roll out within the lifetime of the predictor.
After the heatwave of 1976 the paradigm shifted to global warming with predictions of meltdowm by the year 2100, and the rest is history...except for the involvement of Big Oil at UEA CRU.
An icy blast from the past in September 1972 when UEA CRU and its Director (Hubert Lamb) were ramping global cooling and an ice age ahead on the back of money from Big Oil.
You read it here, UEA CRU says it's the Sun that drives climate change.
BP and Shell contributed in 1971 to the formation of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which is where the infamous Phil Jones lost or deleted or locked away raw data. The founding of UEA CRU on money from Big Oil is described on p285 of “The History of the University of East Anglia, Norwich" by Michael Sanderson.
At that time, the first Director of CRU, Hubert Lamb (ex-UN) promoted global cooling and predicted an Ice Age within 10,000 years. This was the start of pointless predictions which would not roll out within the lifetime of the predictor.
After the heatwave of 1976 the paradigm shifted to global warming with predictions of meltdowm by the year 2100, and the rest is history...except for the involvement of Big Oil at UEA CRU.
An icy blast from the past in September 1972 when UEA CRU and its Director (Hubert Lamb) were ramping global cooling and an ice age ahead on the back of money from Big Oil.
You read it here, UEA CRU says it's the Sun that drives climate change.
durbster said:
Oh look, it's 1970s global cooling again.
It can't be Durbs.turbobloke said:
Attrition loop alert!
As you have so often pointed out, that period of climate prediction has never existed. Ever. Or at least not seriously from Climate Professionals.
Clearly the newspaper cutting is an elaborate fake created especially by Turbobloke, right?
Do I sense the start of a new conspiracy theory?
If so you read it on the obscure backwater of a PH forum first.
The notable thing about climate science in the 70s is that most scientific papers were concerned with global warming when the climate had been cooling.
Forgot the link - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BA...
Forgot the link - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BA...
Edited by plunker on Tuesday 20th September 12:16
plunker said:
The notable thing about climate science in the 70s is that most scientific papers were concerned with global warming when the climate had been cooling.
Before 1976 or after 1976?Anyway, I'm sure you'll substantiate that claim with citations in order to clarify, with no waffle from SkSc or DeSmog or RC or Wiki-Connoll(e)y for example.
I've only ever claimed to have read the scientific literature on this subject closely from the early- to mid-eighties, so it would be good to have an overview from 10 years previously via links to relevant papers.
In any case, the notable things about climate science in the 70s are that UEA CRU was on a global cooling mission, the Head Honcho Climate Guru was preaching solar forcing, and they took Big Oil money.
turbobloke said:
plunker said:
The notable thing about climate science in the 70s is that most scientific papers were concerned with global warming when the climate had been cooling.
Before 1976 or after 1976?Anyway, I'm sure you'll substantiate that claim with citations in order to clarify, with no waffle from SkSc or DeSmog or RC for example.
I've only ever claimed to have read the scientific literature on this subject closely from the early- to mid-eighties, so it would be good to have an overview from 10 years previously via links to relevant papers.
In any case, the notable things about climate science in the 70s are that UEA CRU was on a global cooling mission, the Head Honcho Climate Guru was preaching solar forcing, and they took Big Oil money.
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BA...
turbobloke said:
Don't forget Big Oil. When Randy Winkman raised business involvement (again) there was no howl of attrition, wonder why
When responding to AGW hogshine, global cooling and Big Oil score bonus points.
Manmadeup global warming - so hot it's cold and
plunker said:
The most notable thing about climate science in the 70s is that most scientific papers were concerned with global warming when the climate had been cooling.
Were you there plunker?One of the interesting differences between then and now was that there was no internet and very restricted access to academic research papers unless one was in the upper levels of education. Most people probably didn't have a clue how all of that "university stuff" worked.
So there were a select few involved and not subject to open scrutiny.
However the concept of the old guard retiring the new brooms arriving with a completely different opinion (so as not to be seen as being a continuation group) would have been normal then just as it is now.
The press cutting above covers the possibility of warming periods from time to time. After all, in a 10,000 year period one might expect that. As per observations (based on estimates using smoothed values) of the previous tens of thousands of years.
So, life will once again become tough for humans as Earth returns to its normal state. But we (or at least some very distant long term development of a human form) will have been around for about twice as long as now - assuming no asteroids home in on the planet first.
With only 10,000 year to go the "developed" world attempts to self destruct in the name of "saving the planet" and the less developed world licks its lips and sharpens is knives sensing a feeding frenzy of self interest free of much risk analysis.
