click to enlarge
Credit for this post must be given to Edward Spalton because he has supplied me with the information.
Says Edward: '1972 was the year when severe frost destroyed all the Soviet Autumn-sown wheat crop. We had a great shortage in 1973.'
In case anyone has a problem reading the image, it is a clip from the Ontario, Canada's Windsor Star dated 9 September, 1972. It quotes Professor Hubert Lamb, the then director of climate research at the University of East Anglia:
"The full impact of the new Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10,000 years and even then it will not be as severe as the last great glacial period.
"We are past the best of the inter-glacial period which happened between 7,000 and 3,000 years ago.
"Ever since then we have been on a downhill float regarding temperature. There may be a few upward fluctuation from time to time but these are more than offset by the general downward trend."
He continues by saying, "We are on a definite downhill course for the next two centuries. The last 20 years of this century will be progressively colder. After that the climate may warm up again but only for a short period of decades."
Professor Lamb didn't use modern 'modelling' computer technology for his prediction, but he studied the science. He developed early theories about the medieval warm period and little ice age and became known as the 'ice man'.
However, according to Edward's friend Philip Foster, these theories were to be Lamb's downfall:
Interesting, however very important to point out that Prof. Hubert Lamb never changed his view on this and, consequently, was ousted from UEA in a politico-academic coup d'etat by Tom Wigley, Phil Jones et al. He was disgracefully treated. It was his Medieval Warm Period that the warmistas tried to 'get rid of' as an infamous leaked email shows.
The whole science has been corrupted by greed and a strong desire for power and fame.
Is it any wonder so many people have disputed the recent claims by Phil Jones and his ilk, whose predictions have been proved to be tainted (to put it kindly)?
Posts
13 comments:
Well at least the University of Easy Access will always be able to claim it 'correctly' predicted the climate.
It seems that with modern 'modelling' computer technology, each extra year's observed Data, necessitates the humans responsible for selecting the criteria to correct their previous errors.
"The whole science has been corrupted by greed and a strong desire for ....." more & larger Research Grants.
I wonder when some big company, like say British Airports, or a County Council, who are accused of not doing enough to deal with the snow, simply state that they took the best scientific advice before investing huge sums of money, and that the "consensus of scientific advice" was that in a few years time we wouldn't be getting snow in this country. It would clearly be a waste of shareholders'/Taxpayers' money to buy snowploughs and the like.
Certainly if I were the CEO, that's the line that I'd take!
I have a BBC book by Nigel Calder which tells how we are all doomed to freeze. I think it dates back to a 1970's edition of Horizon.
But then more recently we had the Great Drought of 2012 in which the water table would take years to recover and summer suns would burn off any scarce precipitation. Or am I getting confused with the Great Floods of 2012? Or are they?
By the way did you see that the UK government is to offer 75% subsidy for home charging points for our electric cars? Funnily on the same day Ofgem's boss tells us that we will lose 10% generation capacity by April 2013 and the future is looking bleak. I attended an interesting talk the other day that suggested that 'data bloat' is rising exponentially and national power grids won't have the capacity to meet the IT demand, let alone all those new cars and high-speed trains. (A little gem here for the 'Greens': Power consumption for a high-speed train running in a tunnel is 60% higher than on plain line. In your face Green NIMBYs!).
Please excuse this diversion but these idiot politicians drive me wild!
Two observations I would raise in regard to climate change.
The first is, if it is happening it is incremental, in tiny measures over a wide and disparate field compounded by an infinite number of disparate interests.
The second is, for most people I believe their reluctance to accept the possibility is not a flat earth recalcitrance but the belief the disparate interests mentioned above will use it as an excuse for further exploitation.
To my mind whether global warming is a real threat capable of being controlled or not is an irrelevance. It still makes sense not to pollute the atmosphere with toxins and even more sense not to have to rely on limited natural resources through short term exploitation.
The problem we face is nature can change dramatically and quickly, while our nurture is always playing catch-up. Either way it makes sense to me the catch-up gap should be as small as possible either as a preventative measure or as a limitation exercise.
