One Hundred Years Later: Same Junk Science – Worse Attitude

In 1913, the father of global warming said that Earth would warm 8-9C and that the climate of Alaska would be like Maine

The Pueblo Leader – Jan 28, 1913

One of the greatest scientists in the world is Arrhenius of Sweden. He is a chemist and physicist, and has studied this matter. He shows that this proportion of carbon dioxide in the air will make the climate warmer, by acting like the glass root’ of a green house. With the carbon dioxide increased from two and one-half to three times, the temperature of the whole world will he raised 8 to 9 degrees centigrade-—and Greenland will have a good climate for farming. All the good soil of Canada will be in as temperate a climate as that now enjoyed by Missouri. Corn will be grown in the Peace River Valley. Oranges will be an orchard fruit in Arkansas and Virginia. The suburban residents of Chicago may literally sit under their own fig trees and scuppernong grape arbors. Cotton will he a stable crop in Iowa. Bananas will fringe the shores of the Gulf. Siberia will become the greatest farming country in the world. The great Antarctic continent–one of the greatest on earth in extent—will be the Western Canada, the Scandinavia, the Siberia of that day, and will have millions of people. Alaska will be as warm as Maine now is.

The Pueblo Leader – Google News Archive Search

The science was idiotic, but Arrhenius saw global warming as a good thing. Fast forward 100 years, and the New York Times ups Arrhenius’ stupidity by a huge margin.

Alaska is going to be the next Florida by the end of the century.”

On a Warmer Planet, Which Cities Will Be Safest? –

Since Arrhenius made his forecast of warmth in Chicago – Illinois temperatures have plummeted and are the coldest on record this year. They peaked in 1921

ScreenHunter_2995 Sep. 23 07.23

There is no science or data to support this lunacy, yet it persists and grows century after century.

About Tony Heller

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

14 Responses to One Hundred Years Later: Same Junk Science – Worse Attitude

  1. I wonder if Sharyl Atkisson would be interested in reporting on this… since no one else wants to.

  2. Cheshirered says:

    It’s not about science. It isn’t, it never was and it never will be.

    Take Naomi Klein’s ‘This Changes Everything; Capitalism v the Climate’ – the latest must-have-but-will-never-read pretentious coffee table accessory for up their own arse wannabe political poseurs, which, according to the author herself (and every fawning review) set’s it all out bare and naked.

    Climate science itself is irrelevant. Klein accepts this campaign is about social change – away from the single most successful way of running nations yet devised by mankind – capitalism, instead charging unquestioningly towards one of the most debased and repeatedly failed national models – socialism. Science & climate change just happen to be their chosen morally superior vehicles to ride them to their socialist Utopia.

    Facts don’t matter. Graph after graph, measure after measure of multiple observed barometers of climate science presented here by so well by Tony repeatedly destroy their flimsy-to-non-existent case. By any objective standards there is literally NO case for CO2-driven climate catastrophe. Yet they take not a jot of notice when facts or observations repeatedly discredit their crackpot theory.

    That’s because they neither acknowledge nor respect inconvenient facts. Rhetoric is all, as they seek to impose their intolerant views and absurd, already failed policies upon unsuspecting billions across the world, by whatever means necessary.

    They are the stark-raving mad, virtually criminally reckless ones. Follow their preferred path and humanity can kiss goodbye to the normal niceties of technological progress. Instead we really will come face to face with a sobering economic (and therefore social) catastrophe unlike anything a modern-era population has ever seen in the developed world.

    Fight them all the way. They cannot be allowed to succeed.

    • Gail Combs says:


      It is exceedingly irritating that otherwise intelligent people are so enamoured with socialism they can not see the serf’s collar under all the rhetoric.

  3. philjourdan says:

    150 years ago, the NY Crimes said “Go west young man, go west”. Now they are saying “Go North fool, go north!”.

    The direction changed.

  4. emsnews says:

    Correct, the north is losing population for a long time and winter and the cost of heating is a huge reason for this. Then they complain about the heat (I was raised in Arizona and seen this first hand).