Does any of it really matter in the long term scheme of things?
Probably not except in the rather peculiar and self-indulgent world of the bucket list generation.
I would bet that the warmists are relying in a future downturn in temperature trends - probably a couple of career generations away - to be able to make claims about how successful their policies on remedial action have been. That should keep the funding rounds going for another 2 or 3 generations.
Personally I think it is a bit strange to apparently care more about generations of future relatives who may never exist and very few people prior to them in the chain will ever meet to the potential detriment of one's current and expected future life. And thus to the potential detriment (rather than improvement) of future societies. It smacks of some sort of displacement activity.
Or are we being forced into the payment of Indulgences on the pretext of reducing some future penance by a distant generation?
turbobloke said:
Before 1976 or after 1976?
Anyway, I'm sure you'll substantiate that claim with citations in order to clarify, with no waffle from SkSc or DeSmog or RC or Wiki-Connoll(e)y for example.
I've only ever claimed to have read the scientific literature on this subject closely from the early- to mid-eighties, so it would be good to have an overview from 10 years previously via links to relevant papers.
In any case, the notable things about climate science in the 70s are that UEA CRU was on a global cooling mission, the Head Honcho Climate Guru was preaching solar forcing, and they took Big Oil money.
Why do you mention 1976? If it's because of the scorchio summer we had in UK that year it's worth noting that globally 1976 was the coolest year of the decade (Hadcrut).Anyway, I'm sure you'll substantiate that claim with citations in order to clarify, with no waffle from SkSc or DeSmog or RC or Wiki-Connoll(e)y for example.
I've only ever claimed to have read the scientific literature on this subject closely from the early- to mid-eighties, so it would be good to have an overview from 10 years previously via links to relevant papers.
In any case, the notable things about climate science in the 70s are that UEA CRU was on a global cooling mission, the Head Honcho Climate Guru was preaching solar forcing, and they took Big Oil money.
plunker said:
Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BA...
Noble PEACE prize. If it was the prize for Physics or Chemistry I might be impressed.Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BA...
plunker said:
turbobloke said:
plunker said:
The notable thing about climate science in the 70s is that most scientific papers were concerned with global warming when the climate had been cooling.
Before 1976 or after 1976?Anyway, I'm sure you'll substantiate that claim with citations in order to clarify, with no waffle from SkSc or DeSmog or RC for example.
I've only ever claimed to have read the scientific literature on this subject closely from the early- to mid-eighties, so it would be good to have an overview from 10 years previously via links to relevant papers.
In any case, the notable things about climate science in the 70s are that UEA CRU was on a global cooling mission, the Head Honcho Climate Guru was preaching solar forcing, and they took Big Oil money.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BA...
My eye was instantly drawn to the line "Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s" which is how I remember it.
The paper cited makes it clear that modelling was even then at the heart of the manmade global warming myth.
The paper appears to contradict its own title (The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus) with this statement "By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted"
What on earth were the paper's reviewers doing at that point? Game over from the horse's mouth, but on we go.
Under the LitSerch section the authors include papers from 1965 rather than purely 70s and you have to wonder why not go to 1960 rather than '65. They conclude that their survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. The authors then divert into subsequent citations, this is odd since the thesis is cooling or warming in the 70s, not afterwards when other workers were looking back. This has shades of the 97% trickery where convenient subsampling is employed, and hints at an Oreskes Approach.
Moreover, the authors' summary table has ~30 papers for cooling or neutral and ~40 papers for warming. That would be material, but for one matter.
For entertainment value at this stage, as would happen if the roles were reversed in this episode and Lord Lawson's name appeared in lights, the paper has a co-author of note: William Connolley, the chap who falsified or altered thousands of Wiki entries on climate. Of the other two authors, Peterson is ex-NOAA and now WMO iirc, and is/was Fleck an economist? All good fun.
Unfortunately the Connolley Factor and the Oreskes Effect go beyond humour. That's the 'one matter'.
You must be aware that the choice of 1965 wasn't random, and that many of approximately 300 papers were excluded for some reason from the LitSearch results, papers which support cooling or do not support warming.
The papers and extracts from them have been conveniently collated for us by the believers' favourite blog, NoTricksZone. I can supply a link to the papers on request, but I suspect you could do likewise
The conclusion of Peterson, Connolley and Fleck is not secure and the admission ""By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted" is a better representation of the era.
