Skip to content

We Have A Winner!!

October 7, 2015

By Paul Homewood 




Last week the Met Office news blog featured a new study investigating possible changes in tropical rainfall.

I took the opportunity to point out that global cooling in the 1960’s and 70’s brought widespread drought.




Which brought this reply!




Evidently Hubert Lamb must have been one of these crackpots!


In 1973 he wrote this article for the UNESCO Courier magazine.




He went on to describe some of the effects of this:




Note the comment about droughts. Because of the atmospheric changes he describes, rainfall belts were squeezed towards the equator, leaving expanded areas of drought:





And they call us deniers! It never ceases to astound me just how little supporters of the AGW creed actually understand about our climate and its history. Instead all they can come up with is mindless assertions and ad homs.

Such behaviour indicates a blind religious devotion, that they will follow through thick and thin regardless of the facts.


Needless to say, I have opened the door and shown him the light!

  1. October 7, 2015 2:21 pm

    The dishonest, “green” rent and grant seeker activists in Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC need to keep the fraud going for just a few more days, just until the donor-meeting in December in Paris has gotten all the necessary signatures for a new global deal to make everybody pay for using fossil fuels. As long as the customers pay, go ahead, drive your SUV.

    It’s not about science, it’s not about facts, it’s not about CO2 or the weather, it’s not even about the climate ..

    It’s all about the money!

    Why cheat if the data shows there is a problem?

    • manicbeancounter permalink
      October 7, 2015 6:15 pm

      I think you are wrong about a climate change agreement in Paris making “everybody pay for using fossil fuels”. Any agreement will not impose costs on most 95% of Asians, Africans or Latin Americans. Just the 15% of the the global population living in OECD countries.

  2. October 7, 2015 2:31 pm

    Thanks, Paul. Very good article.
    Man-made global warming is a cult and a power grab. It does not matter to the alarmists that they have to discredit science by politicizing it.

  3. October 7, 2015 2:41 pm

    That Carlgt character really displays his ignorance, but scientific ignorance seems a prerequisite for a frightening number of environmentalists and the like.

  4. October 7, 2015 2:47 pm

    Sadly, Paul, the sycophants of AGW will never “See the light” because it’s no longer science and has not been for maybe 18 to 20 years now or more. It’s a religion pure and simple, one depending on a gullible portion of the population, easily led and scientifically and historically ignorant. Even with staggering evidence that the drive is money and power and absent proof that their computer projections have ever been credible, and even worse a dogged refusal to look at history that’s readily available, the faithful still “Believe.” Goebels would be proud.

  5. October 7, 2015 3:31 pm

    There was indeed an ice-age scare. I was there.

  6. Paul2 permalink
    October 7, 2015 3:31 pm

    They walk among us. Be afraid.

  7. Joe Public permalink
    October 7, 2015 6:20 pm

    ‘carlgt1’ seems to be a victim of brainwashing.

  8. Charlie Moncur permalink
    October 7, 2015 7:03 pm

    “Carlgt” is probably illiterate and cannot read data, charts and trends. He/she has to believe what the high priests of global warming tell him. Sad but unfortunate, a common malady – everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own data!!!!

  9. Mavis Emberson permalink
    October 7, 2015 7:06 pm

    It may not be a religion. An Ideology would be more likely to bring out the same phrases each time as these people do. Like the “Thoughts of Chairman Mao ” called the Little Red Book which was carried and quoted by Chinese Communists word for word.

  10. Retired Dave permalink
    October 7, 2015 7:12 pm

    The thing is that not only were the Greats like Hubert Lamb aware of the cooling during the 60’s and 70’s but it was a bandwagon on which many of the older AGW nuts were passengers. They only jumped wagons when the cooling was reversed. They also wanted the same “world government” control of fossil fuels as they do now.

    WUWT had a good summary

    WUWT also had an article a few years further back highlighting a 70’s book which wanted control of CO2 etc. to combat the evils of Global Cooling??!!

    • Windsong permalink
      October 7, 2015 7:23 pm

      Thanks, Dave. Great list in that link. My list was a back of the envelope effort, kinda like “carl” could have done.

  11. Windsong permalink
    October 7, 2015 7:16 pm

    carlgt1: Hope you stop by Paul’s site and read this, because if I can do a simple internet search and quickly have multiple articles about the “crackpots” research pop up, so could you. Btw, they start in the early 1960’s. The New York Times has articles from 1961, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 that are easily found. National Geographic from 1967 and 1974. Science magazine in 1971, Science News in 1975, and the US Central Intelligence Agency report from 1974. Maybe the researchers didn’t interpret the science correctly back then, but I wouldn’t call them crackpots.

  12. dearieme permalink
    October 7, 2015 10:12 pm

    I’m old enough to remember the Global Cooling scare. It happened.

    • Scott Scarborough permalink
      October 8, 2015 12:07 am

      Who are you going to believe? Them, or your own lying memory?

      • dearieme permalink
        October 8, 2015 1:08 pm

        I imagine that back numbers of New Scientist would be clear evidence. I must have read that almost every week from about 1960 into the seventies.

  13. October 8, 2015 3:56 am

    Carl is a software engineer
    (Not to get too personal cos there are many like him, and we would be like him, if we lived in the same environment…)
    He’s in the Alarmist world but on he says this “I’ve been trying not to get political on my facebook posts”
    He’s listed as former Technical staff at
    .. and although his name is on 37 papers most are about Earthquake prediction ..but 7 are about Climate modelling
    Including one about the BBC Climate Change Experiment

    ..I guess he makes $millions on 3 Card Monty games ..cos he is always CERTAIN where the lady is.

    • October 9, 2015 12:06 pm

      Seems to me he’ been trying to keep himself under control these days by not posting for a long time. I found a lot of old posts where he resorted to angry name calling.

  14. October 8, 2015 10:03 am

    Would it be fair to state that the rapid global temperature rises that underpinned the “proven science” and computer models looked more convincing because of the earlier temperature drop.

    I can certainly remember the confidence of the doom-merchants in the 1970s that we were going to freeze: but then they discovered the book of Revelations.

  15. Bitter&Twisted permalink
    October 8, 2015 5:16 pm

    Who is “Carlgt1”. Does he work for the Met Orifice?
    It wouldn’t surprise me if he was Slingo’s special scientific advisor.

  16. Rick Bradford permalink
    October 9, 2015 6:15 am

    Another group of crackpots who fervently believed in global cooling was the CIA.

    The introduction to a 1974 CIA report began:

    “The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climatic change. The stability of most nations is based on a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under a new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850), an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.”

    It’s all there, the certainty in results and in forward projections, based on Soviet crop failures and Indian monsoons, or lack of.

    (BTW, Paul, if you’d like a copy of this report as a PDF, let me know).

    • October 9, 2015 9:41 am

      Interesting that they are now vociferous about AGW and its dangers: do they never learn?? Silly question!

  17. catweazle666 permalink
    October 15, 2015 10:41 pm

    Here are a couple more 1970s anti-science crackpots with a paper published in that well-known crackpot denialist anti-science rag “Science”.

    Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.


    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. Becuase 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 deg.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 rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent .

    How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?

    We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

    However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!

    Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

    Those results were based on a climate model developed by none other than that other well-known anti-science crackpot Jailbird Jim Hansen, incidentally.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: