Vaccine

Maybe you should ask Desert Hound where he got his evidence for this statement --

So in the past the climate around the globe has fluctuated wildly. Being vastly colder and vastly warmer countless times throughout Earths history. None of those events were due to human activity and none of them caused global catastrophe. This is the normal variation of the Earths climate.

According to your point, it can't be from "recorded history".
So are you claiming that the Ice Age did not exist
?
 
This might help, if you read it carefully --

You know what didnt happen?

Catastrophe as in runaway global warming.

The earth has always fluctuated wildly in temperatures. A natural thing.

And yet somehow we think this time it is different?
 
Funny thing is people think that the climate should always be stable.

You see stupid comments in papers or by politicians that a drought affecting the Western US is caused by manmade global warming.

And yet events like this have happened all the time.

About a thousand years ago as one of many examples a culture called the Anasazi thrived in NM/CO. Suddenly or over a rather quick period of time that culture vanished. The accepted explanation is the climate changed...ie extended period of years of drought...which forced them to leave.

5-10k yrs ago the Sahara was a rainforest.

The planet is always changing.
 
That's my recollection of the claims of the time:

"that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude."

Pollution, both air and water, was the big environmental issue of the 70's which resulted in a significant improvement in both in many communities. We should continue to pursue measures improving air and water quality because we have a proven record of success in these areas. Changing our climate? Good freaking luck.
 
That's my recollection of the claims of the time:

"that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude."

Pollution, both air and water, was the big environmental issue of the 70's which resulted in a significant improvement in both in many communities. We should continue to pursue measures improving air and water quality because we have a proven record of success in these areas. Changing our climate? Good freaking luck.
So close, but you just missed it.
 
So close, but you just missed it.
I don't dispute anything in the article. I'm not sure what you think it proves, nor does it contradict anything I've said. The article starts out like there is going to be some stellar rebuke of the cooling theory, when it just recounted the circumstances around the article in Newsweek. It was a an oft repeated theory at that time that pollution (and/or aerosols, soot, etc) was shielding the earth from the sun's rays.
 
I don't dispute anything in the article. I'm not sure what you think it proves, nor does it contradict anything I've said. The article starts out like there is going to be some stellar rebuke of the cooling theory, when it just recounted the circumstances around the article in Newsweek. It was a an oft repeated theory at that time that pollution (and/or aerosols, soot, etc) was shielding the earth from the sun's rays.
This was in the article --

But there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.

You are not disputing that?
 
This was in the article --

But there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.

You are not disputing that?
No real dispute. Now, whether "it was clear" factually, or not, IDK, but, I believe many scientists believed it was clear based on existing evidence. Just a semantics difference and I don't have any objection to the statement.
 
No real dispute. Now, whether "it was clear" factually, or not, IDK, but, I believe many scientists believed it was clear based on existing evidence. Just a semantics difference and I don't have any objection to the statement.
So you have no objection to "carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere"?

Or this "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking. "
 
So you have no objection to "carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere"?

Or this "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking. "
I already answered #1 (twice actually), and #2 I have no reason to dispute the author's opinion of his own article. Not sure why I'm indulging you in your silly little games.
 
I already answered #1 (twice actually), and #2 I have no reason to dispute the author's opinion of his own article. Not sure why I'm indulging you in your silly little games.
It wasn't me that brought up the '70s "global cooling" articles. It comes up again and again in these discussions and every time it is shown to have no relevance to the current situation.
 
It wasn't me that brought up the '70s "global cooling" articles. It comes up again and again in these discussions and every time it is shown to have no relevance to the current situation.
I'm not claiming that global cooling is occurring today or that's even a current theory. It was a well known theory during the 70's because it was published by prominent national magazines including Newsweek, Time, NYT and National Geographic among others. The articles didn't claim that this was niche theory, in fact, just getting published in these high profile magazines implied it wasn't a niche theory. With hindsight its easy to disprove something that hasn't ultimately come true, but that doesn't change the fact that it was well known theory at the time.

Current theory is global warming, some predictions have come true but most of the dire ones have not. 30 years from now we will look back at this period and use hindsight to determine how accurate these dire predictions were.
 
