by Perry 372 Replies latest members politics
B-Rock, are you implying that the CIA stating there is scientific consensus is the same thing as there actually being scientific consensus.
Lets clear that one up first before we proceed shall we.
And why not give us the benefit of your wisdom on Ninja's apparently phantom issue of Time magazine whilst you are at it.
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
Hey, let's not trust theold National Science Board either. Now we've got "new light" from ClimateGod (Proverbs 4:18).
B-Rock, are you implying that the CIA stating there is scientific consensus is the same thing as there actually being scientific consensus. Lets clear that one up first before we proceed shall we
Slow down B-Rock. Lets deal with the CIA allegation first.
Incidentally the author of the 'CIA' report disclaims on Page 1 that the views and opinions are his alone and not those of the CIA. Credit where credit is due and all that, but I guess it makes your point better to present this as word from the CIA.
You have read the 37 page report haven't you?
While we all wait for B-Rock to catch up with himself and read the 37 page ‘CIA’ report he casually quoted from lets look at the the 2 nd quote he has used to support the view that in the 1970’s scientists were scaremongering an imminent Ice Age:
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
Being grateful for small mercies B-Rock has faithfully and accurately pasted what the Forbes journalist <red flag> wrote.
Except the Forbes journalist wasn’t quite so faithful and accurate when he wrote the piece in 2009 as he apparently quoted from a July 2003 Washington Post journalist <red flag>:
At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was widespread concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the previous quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit -- and more in the higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." Two years earlier, the board had observed: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know."
Note how the later Forbes journalist has conflated two separate quotes spanning a 2 year period into one, with no care for context. I reproduce the 1972 quote here in context:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.
For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.
When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount."
Besty,
You REALLY need a new hobby. The data can be interprated in a way to support both sides, chose the religion of global warming, Others don't.
Now feel free to belittle me. I don't care. I'm wearing long pants in December for the first time in 10 years, so I intend to up my carbon foot print.
GO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
From the movie Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston (a conservative), about Global Warming. The movie came out in 1973. Apparently someone in the Hollywood establishment knew more about the issue than Slime or Newsreek magazine.
villabolo
Is it any wonder that both the Forbes and Washington Post journalists <red flag> skipped the cautionary timeline of an 'imminent' ice age that was actually said by NAS to be 20,000 years away?
Note that this is not evidence of scientific consensus for global cooling in the 1970's – merely re-hashed half-truths and selective quoting 30 years after the fact.
So what was the scientific consensus on climate change in the 1970’s? We don’t need to stumble around the murky world of media hype and opinion-led journalism.
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.
So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates.
Read the Connelly Petersen Fleck paper for yourself to see an analysis of the science from the 1970's. Only 13 pages. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Priest73: "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH"
villabolo: Gobbledygook, drivel, drool, gibberish, jabber, babble, blather, meaningless, senseless, fatous, mumbo-jumbo, hookum, etc. ad nauseum.
villabolo: Gobbledygook, drivel, drool, gibberish, jabber, babble, blather, meaningless, senseless, fatous, mumbo-jumbo, hookum, etc. ad nauseum.
So? Your point?
I realized (Unlike the bleeding hearts) along time ago that I'm not here for a long time, I'm here for a GOOD time. If that means I have to burn a polar bear or a liberal to keep warm or for a laugh then so be it.
GO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
