Why I don’t believe in man-made Global Warming
This is the short form. Follow closely.
Here we learn that if you have herpes it may protect you from “bubonic plague and other bacterial contagions, at least in mice”.
But, here we learn that herpes may cause ” Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia”.
Yet here we learn that “Marijuana’s Key Ingredient Might Fight Alzheimer’s”.
And over here we learn that “Red Wine May Help Prevent Alzheimer’s” also.
This is science as we currently understand it.
The same “science” that supports man-made Global Warming. So if you don’t want to get Alzheimer’s you better spend most of your time stoned drinking Red Wine. Don’t despair, at least you won’t get bubonic plague, at least in mice.
This may explain why so many people have fallen for the man-made Global Warming scam.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
It is not the same science.
I’m pretty sure you don’t know what “science” is.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
That and ice caps are melting on Mars…
May 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Of course…it might help if you showed that the “science” behind any of those things was actually wrong.
You pretty much showed us what a boob you are; let’s see…you didn’t show that “science” lead people to believe anything incorrect or did anything suspect.
You didn’t establish any correlation or relation to the body of scientific work that supports AGW.
Do you have pictures of Uncle fellating goats or evidence that he cheats on his taxes? Cause I really can’t imagine why he lets you post here. You’re really shitting up his blog. Bigtime.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Jay–
The Mars thing was debunked like two years ago.
The long and the short of it is that a three year regional trend on Mars doesn’t offer much evidence for any conclusions about Earth.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Should I have filed that under “Humor”?
May 16th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
You probably should have filed it under “circular file”. It certainly didn’t come across as “funny”. It came across as “science in completely unrelated fields tells us stuff that seems counterintuitive so that must mean AGW is bunk.”
Which is to say…it makes it sound like your knuckles drag on the ground when you walk. If you were being cute…well, I think I can be excused for missing that part since there are plenty of dullards who use that same line of reasoning and they ain’t jokin, man.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Boy someone musta got up on the wrong side of the bed.
I’ve been laughing at our modern “science” for quite a while now. One day it’s one thing, then the next it’s another.
“Modern science” has existed for what? 150 years? Maybe 200 if you’re generous? And they think they’ve got everything figured out? Go figure.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Yawn…
Like I said…it wasn’t funny. Everything figured out? Nope. But some things? Yup.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
it wasn’t funny. Everything figured out? Nope. But some things? Yup.
But global warming ain’t one of them.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
More yawns…
Thousands of scientists vs. your uncorroborated say so. Tough call, isn’t it?
I love it when non-scientists tell scientists what they have and haven’t figured out.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Bah, most people who go on about how great science is never actually perform any of the calculations needed to determine if the numbers they’ve been fed are real or not.
But it’s science.
And this is coming from a guy who has a quantum physics joke for a bumper sticker.
Don’t get me wrong. Science provides us with insights into the mysteries of the universe. I love it. I love the changes it brings. I love it when we find we’ve been wrong for X years.
What I don’t like is the politicization of science, like AGW. I’ve read the reports, I’ve seen the numbers, and frankly they don’t add up. If it was a court case, there’d be enough reasonable doubt for me to not convict.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Then quit politicizing it. The scientists doing the work aren’t. It’s just hacks like #9.
Well, thousands of scientists who actually know what they’re doing disagree. Once again…their peer reviewed work vs. your say so.
Is that supposed to be a convincing argument? You don’t think it “adds up?” You’re gonna have to do better than that.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
If it was a court case, there’d be enough reasonable doubt for me to not convict.
I concur. Completely.
By the way, who says I am not a scientist? You might be curious as to the definition of both “science” and “scientist”.
As far as the humor content, I leave that up to the reader. I thought it was pretty humorous and insightful.
This is the third in a series of examples on how easy it is to con believers with “science”. The first being coffee and the heart and the second if I remember correctly, more humor there, being multivitamin supplements. Which, by the way, cause prostate cancer we learned this earlier this week. Or so science says.
Maybe we should find out who exactly this “science” actually is.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Scientists wouldn’t A) try to pass this off as funny or B) think this sort of thing represents a sensible or serious position.
