Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

Would you have stabilized the temp with a glacier on top of central park?

No. Are you going anywhere with this?

 

[Grand Vol]

This is what I've been asking on here. Expect a side step and change of point of focus

You nailed it.

 

[Danl]

Can you cite the scientists who made those doomsday predictions? Do you think mainstream science belongs to that environmentalist doomsday crowd?

Good questions.

 

[Grand Vol]

Good questions.

Yet he still avoids the base question I asked by trying to divert the attention away from it.

And yes, other than the sunburned penguins, all those "prophecies" came from people associated with the environmental movement. But I'm in no mood to go dig them (back) up to prove his point.

There was a caveat to the massive drought one. Apparently, it was going to cause "black" dust storms all across the United States from the topsoil being removed and stripping the paint off people's homes.

 

[Sandvol]

Good questions.

Climate change odds much worse than thought | MIT News

 

[Sandvol]

Good questions.

The most hated climate scientist in the US fights back | Features | Yale Alumni Magazine

 

[Sandvol]

Good questions.

https://robertscribbler.wordpress.c...at-earth-is-warming-far-faster-than-expected/

 

[Carl Pickens]

Grammar aside, the way the question is framed doesn't really make sense to begin with. We are presently in an ice age. Specifically we're in an interglacial cycle within an ice age.

It would be nice if we could magically stabilize the present climate that has birthed human civilization. It would even be OK if we could just slow down present climate change to that of natural cycles occurring over geologic time.

Perhaps someone will invent your device in the future, but until then our best bet is simply to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Grammar aside?..... Really?...... GTFO

 

[Danl]

Yet he still avoids the base question I asked by trying to divert the attention away from it.

And yes, other than the sunburned penguins, all those "prophecies" came from people associated with the environmental movement. But I'm in no mood to go dig them (back) up to prove his point.

There was a caveat to the massive drought one. Apparently, it was going to cause "black" dust storms all across the United States from the topsoil being removed and stripping the paint off people's homes.

But the questions are still valid: Who, specifically made these "prophecies" and were these "prophecies" endorsed by a MAJORITY of the scientific community?

For instance, I have seen ITT multiple mentions of the entire scientific community, in the 70s, predicting an ice age in the near term. Some even said it was taught in schools. I was in school in the early 70s and a science major and think I would have remembered such a thing but I do not. So I did a little research, and guess what, I still can't find it. As a matter of fact, lots of other people have tried to find it and can't see where any majority of scientists believed such a thing. Yet it is oft repeated by the "deniers".

Seriously, I want to know how factual these claims of "prophecies" are.

 

[Mtntrout]

But the questions are still valid: Who, specifically made these "prophecies" and were these "prophecies" endorsed by a MAJORITY of the scientific community?

For instance, I have seen ITT multiple mentions of the entire scientific community, in the 70s, predicting an ice age in the near term. Some even said it was taught in schools. I was in school in the early 70s and a science major and think I would have remembered such a thing but I do not. So I did a little research, and guess what, I still can't find it. As a matter of fact, lots of other people have tried to find it and can't see where any majority of scientists believed such a thing. Yet it is oft repeated by the "deniers".

Seriously, I want to know how factual these claims of "prophecies" are.

Here is a scan of a report from the National Academy of Sciences in 1979 discussing global warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide that you can also read for yourself:

http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

If you read nothing else, read the above.

Here's an article where they scanned pages from the source of the infamous Newsweek article that is used as "proof" that the scientific community had a cooling consensus in the 70's. As you can see, the book the story cited doesn't say what they claim it does: Logicalscience

Note that the blog is from 2006. If anyone really cared to investigate these claims for themselves, the answers are readily obtainable.

Here is a freely accessible paper from the National Meteorological Society from 2008 addressing this myth in a detailed but digestable way: here


This should put this issue to rest. There is no sidestepping going on right here in this post. I've given at least 1 primary source, and really 2. I've also linked to a detailed article from the National Meteorological Society that helps analyze the bigger picture on this. They all refute the myth of 1970's "global cooling fear consensus" from the scientific community, and indirectly address the myth of "they changed the name from global warming to climate change" as both terms are used in the primary source document linked last.

The next time you hear someone claim "scientists all feared cooling in the 70's," you can either correct them or know that you are not an agent of truth but rather deceit.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Anyone claiming either side of a scientific argument as an agent of truth, and the other side as decent, is completely full of shat. Science and scientists give us theory. Sometimes they've been correct other times not so much.

