Can alarmists please stop lying about this?
http://news.google.com/newspapers/
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
Steve,
do you EVER consider not presenting only one side of an issue.
I guess it is impossible to find any scientist that didn’t think GW was ridiculous in 1972. Since you have never posted about such a thing, all the scientists must have been in agreement, and it was only the heroics of engineers of the mimeograph brigades that proved them wrong and forced them to overcompensate in the other direction.
These are the directors of the two leading climate study centers in the world. Think Trenberth and Jones.
Um, Tony, you sure it’s Steven presenting one side of the issue??
So then you were with dissenting scientists…. and now you are against them… got it.
Wayne,
where did you get that idea? I said nothing to indicate who I was with or against. in fact I am not with or against anyone. because when you make that decision you start only being open to one side and you start believing you must be right, and don’t NEED to look at another side. and you spend your time finding only evidence that shows the other side is wrong.
Alarmism through the years, starting in the 70’s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZLbFm-X3Q
The Coming Ice Age scare of the 70’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
It was real. I remember it, despite the efforts on the internet to hide it. Pay no attention to the alarmism of the 70’s……..
Amino,
you have posted this video before, and it is interesting that they cut off Schieder before he explained his REASONING and that it DID include CO2 as a Greenhouse gas, but his calculations foresaw a larger effect from dimming due to aerosols. At the time it was not an unreasonable possibility.
you remember the fear of the coming ice age, due you remember how bad the pollution was.
But again Please point me to a degree of media attention that is not minuscule regarding this issue. Detail me exactly where the Nature and wikipedia articles are lying and hiding all the attention given to this issue that I do not remember.
Ok Tony
it wasn’t cut off. The point was made. In the early 70’s Schneider was a coming ice age believer. He never denied that he was. Watch the first video.
What does pollution have to do with the coming ice age scare???
Where are the papers proving the human made aerosol hypothesis, that is caused cooling, and reducing it caused warming?
Hello, Tony
This 70’s aerosol argument goes in this same circle every time. The next step in the argument is to give credit to Washington for changing the weather when all along the real reason was the PDO shift in 1976.
So please do not bring up to me what was hypothesized.
There is no proof that warming and cooling in the last 50 years was anything other than natural.
Tony……. Tony……. Tony…….
where are you replies?
getting hard to stay awake waiting for your replies
Amino,
we are not talking about how valid the aerosol theory is. or how valid ACC is/. We are talking about whether there was a global cooling scare that was a major concerted attempt to convince americans of something that was not accurate. regardless of yours and SUYTS recollections, mine are quite clear. i was fascinated with science. I was reading all sorts of books about astronomy and biology,and the environment. I would clearly remember if this was more than a marginal idea. I would have become excited at the idea. As i was excited at reading Gamow’s book on relativity, Gould’s articles in natural history and books and articles on ecology. I was a real nerd. I vaguely recall hearing about global cooling, but it was not something that I ever remember being discussed. My family did not get Time or Newsweek. We got Look and Life and US News and World Report. Why does MY recollection fit with the assertions of those that say there was no concerted scientific or media effort to promote global cooling, other than as a passing minor media hype.
Here is a denier site that has 8 mentions. i think Steve has come up with a few more of these, but they are still miniscule. I have talked about this with other people my age and older and a few remember it. Most of those are aware of it because of all the attention it is getting NOW. it was NOTHING compared to the fear of soviet nuclear attack, or of risks from polluted air or water, or of even being hijacked on an airplane. or of Nixon taking over, or of McGovern turning the US into a socialist country, or of inflation, or the fuel crises, or of the middle east exploding, or many other overblown fears.
You are the one that brought up aerosols, not me.
Let’s remember that.
There’s is no need to detail anything. You are already disregarding what is obvious. Your knowledge of science now is poor. There is no reason for me to believe it was better back in the 70’s. Because of that your explanation of how you viewed the Coming Ice Age in the 70’s doesn’t require me to satisfy your demand.
I don’t want to play your game. Who do you think you are?