This entire debate has been totally debased and devalued.
It has become impossible to separate fact from fiction; truth from lies; science from wild hyperbole.
Neither side can claim any credit or credulity.
@ JRB 15:57
At least the skeptics haven't cost the taxpayer £millions upon £millions for "Research Grants".
Even Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen got in on the act by trying to link obesity to CO2/Global Warming.
But then conveniently ignored the fact that the obese have a shorter life expectancy, so their CO2 emissions are less (than the super-fit).
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/obesity-increases-global-warming.html
Can't wait for the Daily Express headline "New Ice Age Promises Cheap Ice Cream".
@Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers
A voice of sanity in a sea of animosity.
I'm sure Edward will respond to you all when he has time, but meantime I want to say no, I hadn't read about the 75% JRB, although I knew installation was to be subsidised.
The whole issue has become a mass of lies and with far too many interested parties, like business, it will never benefit the customer. We will continue to be fleeced against our better judgement.
I agree Crinkly but there are sensible actions such as negating toxins and foolish ones such as paying extortionate subsidies while others struggle to pay over increasing bills.
Thank you for the responses. My wife and I have just enjoyed a jaunt to London to see the show EUROCRASH.
This was literally a one-night stand and we feared it would be worthy rather than entertaining but it was BRILLIANT.
The small cast took on many parts from Papa Kohl and Madame Mitterand who ran the Euro Academy from the gingerbread house in the forest where Mark (from Germany) and Gilda ( from the Netherlands) had been abandoned by their parents. Frau Merkel dealt with David Cameron, who was portrayed as a schoolboy in a blazer far too big for him.
It helped, of course, that the audience in the full auditorium was all on-side. I have a feeling that Stuart Wheeler, the spread- betting millionaire (and UKIP treasurer) may have been the "Angel" for the production. If so, it must have been a very paying investment.
Now - to the climate again! I have noticed that there is a huge propaganda push to keep the official global warming/climate change show on the road. It is definitely a very paying proposition for "the few not the many" - like Samantha Cameron's dad who trousers £1000 a day from his wind/subsidy farm and Mrs Clegg who works for a firm which makes wind turbines. Then there is the scandal that investors in "green" industries, like Lord Deben and Tim Yeo MP are in influential positions where they can literally vote themselves rich. Then there is the big vested interest of new officialdom ( "climate change officers" and the like in local authorities). Every revolution of each wind turbine makes us that little bit poorer and less competitive as an economy.
Thank you for the responses. My wife and I have just enjoyed a jaunt to London to see the show EUROCRASH.
This was literally a one-night stand and we feared it would be worthy rather than entertaining but it was BRILLIANT.
The small cast took on many parts from Papa Kohl and Madame Mitterand who ran the Euro Academy from the gingerbread house in the forest where Mark (from Germany) and Gilda ( from the Netherlands) had been abandoned by their parents. Frau Merkel dealt with David Cameron, who was portrayed as a schoolboy in a blazer far too big for him.
It helped, of course, that the audience in the full auditorium was all on-side. I have a feeling that Stuart Wheeler, the spread- betting millionaire (and UKIP treasurer) may have been the "Angel" for the production. If so, it must have been a very paying investment.
Now - to the climate again! I have noticed that there is a huge propaganda push to keep the official global warming/climate change show on the road. It is definitely a very paying proposition for "the few not the many" - like Samantha Cameron's dad who trousers £1000 a day from his wind/subsidy farm and Mrs Clegg who works for a firm which makes wind turbines. Then there is the scandal that investors in "green" industries, like Lord Deben and Tim Yeo MP are in influential positions where they can literally vote themselves rich. Then there is the big vested interest of new officialdom ( "climate change officers" and the like in local authorities). Every revolution of each wind turbine makes us that little bit poorer and less competitive as an economy.
Edward, it sounds as if the play would do well on a tour of the UK. I'd certainly go and see it if it was performed locally.
Post a Comment