You could start with reading the actual IPCC report released last month and then try finding something to contradict its findings. This ought to be rich.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Maybe the better question though is this: there are thousands of scientists who essentially agree that AGW is real, and only a small minority of denialists who cling to the sinking ship. The physics of CO2 forcing are well understood and aren’t even at issue amongst the most stern AGW deniers. Most of the steadfast deniers have switched gears from actual denial to “well, it won’t be that big of a deal” lines of thought.
So…what would it take for you to be convinced? The body of informed scientific thought is all but unamimous at this point. What else would be required to get you to accept the reality of AGW?
Be specific. What piece or pieces are missing that you’d like to see?
May 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Sebastian,
Your beef is with the evil right wingers at National Geographic, who posted that article in February of this year.
That word you keep using does not mean what you think it means.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
You mean the article that said things like
about the boob saying something that scientists have known for years has nothing to do with earthly AGW?
It adds
and…
Yeah, a real resounding voice for your cause. Yawns abound.
Wow, somebody else trying to be funny…and really sucking at it.
Says your article:
Yeah, hitch your wagon to that dude…good idea!
I wonder if people actually read things before they post them sometimes. The article you linked to essentially pisses all over the stupid idea that Mars somehow denigrates the validity of AGW, and from a great height…and you posted it thinking it helps #9’s argument? Fuck. That’s just….fuck.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
And this is coming from a guy who has a quantum physics joke for a bumper sticker.
I missed that first time around.
Good one.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:13 am
All I have to say is: Wow.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:12 am
I may or may not break for schrodinger’s cat? Interesting, although not as high-brow as I’d expect. I suppose commenting on hubble bubbles or vacuum particles would take up too much space, though.
So…what would it take for you to be convinced? The body of informed scientific thought is all but unamimous at this point. What else would be required to get you to accept the reality of AGW?
For starters? It’d be nice to see predictions from global warming experts to actually fit for a few years in advance, reliably, or a program that could take CO2 production data over a few decades and predict average global temperature (and not do so after being fed random noise or incorrect data, obviously). Known climate data needs to stop being tossed out just because it seems to be in “error”; if the science is good enough to support a Kyoto-sized or more significant policy change, the medieval warming period’s affect on Europe and Africa can’t be carefully ignored.
I’d like, but wouldn’t really need, to see some better analysis on solar activity. We are supposed to be hitting three or four maximal solar circumstances at once, here, at least. It may very well not matter — after all, if we are warming up, shutting down CO2 production should help reduce the values regardless of the cause. Significantly less hypocrisy on the part of global warming fanatics would be nice, too. It’s not a deadly sin, but honestly, if you think global warming is going to doom us all irreversibly in months or a few years and have mucho dinero, you should have a home more energy efficient than George W. Bush’s and have a Tesla Roadster pre-order, not carbon off-sets and a private jet. Same goes for those who complain endlessly about energy production from coal, which is supposed to be slow-roasting us, but blocking nuclear power production when modern reactors make nothing more radioactive than the material they take in and no greenhouse gases other than the evaporated water.
It seems like high standards, that’s quite true, but we’re talking a maxima of five degrees of change over the next century, and the most reliable model I’ve seen puts it to one degree. Vast, world-changing economic policies are talking tenths of a degree of protection over a century, as well. This is not the sort of thing that split-second decision making is necessary or even good policy for. It’s also a policy decision — even assuming global warming we still need better data and predictive models (and fewer Gores), when the economic devastation a harsh solution could really speed up humanity’s genetic mess (and end up doing nothing against global warming, or doing harm if we end up just sending our manufacturing to inefficient Chinese plants).
Oh, and less “consensus” this or “consensus” that. Seriously, folks, the “consensus” used to be that the Earth was flat and that Lamarckism was correct. String theory and the existence of god are both a matter of “consensus”, but that consensus alone is fairly valueless when both are fairly unfalsifiable. The same goes for global warming when consensus takes it from the inherently difficult falsifiability of anything involving climate (since a single piece of bad data is just noise or natural variation), and makes it impossible to even bring up research that doesn’t agree.