  5. KTM says:

    The only difference between the past predictions and the current ones is that enough time has passed for us to realize how absurdly wrong the past predictions were.

    The only reason that Global Warming hasn’t been utterly refuted and rejected is that the predictions are relatively small in magnitude, over very long time scales. Every time they make a new prediction, the goal posts are shifted out another 20 years, which is why I think skeptics should constantly bring the focus back to past predictions that can now be evaluated with current data.

    Arrhenius is an extreme but important example to include in the mix. I personally think that the key projection that should get primary focus is the first 1990 IPCC report. That was clearly wrong, pretty much everything that was predicted before that is demonstrably wrong, and for many of the more recent predictions there has not yet been enough time passed to prove them wrong although there is clearly a trend toward disproof.

    Focus on 1990, it was the consensus’ best estimate after decades of study so it can’t be easily dismissed or ignored.

  6. JP says:

    My prediction is that demographics more than climate will control the flux of our population. As the world continues to age the consumption of commodities, energy and especially food will decrease. Demand for food from First World Countries is peaking; without the EPA Mandates our production of corn and soybeans would actually be going down. As a consequence, grain prices will fall with demand. This will cause a slow, steady outflow of people from the Great Plains to points east and west. My prediction: by 2060, the Great Plains will be empty save a few huge industrial farms around the edges. Food production will switch to either the Ohio Valley, the South, and California. Mining and mineral extraction may keep people in the Dakotas; but Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and large swaths of Montana, Wyoming, and Eastern Colorado will be vast empty spaces.

  7. Rosco says:

    “There is no science or data to support this lunacy, yet it persists and grows century after century.”

    The idiotic supporters claim it is well established science simply because the claims are more than a century old – verification is unimportant apparently.

    The aether hypothesis is even older than that so it is also well established science ? Arrhenius professed support for the aether at the time he was proposing this CO2 stuff.

    Unfortunately for him the “consensus” had moved on from this belief !

  8. KTM says:

    He did makes this prediction based on 2.5 to 3x higher CO2 levels, and we’re not there yet. Of course, they couldn’t accurately measure the CO2 level in the atmosphere at the time, so it’s hard to know exactly what level of CO2 would equate to the 2.5x to 3x he cited.

    The absorption of CO2 strongly saturates, leading to diminishing returns the higher the concentration gets, so it should be trivial to extrapolate what temps should be today based on the CO2 level we have today.

    In fact, that’s what people did back in 1965, when they finally had good data on both the CO2 level in the atmosphere and the atmospheric temperatures. They projected that by the year 2000 CO2 levels would rise by 25%, causing temperatures to rise by 7 degrees and sea levels to rise by 10 feet. They nailed the CO2 prediction, in fact the CO2 levels in the year 2000 were a bit higher than that 25% increase. But of course the temps were nowhere near 7 degrees hotter as predicted, and sea level did not suddenly accelerate upward an additional 10 feet, putting NYC and DC underwater.

    The useful idiots supporting the AGW theology are quick to cite the 100+ years of science supporting a role for CO2 as a greenhouse gas. They are usually blissfully ignorant that Arrhenius himself and then others that replicated his work and extrapolated it into real-world predictions like I discuss above have actually disproven the hysteria.

    I see a lot of similarities to Head Start, actually. It was a fine idea, supported by reasonable ideas. But now after 40+ years and $170+ billion spent to prove that Head Start improved educational attainment, the results clearly show that it does NOT do that. Instead of accepting the result of the experiment, they just go back to the foundational ideas that still sound reasonable, even though it has been tested and failed. And if you try to educate them, they have a knee jerk response that you are just ignorant of the reasonable (but proven wrong) fundamentals behind the policy.

    • KevinK says:

      You should check out the work of Robert W Wood and also Dr. Nasif Nahle’s experiments.

      Both (and additional experiments with agricultural greenhouses made of IR transparent/opaque plastic films) show that the “greenhouse effect” is a mirage.

      Robert W Wood also disproved the existence of “N-rays” which (much like the greenhouse effect) could only be seen with your peripheral vision….

      Just because a hypothesis is 100 years old does not make it correct.

      Cheers, Kevin.

Leave a Reply