Amino,
Yes cutting him off IS extremely relevant, because Schneider was ONLY an ice age believer BECAUSE of the question of aerosols.
Also he was NOT the only scientist discussing the issue, and there were many who disagreed. There was NO concerted effort to promote global cooling among scientists. it was a fade for the media, and it was a issue that had different views among scientists at the time. THAT is the reality. The media make money by getting peoples interest. In ALL the lists of the media bandwagon about global cooling I don’t see ANY one outlet with more than three instances. SO over the period from 1970 to 1977, the LA times ran THREE articles. THAT is a a media/scientific conspiracy?
I read Omni and I may or may not have read that article. I do not remember Omni writing numerous articles about it. i am pretty sure I would remember that.
No one denies that there were stories about global cooling or an ice age or that some scientists expressed real concern about it. But pretending that it was anything more than that is just propaganda.
this is not a question about knowledge of science. it is a question of actual history and people blowing up something minor but real into something huge and invented in order to fit an ideological agenda
Tonyd says:
“this is not a question about knowledge of science. it is a question of actual history and people blowing up something minor but real into something huge and invented in order to fit an ideological agenda”
So, will you be posting over at realclimate telling them to stop it?
Tony Duncan
You did not watch the first video. Stephen Schneider does not deny that he believed in the Coming Ice Age before he believed in Global Warming.
Stephen Schneider believed in the Coming Ice Age.
Amino,
How many times do you have to read this.
He BASED his belief in global cooling on Aerosols and tentative hypothesis that they would overwhelm a GHE. A reasonable conjecture at the time. NO one has denied this Not Schneider not anyone at real climate or any other person.
What they deny is that there was this concerted effort agreed to by a majority of scientists to promote the idea that there was an imminent global cooling. It was an idea that was given credence by some and flat out denied by others. The MEDIA made amino issue about it for a few years very infrequently, and TODAY deniers are presenting it as if there was a concreted effort to convince the public this was happening.
I just did a google search for North Korean nuclear attack. And there are DOZENS of stories about them attacking the South or even AMERICA. Obviously there has been a huge scare tactic campaign to get americans to believe North Korea was going to launch nukes at any time. See how easy it is?
No capitalizing needed.
You didn’t watch the video.
Watch 3:02 to 3:22. He changed what he believed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZLbFm-X3Q
If you disagree with what he is obviously saying I don’t care.
I can only guess from watching that that if he had lived to see continued cooling over the years to come he would have changed his beliefs again. Maybe he’d again say he’s not embarrassed to change once more.
So I have one last question, Tony, can you imagine Einstein being that shallow?
Amino,
just for you I watched the video AGAain. And as in the other 4 or 5 times I have watched it he does NOT change his mind, at least not in the way that you are imp[lying, and EXACTLY why they don’t mention aerosols is the reason. So the video gives the impression, by creative editing, that he just “changed his mind” when in fact his reasoning at the time was not in any way shallow or unscientific. He gave somewhat too low a value for CO2 forcing and too high a value for Aerosol dimming and the developed countries dramatically reduced exactly the pollution that he was basing his views on. These were initial analysis and conclusions, and I agree that he gave them too much credence at the time, but they were not by any means outrageous or unsupported arguments.
And by your reckoning Einstein was even shallower than Scheneider because he NEVER changed his mind about quantum mechanics and never accepted what every other scientist came to accept.
Like I said, I don’t care. You are seeing what you want to see.
Schneider was an alarmist for grant money first, a scientist second. Some would call that being a hack.
You need to brush up on your Einstein knowledge.
Amino,
Oh PLEASE enlighten me about Einstein. How he did finally accept the occlusions about Quantum theory, and I have blinded myself with this myth that he never accepted the whole “God does play dice” thing
You do not want enlightenment Tony. You want people to say what you want to hear.
Also, in the video called “Global Cooling” you only brought up Schneider. You did not talk about the other scientists in it. Odd that.
Also, you still have not provided data that shows the warming that began in the late 70’s was caused by anything other than natural variation.
That natural variation that caused that warming has been called:
The 1976 Great Pacific Climate Shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnlC4NMLr8E
But you call it manmade global warming.