Science is falsifiability. That’s why we have scientists spending all day, every day, every week, trying to break general relativity. That’s why the answer to “I’ve got cold fusion” isn’t “that’s impossible”, but “prove it”. If you can’t deal with folks trying to poke at even the most complete consensus, get into education. If people disagreeing with you scares you somehow, get into the DNC.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:50 am
A. if air pollution is having a measurable effect on the climate, that effect would be to cool the earth, not warm it. Look at the three year climatological cycles following every significant volcanic eruption. The pollution in the air reflected much sunlight back into space and filtered some from particle to particle preventing that heat energy from reaching earth. This has happened without fail. Every time. So if global warming is so dangerous, we all owe a debt of gratitude to anyone polluting the atmosphere and slowing down the heating of earth, if you believe the warming to be harmful.
B. Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a management tool that means we are all too chickenshit to claim a position so we will fart around till we see what everyone else will agree to and we will too. As such, it isn’t even a good management tool.
C. Consensus does not exist in the scientific community as to the cause of global warming. The science does show that we are warmer than we were in recent history,but not as warm as we were in the 13th century. That is provable. Yet there is not consensus either in whether this will be a bad thing. Remember, Greenland used to actually be green and was settled by Danish agriculturists. (farmers for you spittle flecked liberals)
D. Another provable fact is that the Atlantic Ocean at one time was frozen almost completely over as far south as Spain. This was so long ago that scientific discovery established this fact because there is no historical record. Most likely meaning before man was even on earth. Yet the entire globe warmed up without us.
E. No climatological model yet devised has ever been able to verify the past that we know has happened, and that we have recorded, with the exception of one. If with all their consensus these so-called researchers can’t determine what we know happened, how the Hell do we trust them to predict the future? Predicting the past is much easier and they can’t do that. The exception is when the known temperatures of the earth over a period of time are graphed alongside the known strength of the output of our sun. Every drop rise and fall and levelling is mirrored from one graph to the other. Fact, with some variations for catastrophic events such as large volcanic eruptions. Which is also measurable as to its blocking effect of the sun’s rays.
F. These consenters (consensus signatories) are the same people in some cases, and the same institutes, research facilities, etc., in the other cases, that were warning us from 40 to 30 years ago that life as we knew it on earth was going to be irrevocably changed if not eradicated due to the coming ICE AGE. Yeah, when that didn’t happen, they needed another ride or the grant money was going to dry up.
Until A through F can be refuted in their entireties no “man causes global warming hysterical screecher” should be given an audience anywhere. If they are too lazy or too intellectually limited to do the work, don’t try to get me on board with the “everybody does it” crap. That is kindergarten stuff. I’m too old and too intelligent for it. Try it out on the very young or the very limited or the very insecure that need to “belong”.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:56 am
And for Pete’s sake let’s not mention the fact that glaciers were once as far south as central Illinois. Damn, that was before man also. Yet we warmed up. The Earth must have known we were coming in a few million years and was just practicing. Right?
Let’s not forget the marine fossils found in Kansas, deposited well before man’s advent. Damn again, that seems to suggest this earth has been undergoing climatological change before it had a scapegoat.
I will tell you now,PGP, this is a trap. Tell us about the polar bears, please.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Are you aware of the tropical rain forest in eastern Washington state? Yes, there is one and it is a U.S. Forest? Seems like it might have been much warmer when that happened than now, doesn’t it?
May 17th, 2007 at 3:57 am
I’m sure not a geologist by any means, but west of Lawton, OK along the southern edge of the Wichita Mtns. there are fairly large “piles” of rocks that appear to have been dumped out of glaciers. These are smooth rocks indicating water placement instead of jagged rocks indicating they are windblown. Many of these rocks look to have been simply dumped out of a dump truck and are 5-7 feet in diameter. That would indicate to me a glacier as far south as southern Oklahoma,,, long before man was ever here. I WONDER WHAT CAUSED THE GLACIER TO MELT? Now then if global warming is accepted and acted upon by the major industrial democracies to the said democracy’s economical demise, who stands to gain? Could this just be another way to forment a “one world government” run by tyrants & elitists like George Soros? I understand that nearly every part made for New Holand farm equipment is made in China. My John Deere tractor engine was made in Mexico. Two Third World countries that will most likely not have to comply with global warming regulations.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Uncle says he doesn’t “believe” in global warming… Fine – so be it.
