With great excitement, WUWT has discovered some old news: The CIA documents the global cooling research of the 1970’s. But, being WUWT, it gets it wrong. Because the CIA didn't document the research of the time. The document they are citing isn't competent.
Nor is any of this new; see A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems for the details. I'll repeat my conclusion from there:
Conclusion: this report says more about the CIA, and the dangers of a report being hijacked by a small group of people when not put out for proper review, than it does about the state of climatology at the time.
I'd tell this this myself, but they can't cope with too much reality.
Refs
* The '70s Cooling Meme vs. Knowledge - DA ref'ing me.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I first saw this a while back: maybe 2 years ago, but CR reminded me of it recently. As far as I can tell it is genuine; the CIA offer to sell you it, though if you try to buy you get a 404. Why you'd buy it when others have it for free I don't know. I don't seem to have blogged it then; others…
Like its illustrious forebears comments elsewhere and part II. However, rather differently like, in that I want to point to some positives before falling back into snarking.
I've commented at wottsupwiththatblog and hotwhopper about Li et al.. It is, I think, a flawed paper but not as badly flawed…
Back in 2008, I examined the Oreskes vs Nierenberg affair and concluded that Nicolas Nierenberg was correct and Oreskes was wrong. And then NN capped that by actually writing stuff up into a paper, published in July of this year: Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins…
This got mentioned in early 2014 at Planet3.0. To be fair to mt, he wasn't really pushing the video itself, just using it to illustrate his point (which I think is uncertainty-is-not-your-friend; I agree with that), though he did call it "excellent". But since, as I said in the comments there I don…
Non-sequitur.
[I'm somewhat surprised to see no-one from WUWT has either had the wit to visit here and see what I have to say (given that I'm specifically ref'd by AW you'd have thought it would be obvious enough), or perhaps they have but fear AW's wrath if they upset their lord -W]
I noticed that the WUWT post is authored by David Archibald, notorious for some of the worst climate predictions ever.
Yet another example showing how incorrigibly stupid (or dishonest, or delusional) the WUWT denizens are.
No one has ever claimed that there were no scientific papers suggested that cooling might be an imminent problem, or that no part of the MSM made a big thing about this at the time.
'John@EF' and 'LazyTeenager' attempted to educate the Wattards, but they persist in this obvious and outrageous straw man. 'LazyTeenager' got called an "anonymous coward" by the disgusting and hypocritical Watts.
And, as you say, it's old news anyway. Not that endlessly repeating nonsense is new to the zombies over there ...
I remember weathermen fondly, from my youth. Guy Sharpe, here in Atlanta, would stand by the weather map and tell what he knew about what was coming at us, truthfully, using everything he knew, and that was a valuable and appreciated public role.
Anthony Watts is up there next to a weather map telling me I should go outside and have a picnic, when he should be telling me there's a tornado warming.
F****r.
Truesceptic,
I think the rest of Anthony's comment there is even more revealing. "I lived through it, and saw research being done on it, saw the news articles and even did a half hour TV program on it. The opinion of an anonymous coward (you) means nothing in the context of the reality of that time."
That is, "Mypersonal experience and memory = reality. Analysis and research that doesn't conform to my understanding must be flawed."
Tracking of a 2008 Archibald global cooling prediction
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/archibald-2008-redux