 

[Grand Vol]

Seriously, I want to know how factual these claims of "prophecies" are.

"Children won't know what snow is." (paraphrased) Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

ICECAP

"Extensive drought in the central US." (kinda true, paraphrased) Michael Oppenheimer.

UN Global Warming Author Defends Erroneous Claims

"Ice free North Pole by the year 2000."Bernt Balchen, Arctic Specialist

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/arctic-to-be-ice-free-by-the-year-2000/

"Excessive heat killing off all life in the oceans." Dr. Paul Ehrlich, president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology Made in 1970

Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts | Fox News

"Climate refugees." Made by the United Nations Environment Program.

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

"Sunburned penguins." I made this one up, but here's a cute picture to give you a hint of the calamity to come.

Now, are these "scientific" enough for you? Are they not recognized in their fields? You would think a President of a department at Stanford has some sort of credibility in the scientific world wouldn't you?

There's obviously more that I'm not willing to dive into. But my original point still stands. How can I, or anyone for that matter, take the predictions of the catastrophic nature of climate change serious when so many times the catastrophe has been completely overstated?

You have your answer, now I want mine.

 

[Sandvol]

"Children won't know what snow is." (paraphrased) Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

ICECAP

"Extensive drought in the central US." (kinda true, paraphrased) Michael Oppenheimer.

UN Global Warming Author Defends Erroneous Claims

"Ice free North Pole by the year 2000."Bernt Balchen, Arctic Specialist

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/arctic-to-be-ice-free-by-the-year-2000/

"Excessive heat killing off all life in the oceans." Dr. Paul Ehrlich, president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology Made in 1970

Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts | Fox News

"Climate refugees." Made by the United Nations Environment Program.

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

"Sunburned penguins." I made this one up, but here's a cute picture to give you a hint of the calamity to come.

Now, are these "scientific" enough for you? Are they not recognized in their fields? You would think a President of a department at Stanford has some sort of credibility in the scientific world wouldn't you?

There's obviously more that I'm not willing to dive into. But my original point still stands. How can I, or anyone for that matter, take the predictions of the catastrophic nature of climate change serious when so many times the catastrophe has been completely overstated?

You have your answer, now I want mine.

GV remember you're dealing with a bunch of DENIERS.

 

[McDad]

No. Are you going anywhere with this?

These aren't agenda driven questions if that's what you mean. You and I believe differently and I doubt neither will be persuaded by the other.
But I am interested in how you think. What your perspective is and how it has been shaped. I'd rather be making bad puns and cracking jokes but there has been little material in this forum lately for that stuff.

If you wouldn't have stabilized the earth's temp at the last ice age, would you also have not during the warmest era in earth's long history?

 

[Sandvol]

But the questions are still valid: Who, specifically made these "prophecies" and were these "prophecies" endorsed by a MAJORITY of the scientific community?

For instance, I have seen ITT multiple mentions of the entire scientific community, in the 70s, predicting an ice age in the near term. Some even said it was taught in schools. I was in school in the early 70s and a science major and think I would have remembered such a thing but I do not. So I did a little research, and guess what, I still can't find it. As a matter of fact, lots of other people have tried to find it and can't see where any majority of scientists believed such a thing. Yet it is oft repeated by the "deniers".

Seriously, I want to know how factual these claims of "prophecies" are.

I want to know. Really?

 

[Danl]

"Children won't know what snow is." (paraphrased) Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

ICECAP

"Extensive drought in the central US." (kinda true, paraphrased) Michael Oppenheimer.

UN Global Warming Author Defends Erroneous Claims

"Ice free North Pole by the year 2000."Bernt Balchen, Arctic Specialist

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/arctic-to-be-ice-free-by-the-year-2000/

"Excessive heat killing off all life in the oceans." Dr. Paul Ehrlich, president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology Made in 1970

Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts | Fox News

"Climate refugees." Made by the United Nations Environment Program.

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

"Sunburned penguins." I made this one up, but here's a cute picture to give you a hint of the calamity to come.

Now, are these "scientific" enough for you? Are they not recognized in their fields? You would think a President of a department at Stanford has some sort of credibility in the scientific world wouldn't you?


Whether are not a few individuals in any field hold a certain opinion or POV does not mean their opinion or POV represents the entire field. You know this.

There's obviously more that I'm not willing to dive into. But my original point still stands. How can I, or anyone for that matter, take the predictions of the catastrophic nature of climate change serious when so many times the catastrophe has been completely overstated?