-BUT-
This is not something that someone should need to take on faith though. Either you have immersed yourself in the science and reasonings behind the hypothesis, and found the evidence to be lacking (which is fine and a reasonable thing to do- but I don’t see an arguement supporting this) – or you are making a relativist and uninformed statement. perpetuating Al Gore, or Anti-Al Gore propaganda, either of which is likely baseless and does nothing helpful when it comes to identifying the actual truth.
Sounds to me like a pretty liberal thing to do – “feeling” or “believing” that something is true…
May 17th, 2007 at 7:56 am
dungbeetle, I think that was #9 and various of the commenters who expressed that view, not Unlce. It’s pretty clear that at least in some quarters, efforts to manufacture controversy are working. I read the repetition of a dozen or more talking points in the comments of this post, and have seen all of them answered decisively at RealClimate at some point or another. It turns out that most of the misleading talking points have already been debunked, and that a person who isn’t able to immerse themselves in the science could at least use the interwebs to check some of these ideas out before they make up their minds on the basis of them. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem many of them have time to.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:43 am
smijer, – I meant to highlite Uncle’s useof the word “believe” in the title of the post.
Also – There still remains (for me) a non sequitur between the content of thepost and his conclusion, ie these scientific conclusions are humurous, therefore, global warming is also humorous (and perhaps bunk), as #9 astutely pointed out.
Another thing that should not be overlooked is that as odd and often pointless as some of our modern research may seem, there was transparency in how people came to those conclusions – methods and analysis that were used are well documented so as to be deliberately refutable, should anyone wish to disagree. If people believe the conclusions are a scam, they can refute them with equal transparency, though I’m unaware of anyone has done so in this situation. If we can not make well reasoned and transparent conclusions about the world, what can we do? If we are to advance, we have to do it somehow, and I have more hope for science and the “truth” any of the alternatives.
Reason breaks down (rather it abandons us completely) when we use humorous scientific advancements as an arguement for why other theories can be written off as a scam.
One should always ask himself “What do I know and how do I know it?” People usually take answers to the first part of that question on faith, and disregard the second part completely.
The level of scientific discussion in the country makes dung beetle (who is a molecular biologist) very sad.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Ha Ha, Copernicus! The earth doesn’t revolve around the sun.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Gattsuru,
Done.
That’s one of the more tired talking points you’re using–the AGW models generally are on the money. What’s more, you can’t account for observed climate trends without anthropogenic considerations.
Ask and ye shall receive.
In short, you can’t explain AGW away with solar forcing.
There was never in the history of the modern scientific era a peer reviewed consensus that the Earth was flat that was supported by observation and empirical data. Contrary to the myth you learned in elementary school, humans figured out the earth was a sphere about 2000 years before Jesus walked the earth.
You’re a retard if you even DREAM for one second that’s a sensible argument. Sorry, no nice way to put that.
SA, I’d do a line by line rebuttal of the laughable bullshit you posted, but you destroyed your own crediblity by repeating the oft-debunked bullshit that “these scientists told us about global cooling/ICE AGE” etc…
Dude…surefire way to show that you know less than nothing about this topic is to repeat that nonsensical baloney.
There was NEVER a scientific consensus that we were facing an impending doom ice age event. NEVER.
You may as well call climatologists poopie heads if that’s the sort of argument you’re going to use.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am
What about this?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I meant to highlight that the author of the post and title was #9, not Uncle.
😉
May 17th, 2007 at 10:30 am
You probably should have filed it under “circular file”. It certainly didn’t come across as “funny”.
Of course not. No one likes it when you make fun of their religion.
Global warming on Mars was not “debunked” it was simply identified as unproven…sort of like anthropomorphic global warming.
No one ever said that temperature increases on Mars, Saturn and some of the moons of Jupiter absolutely demonstrates that anthropomorphic global warming is false or that it “proves” that solar activity is the cause of global warming…only that it raises questions about the claims that global warming is caused by mankind.
The fact that you spend so much energy trying to undermine or dismiss ANY evidence that does not support your premise unequivocally demonstrates the status of anthropomorphic global warming in your mind as a religious, rather than scientific, belief.
