Why are only the negative points presented?
Because we are in the matrix.
And the batteries have to be aggitated to generate energy.
Climate Change - Why are only the negative points presented?
by donny 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
SixofNine
It was taught in school in our science books. It is not a vague memory implanted in reading something I haven't read.
Oh really? Your science book said there was hard evidence that by 2009 there would be an ice age? Sorry, I don't believe you. Hard (rock solid) evidence for anthropomorphic global warming is now over 100 years old. Clear thru all the bullshit, and the fact remains that if ghg's warm the earth, and they do, more ghg's will warm the earth more. Very honest scientific people (not at all like those wishful thinkers on this forum) have tried to wish that away for the past hundred years, w/o any success.
This is from the link betterdaze posted above:
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
-
betterdaze
And don't forget Leonard Nimoy's "In Search Of..." series!
The Coming Ice Age: An inquiry into whether the dramatic weather changes in America's northern states mean that a new ice age is approaching.
Season Two, Episode 23. Original broadcast: May 1978.
That's the hype I was talking about, Six. It was the kind of segment you'd see on 60 Minutes, too, or a PBS documentary. Then the Watchtower would selectively quote and/or bash "worldly scientists" and Armageddon was coming, so it's not something I gave much credence to then, or especially now.
~Sue -
Bonnie_Clyde
Hey guys! We should be more concerned about the economy. The way things are going we aren't going to have any manufacturing or vehicles to warm up the atmosphere.
Has anybody considered that volcanoes could be to blame? Glacial melting could be caused by heat from below more than from the atmosphere. Anybody heard of the huge volcano, Krakatoa, in Indonesia that blew up in 1883 and warmed up the climate over much of the world?
-
WTWizard
Is this why the government wants to shut down the Internet? Once one person realizes that Mars is also warming up, and that the planet was warmer during the First Dark Ages than it is today, everyone can get access to this information within seconds. And the government doesn't want people knowing that--how else will they scam people into sacrificing and doing (and enjoying) less while paying more?
-
SixofNine
Has anybody considered that volcanoes could be to blame?
I'm sure no scientist in the 100+ years of climate research has thought of that or studied it. You could totally change the course of humanity with your epiphany!