You should not, nor should anyone else, take as gospel any predictions, catastrophic or not, when those predictions do not have the overwhelming support of the scientific community.

You have your answer, now I want mine.

No, you didn't answer my questions. You just threw out some quotes from a tiny sampling of people in the scientific community. I asked for examples of the MAJORITY or the climate scientist community formally endorsing dire and catastrophic predictions. I would like to see some of these.

 

[Sandvol]

No, you didn't answer my questions. You just threw out some quotes from a tiny sampling of people in the scientific community. I asked for examples of the MAJORITY or the climate scientist community formally endorsing dire and catastrophic predictions. I would like to see some of these.

What a twit. Our side doesn't have the propaganda machine your side does. Read your little heart out.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

 

[Sandvol]

Here is a scan of a report from the National Academy of Sciences in 1979 discussing global warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide that you can also read for yourself:

http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

If you read nothing else, read the above.

Here's an article where they scanned pages from the source of the infamous Newsweek article that is used as "proof" that the scientific community had a cooling consensus in the 70's. As you can see, the book the story cited doesn't say what they claim it does: Logicalscience

Note that the blog is from 2006. If anyone really cared to investigate these claims for themselves, the answers are readily obtainable.

Here is a freely accessible paper from the National Meteorological Society from 2008 addressing this myth in a detailed but digestable way: here


This should put this issue to rest. There is no sidestepping going on right here in this post. I've given at least 1 primary source, and really 2. I've also linked to a detailed article from the National Meteorological Society that helps analyze the bigger picture on this. They all refute the myth of 1970's "global cooling fear consensus" from the scientific community, and indirectly address the myth of "they changed the name from global warming to climate change" as both terms are used in the primary source document linked last.

The next time you hear someone claim "scientists all feared cooling in the 70's," you can either correct them or know that you are not an agent of truth but rather deceit.

You guys are truly Orwellian.

 

[Grand Vol]

No, you didn't answer my questions. You just threw out some quotes from a tiny sampling of people in the scientific community. I asked for examples of the MAJORITY or the climate scientist community formally endorsing dire and catastrophic predictions. I would like to see some of these.

And you are avoiding my question because you simply cannot answer it.

I've provided a sampling of senior level people in the environmental movement, heads of departments at some pretty prestigious universities none the less, and yet you still want to avoid answering my question.

 

[Mtntrout]

Anyone claiming either side of a scientific argument as an agent of truth, and the other side as decent, is completely full of shat. Science and scientists give us theory. Sometimes they've been correct other times not so much.

Scientific theory is not the same as "theory" in the common vernacular. By definition, a scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. A theory is discarded or updated when new observations conflict with the theory. Saying they "aren't correct" is not really understanding what a scientific theory is.

It isn't your fault, the word gets misused all the time even by some scientists. But you can look this up.

 

[Mtntrout]

You guys are truly Orwellian.

Do elaborate. I find it Orwellian to invent a history and refuse to believe your lying eyes when presented with a primary document refuting the alleged "cooling consensus."

I have a book on my desk from 1977 discussing warming due to fossil fuel burning. Is it a fake? Did someone plant it?

 

[Mtntrout]

And you are avoiding my question because you simply cannot answer it.

I've provided a sampling of senior level people in the environmental movement, heads of departments at some pretty prestigious universities none the less, and yet you still want to avoid answering my question.

Can you explain why the document I linked from 1979 from the National Academy of Sciences contradicts your assertions?

EDIT: And the guy who predicted an ice-free north pole in 2000 did so in 1972. Why would he do that, if the consensus was cooling?

 

[Sandvol]

Do elaborate. I find it Orwellian to invent a history and refuse to believe your lying eyes when presented with a primary document refuting the alleged "cooling consensus."

I have a book on my desk from 1977 discussing warming due to fossil fuel burning. Is it a fake? Did someone plant it?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See posts above.

 

[Mtntrout]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See posts above.

I've provided primary scientific sources. You've got newspaper clippings. I even linked an article where a guy traced back the cited paper and showed that it didn't warn about cooling at all and was misrepresented.

If a report from the National Academy of Sciences doesn't hold as much merit in your eyes as a newspaper clipping, I can see why you don't accept climate change.

 

[Mtntrout]

What an elaborate conspiracy. Looks like people had the foresight to publish on warming while secretly fearing cooling. Covering their bases, those sneaky bastards!

here

Climate change and the world predicament: A case study for interdisciplinary research - Springer