Value-added epilogue: as well as attempting to write the MWP, LIA and 70s cooling out of the history books, there has been a parallel move to do the same with the cooling itself. 'inconvenient global-scale cooling' of -0.3°C between the 1940s and 1970s has been almost completely removed from the record by NASA GISS and HadCRUT.
MetOffice’s Phil Jones and NASA’s Gavin Schmidt have adjusted the -0.3°C of cooling down to just hundredths of a degree of cooling. Result!
turbobloke said:
The papers and extracts from them have been conveniently collated for us by the believers' favourite blog, NoTricksZone. I can supply a link to the papers on request, but I suspect you could do likewise
That does sound right. From my experience of following links to NTZ, I have found it a consistently reliable source for listing scientific papers that do not contain what NTZ says they do.
Jasandjules said:
what have Nasa got to do with it?
You mean NASA that no longer do any real space exploration, big rockets and shuttles and the like? Who no longer send astronauts to the ISS, moon or even orbit? The ones who 'could' make a whole career around satellites for monitoring surface temperatures, solar output and ice coverage? Who could provide modelling expertise? Who's existence would be on shaky ground without AGW? turbobloke said:
The paper appears to contradict its own title (The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus) with this statement "By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted"
What on earth were the paper's reviewers doing at that point? Game over from the horse's mouth, but on we go.
Nice quote-mining minus the context there from the master! That bit's clearly referring to the apparent cooling trend in the obs since the 1940s to that point in time in the early 70s - a trend that's still 'widely accepted' today and doesn't pertain to predictions of the future which is the actual subject of the paper What on earth were the paper's reviewers doing at that point? Game over from the horse's mouth, but on we go.
turbobloke said:
Under the LitSerch section the authors include papers from 1965 rather than purely 70s and you have to wonder why not go to 1960 rather than '65. They conclude that their survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. The authors then divert into subsequent citations, this is odd since the thesis is cooling or warming in the 70s, not afterwards when other workers were looking back. This has shades of the 97% trickery where convenient subsampling is employed, and hints at an Oreskes Approach.
oh, well it doesn't bother me at all, but feel free to ignore the 'no of citations up to 1983' bit if you don't like it. turbobloke said:
Moreover, the authors' summary table has ~30 papers for cooling or neutral and ~40 papers for warming. That would be material, but for one matter.
For entertainment value at this stage, as would happen if the roles were reversed in this episode and Lord Lawson's name appeared in lights, the paper has a co-author of note: William Connolley, the chap who falsified or altered thousands of Wiki entries on climate. Of the other two authors, Peterson is ex-NOAA and now WMO iirc, and is/was Fleck an economist? All good fun.
Haha - playing the man TB? Of course you were always going to For entertainment value at this stage, as would happen if the roles were reversed in this episode and Lord Lawson's name appeared in lights, the paper has a co-author of note: William Connolley, the chap who falsified or altered thousands of Wiki entries on climate. Of the other two authors, Peterson is ex-NOAA and now WMO iirc, and is/was Fleck an economist? All good fun.
turbobloke said:
Unfortunately the Connolley Factor and the Oreskes Effect go beyond humour. That's the 'one matter'.
You must be aware that the choice of 1965 wasn't random, and that many of approximately 300 papers were excluded for some reason from the LitSearch results, papers which support cooling or do not support warming.
The papers and extracts from them have been conveniently collated for us by the believers' favourite blog, NoTricksZone. I can supply a link to the papers on request, but I suspect you could do likewise
The conclusion of Peterson, Connolley and Fleck is not secure and the admission ""By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted" is a better representation of the era.
See above re Mitchell.You must be aware that the choice of 1965 wasn't random, and that many of approximately 300 papers were excluded for some reason from the LitSearch results, papers which support cooling or do not support warming.
The papers and extracts from them have been conveniently collated for us by the believers' favourite blog, NoTricksZone. I can supply a link to the papers on request, but I suspect you could do likewise
The conclusion of Peterson, Connolley and Fleck is not secure and the admission ""By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted" is a better representation of the era.
Link to No Truth Zone funny stuff available here:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/09/15/massive-c...
@plunker
When the paper turns out to be dodgy and one of the authors is Connolley, were you seriously expecting it to pass without mention?
My response played the ball as it showed clearly that the paper is flawed, and why.
This is the link I referred to. Everyone is free to take a look and click the three links through to the actual papers.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-u...
When the paper turns out to be dodgy and one of the authors is Connolley, were you seriously expecting it to pass without mention?
My response played the ball as it showed clearly that the paper is flawed, and why.
This is the link I referred to. Everyone is free to take a look and click the three links through to the actual papers.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-u...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff