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.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
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.
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.
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 --
1977 "coming ice age" Time magazine cover is a fake
This meme utilizes a widely circulated fake image purporting to show a 1977 Time magazine story titled "How To Survive The Coming Ice Age". The cover is actually from 2007, for a story titled "The Global Warming Survival Guide". While a claim of global cooling did appear a couple times in the...
climatefeedback.org
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.
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?
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
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.
Desert Hound
DA
What will happen is years from now you will see similar type stories.
As in quite a few scientists didnt believe in catastrophic man made warming. They will apologize for not speaking out, but point out that the voices being heard and promoted were the ones getting funding by politicians who pushed the theory. And it was hard for them to speak out.
Nonsense.
You might want to read them too. From your link to https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
"By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood."
This article just confirms what I said previously that the global cooling theory is dismissed now because climate science wasn't as sophisticated as it is now, or as the article says "Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s." Guess what...In 2050, scientists are going to say that "climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 2010s and 2020s". As we never had an Ice Age following the 1970's predictions, the North Pole isn't going to be ice free by 2013, oh wait, that was ten years ago...how are we doing?
Like the "scientists" and the public policy wonks that are distancing themselves from their previous Covid opinions.
Later in the same paragraph --You might want to read them too. From your link to https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
"By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood."
This article just confirms what I said previously that the global cooling theory is dismissed now because climate science wasn't as sophisticated as it is now, or as the article says "Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s." Guess what...In 2050, scientists are going to say that "climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 2010s and 2020s". As we never had an Ice Age following the 1970's predictions, the North Pole isn't going to be ice free by 2013, oh wait, that was ten years ago...how are we doing?
It was not long, however, before scientists teasing apart the details of Mitchell’s trend found that it was not necessarily a global phenomenon.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
How do you have so much time to post here and on the other topics with all you need to do because of the climate crisis? I'm impressed.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
We now know the first three people to get COVID worked in the Wuhan lab: Will the US government act?
The first 3 people sickened by COVID-19 were scientists experimenting with SARS-like coronaviruses.
nypost.com
Desert Hound
DA
And yet the media and "experts" told us this wasnt possible.We now know the first three people to get COVID worked in the Wuhan lab: Will the US government act?
The first 3 people sickened by COVID-19 were scientists experimenting with SARS-like coronaviruses.
But as we get more info/emails/ etc from gov officials they knew it.
Speaking of they knew it...the former CDC head admitted that they knew being vaxxed did not stop transmission. And yet...for long after that they kept telling us to get vaxxed to stop the spread. Matter of fact many people got fired for not getting the vax because they might spread the virus.
Our experts knew the vaxxed spread it just as well as everyone else.
But yeah lets change our lifestyle to save the world because the same gov experts, or experts paid by the gov tell us catastrophic global warming is coming our way.
The hits just keep coming.
www.edweek.org
"Teenagers’ math and reading performance has continued to fall on the test known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” with math scores showing the largest-ever declines since the National Assessment of Educational Progress began tracking long-term trends in student performance."
Reading and Math Achievement Is Getting Worse, Nation's Report Card Shows
Gaps between the highest- and lowest-performing students and white and Black students are widening.
www.edweek.org
"Teenagers’ math and reading performance has continued to fall on the test known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” with math scores showing the largest-ever declines since the National Assessment of Educational Progress began tracking long-term trends in student performance."
Really?
Read that sentence, then try to find anything which supports it as phrased.
You won't find it. At best, you will come back with something from Mediaite claiming equal viral load, but ignoring the fact that vaccinated people are sick for a shorter period of time. Or maybe someone comparing the first infection of a vaccinated person to the second infection of an unvaccinated. What you will not find is a peer reviewed paper claiming that the first infection of a vaccinated person spreads the same as the first infection of an unvaccinated person.