AGW Climate Change English

Whatever happens to old Climate Scientists?

They hang on awaiting vindication of their idea, that’s what happens…

George Kukla (born 1930) …became [in 1972] a central figure in convincing the United States government to take the dangers of climate change seriously. Kukla and geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a historic conference, themed: “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?” Kukla and Matthews then highlighted the dangers of global cooling in Science magazine and, to President Richard Nixon.

The Nixon administration reacted swiftly to their letter, which described calamities such as killer frosts, lower food production and floods, to come. By February 1973, the State Department had established a Panel on the Present Interglacial, which advised Drs. Kukla and Matthews that it “was seized of the matter” and numerous other government agencies were soon included.

Kukla was co-author of a chapter in the book “Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales” published by the National Research Council.

Kukla believes all glacial periods in Earth’s history began with global warming (understood as an increase of area-weighted average global mean temperature). He believes Earth’s recent warming is mostly natural and will ultimately lead to a new ice age.

An interestingly but flawed report of what was going in 1972 is available via Google Books.

5 replies on “Whatever happens to old Climate Scientists?”

Kukla was the first to figure out the “Hide the Decline” fraud. His email is in the Climategate emails:

Dear Keith,
You are the only guy who may know what was and is going on in the
northern forests.
With respect to that I do not think that the WMO statement # 913 on
the status of the global climate in 1999 is a sufficiently reliable last
word. For one thing: the curve attributed to you doesn’t seem to jive with
any of the figures of your 2000 QSR paper. Where from did they get the
0.6 degree departure at 1600 AD? Another problem: the ring density and
width in the last several decades are both decreasing which at any other
time would be interpretted as a sign of cooling. So why is it shown in the
WMO report as an unprecedented warming?

As you properly discuss in your papers we just do not know how
exactly do the tree rings relate to weather. In my understanding we are
left with the following options:

1) The calibrations of the rings to temperature prior to 1950 are biased,
possibly due to the poor coverage of temperature stations.
2) Something other than the temperature influenced the trees in the last
several decades and we do not know what.

In either case it is not very responsible to relate the curves to
global climate as WMO has done. You are saying it, albeit somehow
indirectly but pretty clearly, in all your papers. Unfortunately it
appears that these are tooo long for WMO to read.

Ciao and greetings to everyone down there!

thank you Shub. No wonder nobody mentions him anymore.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.