Ed. Note: This article on the front page of the New York Times by noted environmental reporter Philip Shabecoff, (June 24, 1988) marked the beginning of the media-driven climate scare. Particularly important is the estimated anthropogenic warming and sea level rise: 3-9 degrees F and 1-4 feet between 2025 and 2050. Today, 35 years later, the recorded increase is 1F and 4 inches.

The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.”…

“As for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, I don’t think we’re ever going to get to the point where we’re going to be totally convincing.” – Thomas Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research, (April 28, 1998)

When did the “greenhouse signal” become recognized and “settled science”? Despite the 35th anniversary of James Hansen’s June 1988 testimony to a Senate subcommittee, the historical record should be clear that detection was not in 1988. Or 1991. Or 1995. Or 1998.

And “Exxon Knew“?

————————-

Here is some history from the used-to-be newspaper of record, the New York Times, and its global warming scribe, William K. Stevens.

In early 1991, Stevens reported that scientists were not ready to pronounce evidence of man-made global warming: 

most scientists are far from ready to announce that greenhouse warming has arrived, since the warming recorded over the last decade could also be part of a natural climatic change.

Ed Note: This week is the 35th anniversary of the exaggerated climate alarm, which began with James Hansen’s June 1988 testimony before the Senate. Meanwhile, far-too-many scientists remain quiet about the climate model problem and psuedo-scientific attribution studies, while the campaigners link all extreme weather events to mankind’s consumption and energy habits.

“In a paper being published in the March-April [2009] edition of the journal Environment, Matthew C. Nisbet … said Mr. Gore’s approach, focusing on language of crisis and catastrophe, could actually be serving the other side in the fight … ‘as global-warming alarmism….’” – Andrew Revkin, NYT (2009).

“There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language. In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.”

Ed. note: This post excerpts energy and climate material from the Media Balance Newsletter, a free fortnightly published by physicist John Droz Jr., founder of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions. The complete Newsletter for this post can be found here.

Greed Energy Economics:
*** A Texas-Sized Energy Fiasco
*** Lazard’s levelized cost of power generation figures remain “highly implausible”
*** Greens Refuse to Discuss Recycling of Renewables, etc.
Wind Generation Cost to Ontarians on April 13th Hit a Record of $2,055/MWH
California Power Companies Propose to Bill Electricity Partly by Income
Wind Power Has A Profitability Problem
Renewable energy PPA prices continue to rise despite Inflation Reduction Act relief

Renewables (General):
*** The Renewable Intermittency Challenge
*** End preferences for unreliable electricity
*** The Great Green Dream is a Fantasy
Addressing Wind/Solar Instability: Hardwiring the Grid
Australia’s ‘green energy’ chimera
Jamie Dimon’s Climate Corporatism

Wind Energy — Offshore:
*** Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over Biden Plan for Offshore Wind Sites
*** Short video: Is Industrial Offshore Wind Development Killing Endangered Whales?…