From your own link:
“Therefore, in the view of the uncertainties and the conflicting data it doesn’t seem to be appropriate to make uncritical and sensational claims about the history of the sun. As long as the differences between the 10Be records are not understood, conclusions based on only one of these records should be treated with caution.”
In other words: “We really don’t know.”
That is a far cry from “debunked”.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:32 am
There seems to be some confusion from a few people as to the point of the post.
First, it was a humorous bit. Second it shows how people can be sheeple. Third, it shows the complete folly of the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. Junk science and reporting go hand in hand. It’s just a way to sell newspapers.
Global Warming has gone on for millions of years and will continue whether you ride a bike or buy a Prius. Deal with it.
If you do ride a bike or drive a Prius then can you do so without telling everyone else they have to?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am
smijer – Doh! Thanks for attempting to set me straight on that.
Sorry to put words in you mouth, Uncle.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Curt nails it!
May 17th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
PGP, thank you for your surrender to my superior logic. I appreciate that you didn’t try to disclaim any of it but one part. And you’re wrong on that.
You must be young. I remember the hysteria of the coming Ice Age, as I suspect many on this board do. We didn’t have the internet then, and global communications were slower, but the news items still got around. It was widely reported and supported by the scientific community that we were facing a catastrophic cooling of the earth. Funny, how that same scientific community is now trying to fan hysteria in the other direction.
As to consensus anybody can claim consensus once they make up their minds that those who disagree with them are to be ignored. There are a great many scientists who do disagree with the artificial (by omission of dissent) consensus. If you actually studied the question you would know that, instead of just embracing the talking points of the “global warming” community with a religious zeal.
So far as I can tell nobody here has denied global warming. It is a fact. We are warming and have been for a while now. Just like we have done many times. The disagreement is whether we are the cause of it in any substantial way.
Instead of addressing what I said,you went after me, because you cannot honestly and correctly assail the points I made. That my friend is surrender of the field.
I did notice you didn’t tell us about the polar bears, why is that?
May 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
StraightArrow – these talking points are not hard to fact-check, and it seems that you would want to take the time to do that before adopting them as your own. I, too, remember the media hype about global cooling. However, the possibility was never widely “supported by the scientific community”. In fact, some of the very same papers that the media was hyping on global cooling made clear that the probability of such a thing was not known, and may not exceed the also-unknown-at-the-time probability of global warming.
You can read about it all here.
😀
May 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
It concerns me that Sebastian may be packing . . . lighten up, Francis.
Sorry if we’re not all prostrate in the face of your doomsdayism.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Uhm? Hello? Are you that daft? What I said wasn’t that warming on Mars was debunked, I said that the “mars thing” (ie, the stupid notion that warming on Mars informs us about warming here) was debunked. Try to keep up.
I pointed to a link that shows that the regional warming trend on Mars doesn’t tell us much about AGW here. And said just that myself. Your entire rant is off base.
About what you’d expect from someone who thinks refering to science as “my religion” is a compelling argument, I guess. If you really think empirical observation and peer reviewed study can be equated with matters of faith…there’s no helping you. You’re going to believe what you want to believe. You probably really dig on Intelligent Design, eh?
Your misreading of my post is really funny. I never did any such thing. I merely pointed to the fact that the scientific community pretty roundly dismisses the idea that regional warming on Mars suggests that AGW isn’t legit. You’ll find even fewer scientists who disagree with me there than disagree with AGW.
They’re discussion solar forcing, not Mars there, dipshyte.
And if you actually bothered to read that, you’d see that A) nobody really thinks solar forcing can account for observed climate trends and B) what influence solar forcing has is generally not congruent with warming in the first place.
Nice try, though.
No, it’s me acknowledging that arguing with somebody dumb enough to think that those “science used to think the earth was bound for an ice age a few years ago” type arguments make sense is a waste of keystrokes. As others have pointed out…that talking point has been shown to be bullshit for some time now. Your continued use of it shows that you’re probably not bright enough to be educated on this issue…so why bother?
It’s no different than arguing with somebody who believes in evil cop killer exploding uranium laced teflon bullets. If you’re using long since debunked idiot talking points as the staple of your argument, I really can’t see why discussing polar bears is going to do either of us any good.
