687 replies to this topic

[RNG]

then you'll have no problem finding a link to that little known Suzuki fact...

I expect you'll dodge that question too

Not sure if this here interwebz thingy carries data from that far back, but I am about to bust a gut to prove you wrong.

[wyly]

Not sure if this here interwebz thingy carries data from that far back, but I am about to bust a gut to prove you wrong.

prove me wrong? I asked you to verify a wild accusation...

[RNG]

http://wapedia.mobi/...al_cooling?t=4.

Best I could do. It doesn't nail his butt to this cross but trust me, he was there.

And I suppose you don't remember Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"?

Edited by RNG, 29 September 2010 - 10:18 PM.

[wyly]

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Global_cooling?t=4.

Best I could do. It doesn't nail his butt to this cross but trust me, he was there.

And I suppose you don't remember Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"?

he wasn't there...verify it or withdraw it...

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...even in the 60's or 70's...public hysteria over a couple of magazine articles, even at that time a warming planet was the dominant view... but the idea of a warming planet wasn't very exciting or newsworthy to a scientifically illiterate media and public..


never heard of Rachel Carson, and what does she have to do with Suzuki?

[RNG]

he wasn't there...verify it or withdraw it...

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...even in the 60's or 70's...public hysteria over a couple of magazine articles, even at that time a warming planet was the dominant view... but the idea of a warming planet wasn't very exciting or newsworthy to a scientifically illiterate media and public..


never heard of Rachel Carson, and what does she have to do with Suzuki?

I'm not withdrawing, i may have to actually go to a real library and get real paper shit, scan it and then post the pdf's, but I'm right on this one.

[lukin]

Wyly, you can't prove anything, no matter how arrogant you become. AGW is a load of BS, just like global cooling was a load of BS. However, you are free to believe what you want...no matter how wrong it may be.

Please answer for me how you personally, Mrs. Wyly, has changed her life to save our planet? What are some of the measures you have taken to help the survival of this planet?

[Wild Bill]

I'm not withdrawing, i may have to actually go to a real library and get real paper shit, scan it and then post the pdf's, but I'm right on this one.

I'm with you on this one! Wyly has just 100% contradicted my own personal experience from living through those years and also having always been a science buff!

One of the problems of the Internet age is that often there are no cites available pre-mid 90's or so. Some folks seem to believe that there was no history before that time. Certainly, they don't seem to have ever actually read a book or two on a given topic!

Maybe those of us with reasonably good personal libraries should start using footnotes.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm not withdrawing, i may have to actually go to a real library and get real paper shit, scan it and then post the pdf's, but I'm right on this one.

This article has a lot of those quotes.....the youngsters on this site would be wise to read through it in it's entirety:

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/the-global-cooling-scare-revisited/

Or how about Leonard Nimoy's old program "In Search of".....here's his program on the coming Ice Age:

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/09/unearthed-video-global-warming-alarmist-warned-of-ice-age-in-1970s.html

Or how about this one - extracted articles from the New York Times - showing warming and cooling predictions over the last 150 years.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

Edited by Keepitsimple, 30 September 2010 - 05:32 AM.

[Saipan]

he wasn't there...verify it or withdraw it...

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...

As much panic as today with "global warming" I still remember the animation on TV showing how will the ice move South, deeper on the Atlantic Coast, then Central. The Florida swamps were selling like hotcakes. Anything to escape the new Ice Age.

Multiplied by "Energy Crises" as the Midwest rivers froze for the "first time" and barges couldn't transport heating fuel [it's always "first time" and "unprecedented" to give the panic full weight]. Scientists predicting we "will be out of oil by mid 80's"!!!!

Now it's global warm up. And we all gonna die unless we do some kind of rain dance real quick. It was human sacrifice, then animal sacrifice, now economic sacrifice. Not much changed really.

[RNG]

he wasn't there...verify it or withdraw it...

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...even in the 60's or 70's...public hysteria over a couple of magazine articles, even at that time a warming planet was the dominant view... but the idea of a warming planet wasn't very exciting or newsworthy to a scientifically illiterate media and public..


never heard of Rachel Carson, and what does she have to do with Suzuki?

Been busy but here you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[waldo]

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...even in the 60's or 70's...public hysteria over a couple of magazine articles, even at that time a warming planet was the dominant view... but the idea of a warming planet wasn't very exciting or newsworthy to a scientifically illiterate media and public...

Been busy but here you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

wyly, yet again? We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling:

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

[RNG]

wyly, yet again? We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling:

The Wiki article does admit that the scientific community wasn't solidly behind it, but it was sensationalized in the MSM of the time as Wiki says. Just as I think the media are sensationalizing things now. That's how they make their money.

[waldo]

Remember the famed hockey stick graph which was supposed to prove that human emitted carbon is causing global warming, I mean climate change? Well Dr. Edward Wegman proved how fallacious that theory was.

it's bad enough deniers never reconciled with the NAS report findings... that they continually attempted to leverage what they thought the Wegman Report actually stated. Obviously the denialsphere has extreme difficulty with the recent months worth of investigative work that's helped to uncover the bias, distortion, manipulation and outright plagiarism within the Wegman Report. I expect we'll continue to see the fallout as it works it's way ultimately to those who attempted to leverage that report within the U.S. Congress (paging Joe Barton, paging Joe Barton)... notwithstanding, of course, the absolute faith the so-called 'slayer of hockey-sticks', McIntyre has placed in, "all that is Wegman"

John Mashey on Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report

Wegman report update, part 2: GMU dissertation review

Wegman Report update, part 1: More dubious scholarship in full colour

[waldo]

The Wiki article does admit that the scientific community wasn't solidly behind it, but it was sensationalized in the MSM of the time as Wiki says. Just as I think the media are sensationalizing things now. That's how they make their money.

and your personal attribution to that media perpetuated 70's global cooling myth... would be... what?

[RNG]

and your personal attribution to that media perpetuated 70's global cooling myth... would be... what?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. As I said, then, the media made money by sensationalizing things. Now, the media, some scientists and Al Gore make money by sensationalizing things.

Is global warming happening? Probably.

Is it due to man's presence? Possibly.

Is CO2 the major baddy? I think the jury is out. As I have said before, I want to see water vapor and cloud cover included in the computer models used for the conclusions the IPCC types issue. I want a better understanding of the potential magnitude of the threat before policies are instituted that cause major economic disruptions.

CO2 is bad for oceans. No question, but again, how bad how soon?

Renewable energy sources need nurturing for all our good, including that of the economy as oil, a dwindling resource becomes more and more expensive.

But over-reactions can be worse than laise faire in some cases.