Amino,
I just did a quick search on NYT, and it looks like there are more hits for global warming in the month of MAY 2011 than in any list I have seen posted from the the ENTIRE decade of the 70’s from ALL media sources about a global ice age.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=global+warming+2011&date_select=full&srchst=cse
It’s a pity the Duncan family wasn’t much into OMNI magazine either. Anyway, for the nth time, there is a consensus today among scientists that there was a consensus for part of the 1970s that the world was getting cooler, and it might have as well cooled itself into an ice age.
The quote above, from PCF of course. But they did pretend they were debunking a “myth of the global cooling scientific consensus in the 1970s“. How did they manage? Read them again:
The keyword is ALL CAPS and in bold. Now re-read Lamb above and explain how to get to a different conclusion.
Tony Duncan doesn’t want to look at what is right in front of him. He’d rather believe Wikipedia and Nature magazine have to say about it 30 years later. His bias is obvious—again.
Omnologoes
the italics is because some of the people concerned about global cooling were saying that it might happen in a few hundred or thousand years. That being rather non imminent by most media standards.
The Nature and wikipedia articles accurately describe what actually occurred. No one has presented evidence to contradict that.
Lamb explained it all really. Yes, no ice age for thousands of years, still, they were very concerned about the ongoing chill, as the end of the good times with crops aplenty.
If you think about it we can argue about hurricanes and tornadoes in a warmer world, we would be arguing about the end of food supplies in a cooling one.
These guys are likely to say there will never be daylight again as they watch the sun go down at night.
It’s a pity the Duncan family wasn’t much into OMNI magazine either. Anyway, for the nth time, there is a consensus today among scientists that there was a consensus for part of the 1970s that the world was getting cooler, and it might have as well cooled itself into an ice age.
The quote above, from PCF of course. But they did pretend they were debunking a “myth of the global cooling scientific consensus in the 1970s“. How did they manage? Read them again:
The keyword is ALL CAPS and in bold. Now re-read Lamb above and explain how to get to a different conclusion.
Not sure what we’re discussing then?
1) Was the world cooling? Yes
2) Did scientists consensual that it was cooling? Yes
3) Were scientists concerned about the cooling and its possible short-term and long-term implications? Yes
4) Did they go to the media with those concerns? Yes
5) Did they establish new national research institutions to investigate what was up with the climate? Yes
6) Did they found the IPCC to work on global cooling? No. They didn’t have the time. By the time they came around to having a UN panel, global warming was the fad of the day.
And now we’re stuck.
There was more funding available for a warming world than a cooling world and the climate shift had occurred in the mid 70s. They still think they have 5 more years to fool others into believing their fantasies.
Maurizio,
1) Was the world cooling? Yes
ALMOST EVERY SCIENTIST ACCEPTS THIS
2) Did scientists consensual that it was cooling? Yes
SEE 1)
3) Were scientists concerned about the cooling and its possible short-term and long-term implications? Yes
WRONG. SOME SCIENTISTS WERE CONCERNED
4) Did they go to the media with those concerns? Yes
WRONG. SOME SCIENTISTS WENT TO THE MEDIA.
5) Did they establish new national research institutions to investigate what was up with the climate? Yes
IN ORDER TO RESOLVE ISSUES LIKE THIS WHERE THERE WAS CLEAR DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN WITH CLIMATE
6) Did they found the IPCC to work on global cooling? No. They didn’t have the time. By the time they came around to having a UN panel, global warming was the fad of the day.
INTERESTING ASUMPTION
“2) Were scientists”
CIA Report: “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”
P. 28 “Principal Investigators convened in San Diego in April 1974…..by day 2 a CONSENSUS was reached on the following:
-A global climatic change is taking place
-We will soon return to the climate patterns of the past.
P.31 Leaders in Climatology & Economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place.”
There is the distinct impression of a lot of “grant farming”.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Pingback: 24 Hours of Climate Reality: Gore-a-thon – Hour 10 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The rsing tide? – Yes, of political damage « 100 DAYS – Claiming Back New Zealand