Ned,
Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. Really. Spoken like a true Bradyite moron. Who said anything about doomsday but your ignorant arse?
May 17th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Just because you say it PGP,doesn’t make it so.
All the major news media and magazines carried articles on the Ice Age and noted the scientists concern about worldwide famine as more and more land became unfarmable.
You can say anything you want, but I was there. Don’t tell me I didn’t see and hear what I saw and heard.
Smijer, as for your response to my post, I find little fault with it, except your refusal to see the similarity between then and now, with just a different bogeyman. I held the same opinion of the coming Ice Age as I do manmade global warming. They simply didn’t know enough, they still don’t. At the time, though the people pushing it claimed all serious science recognized the coming catastrophe, just as they do now. Wasn’t true then, isn’t true now.
You should do better research. You will probably have to get off the internet to do it. The net didn’t exist then. When these same institutions post any papers, etc. from that time what is to keep them from cherrypicking what they say about what they said then. Go to a library with dead tree documents of the time. Do not rely on what these people now say they said then.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
PGP, I take exception to your abuse of me and my supposed intellectual shortcomings, but I will forgive you, simply because you can do no else. Too small.
Your problem should be cross enough for you to bear. You didn’t say a damn thing that couldn’t be said of your “points”.
The proposal that an Ice Age was coming has been proven to be bullshit! Absolutely. Most of us knew so then. The fact that they said it and received acclaim and money to study it and any possible response is not.
Just who said it didn’t happen? And why if it didn’t happen would someone think to deny it?
I call bullshit alright! On you.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
And you still haven’t invoked the polar bears. Why is that?
May 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I can do that, but I’m not going to go in blind. If you say the scientists of the time were talking about the potential, near-term cooling trend in terms similar to those that the climate scientists are currently using to talk about anthropogenic, near-term warming trends, then I’ll only believe you if you provide the references for me to check. That’s not unreasonable to ask, since the burden of proof is yours after all & others have already gone beyond that burden to show papers and quotations from the time, from their own field showing the view I presented earlier.
Like I said – I was there. I know what the MSM did – what it always does with science reporting, if not worse. But what the MSM does isn’t really what’s under discussion here.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Solar%20Cycles%20-%20Jaworowski.htm
an excerpt from: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14857/pub_detail.asp
1. The surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1 degree F over the past century. [SLIDE 1] The increase was sharp in the first half of the century. There was cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s and there was an increase in surface temperatures over the past 25 years. By the way, during the cooling there was another hysteria, similar to the current one. In a huge article, Walter Sullivan wrote May 21, 1975, in the New York Times under the headline: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead” : “A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that it may already have begun are evident. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain’s growing season for crops by two weeks…. In 1971, according to images from earth satellites, autumn snow and ice cover increased by 1.5 million square miles.” And so on. An article in Newsweek suggested covering the polar regions with soot to trap solar heat in an effort to fight this “inevitable” new ice age. 1***************************
Where do you think those ideas came from?
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14857/pub_detail.asp
None of the above are conclusive for any position on climate change and its causes. Some are balanced, some not. But that ends the discussion of whether or not their is consensus. There is not.
There are better sources but I don’t have access to a library that has sufficient archives. However, if you search Time, Newsweek, Popular Science, I think Life had some too, they will cite sources. The period of time would be circa 1958 to 1975 or thereabouts.
The Ice Age myth had lost a lot of luster by 1970, but the politicization of the science was soon to follow. With all the recommended people controls necessary to push the agenda.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
straightarrow,
To be clear, I’m not disputing your claim that the MSM from the past raised a ruckus about cooling similar to the current one about warming. I’m disputing your characterization of the scientific opinion of the time.
The references you cited are to modern publications, and at least some that deal exclusively with the MSM’s treatment of the issues. They are worthless for supporting the claim under dispute.
If you need to make a trip to a library to refresh your memory of the publications and papers that reflect a similar view, among scientists, concerning cooling as exists among scientists concering warming now – I can be patient. If you never saw such papers, but merely assumed they exist, you might want to double check your assumption.