I'm not claiming that global cooling is occurring today or that's even a current theory. It was a well known theory during the 70's because it was published by prominent national magazines including Newsweek, Time, NYT and National Geographic among others. The articles didn't claim that this was niche theory, in fact, just getting published in these high profile magazines implied it wasn't a niche theory. With hindsight its easy to disprove something that hasn't ultimately come true, but that doesn't change the fact that it was well known theory at the time.

Current theory is global warming, some predictions have come true but most of the dire ones have not. 30 years from now we will look back at this period and use hindsight to determine how accurate these dire predictions were.

It was well-known to the Time/Newsweek-reading crowd, but not to serious climate scientists. As the author pointed out in his description of writing the Newsweek version, it was at best a fringe position without much backup data or analysis.

Despite active efforts to answer these questions, a pervasive myth has taken hold in the public consciousness: That there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (e.g., Balling 1992, Giddens 1999, Schlesinger 2003, Inhofe 2003, Will 2004, Michaels 2004, Crichton 2004, Singer and Avery 2007, Horner 2007). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979).

THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS Thomas C. Peterson* NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina William M. Connolley British Antarctic Survey Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom and John Fleck Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico

 
It was well-known to the Time/Newsweek-reading crowd, but not to serious climate scientists. As the author pointed out in his description of writing the Newsweek version, it was at best a fringe position without much backup data or analysis.

Despite active efforts to answer these questions, a pervasive myth has taken hold in the public consciousness: That there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (e.g., Balling 1992, Giddens 1999, Schlesinger 2003, Inhofe 2003, Will 2004, Michaels 2004, Crichton 2004, Singer and Avery 2007, Horner 2007). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979).

THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS Thomas C. Peterson* NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina William M. Connolley British Antarctic Survey Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom and John Fleck Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico

And more --


While the scientific understanding of human-caused global warming progressed significantly in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the connection between fossil fuel burning and global warming can be traced back as far as the 1890s. Research published in the 1970s shows that this connection continued to be studied. A 1975 paper published in the journal Science2, for example, projected continued warming totalling 0.8°C by 2000—only slightly more than actually occurred. And a prominent US National Academy of Sciences report published in 19793 estimated the warming power of CO2 at 3°C (±1.5°C) for a doubling of the concentration, a number that is still consistent with current scientific understanding.
 
It was well-known to the Time/Newsweek-reading crowd, but not to serious climate scientists. As the author pointed out in his description of writing the Newsweek version, it was at best a fringe position without much backup data or analysis.

Despite active efforts to answer these questions, a pervasive myth has taken hold in the public consciousness: That there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (e.g., Balling 1992, Giddens 1999, Schlesinger 2003, Inhofe 2003, Will 2004, Michaels 2004, Crichton 2004, Singer and Avery 2007, Horner 2007). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979).

THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS Thomas C. Peterson* NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina William M. Connolley British Antarctic Survey Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom and John Fleck Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Again hindsight is 20/20. Convenient that the author (now that he is wrong and the article is being used to discredit science) claims it was a niche theory, but made no reference to it being a niche theory in the original article. I have no doubt that there were other scientists that disagreed with global cooling at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a prominent opinion at the time, or as the New York Times claimed in 1975 "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable". If that was so wrong where were all the voices prominently disputing this theory. Just buried in some niche scientific journal?
 
The irony is that the global cooling of the 70's is dismissed as unsophisticated climate science, yet the same scientists rely on decades and centuries old temperature data.
but yet armchair scientists like the big E reference it as gospel. I certainly think humans have an impact on the environment, how could we not...but not as dire as many say or wish....scared humans can make other humans wealthy.
 
Again hindsight is 20/20. Convenient that the author (now that he is wrong and the article is being used to discredit science) claims it was a niche theory, but made no reference to it being a niche theory in the original article. I have no doubt that there were other scientists that disagreed with global cooling at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a prominent opinion at the time, or as the New York Times claimed in 1975 "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable". If that was so wrong where were all the voices prominently disputing this theory. Just buried in some niche scientific journal?
I guess I can't make you actually read the articles I post.

Party on, Shriner.
 
Back
Top