In 1990, The IPCC Just Wasn’t Smart Enough To Know That There Was A Hockey Stick

The world had been heating out of control for 140 years, but in 1990 the world’s top climate scientists just weren’t  smart enough to know about it. Good thing Michael Mann set the record straight.

ScreenHunter_514 Jul. 02 08.36

First IPCC report

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to In 1990, The IPCC Just Wasn’t Smart Enough To Know That There Was A Hockey Stick

  1. omanuel says:

    Hi Steven,

    Fear was at the base of the 1945 decision to form the United Nations and to deceive the public about the nature of Earth’s heat source, the Sun. This is explained in an open message sent today (2 July 2013) to the Committee on Space Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives:

    The United States House of Representatives
    Committee on Space Science and Technology
    Washington, DC, USA


    RE: Open Message on the Corruption of Science:
    The Destruction of Inalienable Rights of Citizens

    Concern for our increasingly unstable society and for those trying to prevent it’s violent eruption by destroying basic constitutional rights of citizens would benefit from your active investigation and support, if confirmed, of one indisputable fact

    1. Supported by the best available scientific measurements and observations on rest masses, abundances and half-lives of atoms and elements in the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, meteorites, Mars and Jupiter;

    2. Consistent with the spiritual teachings of every major religion; and

    3. Hidden from the public after 1945 out of fear this information might be used to destroy life on Earth by nuclear annihilation:

    The core of the Sun is a pulsar that made our elements and gave explosive birth to the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago. Its source of energy – neutron repulsion – is the same energy that vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug 6 and 9, 1945 (and frightened world leaders into forming the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 to save the world from nuclear annihilation). The Sun’s core is made of neutrons (n). An expanded neutron form – hydrogen atoms (1H) – pours from its atmosphere. Hydrogen and Helium are by-products of the production of solar energy. The most abundant atom in the Sun, iron-56 (56Fe), is the most stable combination of neutrons and hydrogen atoms. Other mixtures of neutrons and hydrogen atoms comprise every atom in the Solar System, as shown on the front cover of the Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the Origin of Elements in the Solar System organized with help from the late Nobel Laureate Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg:

    Half-life measurements at Purdue suggest that other than gravitational, electrical, nuclear and magnetic force fields invisibly connect every atom to the pulsar and to each other over vast regions of space (greater than the combined volume of ten billion, billion Earths) that filled with debris from the explosive birth of the Solar System five billion years ago.

    Our fate and Earth’s constantly changing climate depend entirely on the pulsar that government scientists hid from the public after 1945.

    Copies of this message will be sent to individual members of Congress and to others concerned about the tension between US citizens and the US government, the corruption of government science, and the loss of basic constitutional rights of US citizens.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    PhD Nuclear Chemistry
    Postdoc Space Physics

  2. Traitor In Chief says:

    It took the IPCC a while to sort out who would go into fantasy land for them. Then they cultivated and promoted the chosen, placing them as “leaders” who could direct the results or overrule them in final draft, when they didn’t meet expectations.

  3. gofer says:

    Now it’s the water footprint. Save the water. Take the pledge and they will add 1000 gallons water to the Colorado River Basin.

    • Raindog says:

      Water footprint has been around for a long time, but we’re seeing an uptick in propaganda about water conservation as mega corporations seek to control it. If they make everyone believe that water is a finite resource that will run out like oil, well, they can convince everyone that they need water rations and that only certain individuals (read “corporations”) should have the rights to control its dispense.

  4. T.O.O says:

    The Astronomers within the IPCC didn’t know about the 10th planet in 1990 either — planet 2003 UB313 which lies in the Kuiper Belt.

    Science advances with time (and further study).

    • So the earth was baking and boiling since 1850, but no one noticed.until Hansen tampered with the data.

      • T.O.O says:

        “baking and boiling since 1850” — wherever did you come up with that?

        • That’s the standard apology. “We didn’t know back then what we know today.” But the problem with that argument is that it can’t be settled science if a decade ago they are saying the opposite from what they are asserting now. You can always say that it doesn’t matter that all your previous models were wrong because you came up with a new one today.

        • T.O.O says:

          The opposite?

    • Raindog says:

      I agree. The problem with this case in my opinion is that they aren’t advancing science. They are coming up with more and more statistical trickery to exclude temperature readings that don’t fit a pre-determined outcome. As steve and others have shown, they continually warm the present and cool the past by applying statistical methodoligies to a data set. They use the same datasets 10-20 years ago as they use today, with the exception that some data stations are no longer online and of course we have readings for the past 10-20 years that they didn’t have then.

  5. A good illustration of the difference between real consensus and expert opinion. (i.e., best guessing.) Real consensus doesn’t flip its conclusions from decade to decade. Chemistry, theory of relativity, evolutionary theory, et al. The details don’t change or, at best, are refined. You just don’t get “what we think now is the opposite of what we thought a decade ago” type scenarios arising.

    • T.O.O says:

      Is there any evidence of a majority consensus on climate change “flipping” their opinions in the past 3 or 4 decades?

      PS “Evidence” was the key word in my question.

Leave a Reply