I would like to hear back from you with references to those papers (the ones from the 50’s-70’s), reflective of mainstream scientific thought, that characterized cooling in terms similar to those warming is characterized by now. If you can’t provide those, or discover those, it may be because your assertion was incorrect and needs correction.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I would like to hear back from you with references to those papers (the ones from the 50’s-70’s), reflective of mainstream scientific thought, that characterized cooling in terms similar to those warming is characterized by now. If you can’t provide those, or discover those, it may be because your assertion was incorrect and needs correction.
Bullshit smijer, this isn’t your classroom. You don’t have the authority to make homework assignments. You care so much you go to the library. I forget the term for that debate ploy but it doesn’t wash.
This post makes the argument that the media drives the bus of idiotic junk science claims, counterclaims, and reversals. The point isn’t about “science”, it is about what whores the media are. You know that.
Besides, doesn’t the Holy Grail of realclimate.org have your answers?
May 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
It’s called “shifting the burden of proof” – at least that’s the name of the ploy that I’m encountering from you.
Whatever #9’s post may have been about (humor or something), your factual assertion was about science. You’re free to support it or abandon it. If you want to be stubborn, you can cling to it without support, but don’t expect to be taken seriously if that’s the course you opt to take.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Whatever #9’s post may have been about (humor or something), your factual assertion was about science.
How do you derive that? The assertion of the post is about the media. The actual science of man-made Global Warming is undetermined. Scientists are jumping ship. The perceived consensus is media driven, so what kind of consensus is it? It is reminiscent of the tulip craze of 1636 in the Netherlands.
It also reminds me of the low fat diet craze which caused real health problems. Humans are very suggestible. The bloom will soon come off this rose. Bad science or junk science told enough times will appear to be real. That is exactly what man-made Global Warming is.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
#9, I was replying to straightarrow. His assertion was that the media frenzy in the 1970’s about cooling was supported by the science as the warming frenzy is now. I showed him references that give evidence that isn’t so, but he said there were other references out there that would back him up. Not sure yet whether he is going to provide them. It wasn’t about you at all.
To answer your assertion that “scientists are bailing”… I disagree. You cited what, 8 guys? Not all of which were ever on board to begin with? There may be another 8 out there like them, plus a dozen that have been ‘contrarians’ all along.
I take the latest IPCC report to be as good an estimate of what the scientists are saying as any other single analysis. It doesn’t give the impression that scientists are bailing, or that the consensus is shifting away from the AGW conclusion. Rather the contrary.
It may remind you of the tulip craze… it reminds me of the dinosaur/bird debate, which is now effectively over despite a few holdouts in the field of ornithology.
It’s only natural to wish to compare what’s going on now with what happened in the ’70’s… but if you are listening to the arguments themselves (where possible), and the scientists themselves (where possible), you’ll see the two instances have little in common.
The tulip craze, best I can tell, wasn’t a scientific controversy at all, so I’m not sure there is a valid comparison that can be made there.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Of course they are all recent, I got them off the internet, which as I warned you was not where you find the articles of the time.
What I posted only debunked the Consensus myth.
For the rest of it, do your own homework. If you choose not to, that is your right, but it shows you are less interested in the issue than you are in the politics of the issue.
Do you suppose that the media just wrote all those stories out of whole cloth? They do some dumb things, but they have a history of “authorities in the field” attributes for cover. I told you the best sources I can remember, which will cite their sources. You said you could “do that” if I pointed you to it. So, do it. Or not.
Even so, what I did show you proves there is not consensus and that no one has a handle on the causes of global warming. If you read everything I referenced you would have seen that the same evidence in some cases was cited as proof of diametrically opposed theories. You would also have noted that some are still calling for an Ice Age, some claim a mini ice age ended about the turn of the 20th century, and some have proven that we are nowhere near as hot as we have been in several periods in the past before there was industry, and in some cases., before there were humans.
As I have said before and as has been inadvertantly been proven by the global warming community the science of today cannot even duplicate the data to prove what we know has happened and been measured.
Why in the Hell would you believe if they can’t reproduce the past that has been documented would you believe they can predict the future based on the models now in use?
Precipitous action of unknown consequence to correct a problem we can’t prove we have is just silly; and may be more harmful than the perceived problem.
Why has nobody on your side on this thread been wailing about the polar bears. Hell the media is all over it, and blaming it on “global warming”.