*sigh* The heartbreak of early onset Algorezheimer's Disease.

by Nathan Natas 86 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  coffee_black

  Villabolo

  Coffee, I apologize for being unaware of your last post on another thread. I've been jumping around. I do find the contradiction in your complaint humorous though. Since it is obvious that I did not read your last post where is the pettiness in my bringing it up again in sincere ignorance. Only if I was aware of your last post would it actually be petty.

  It was on this thread. I am not usually up very late... insomnia lately, due to some serious stuff going on in my life right now. So mistakes will probably be common in my late night posts. I had meant to say Otherwise it would be petty. my bad.

  Yes, Villabolo I have read pro global warming material...lots of it... Nothing I say is going to convince you of that though... that's ok. I'm not looking for your approval. As I said in my first post on this thread, I'm not going to debate the issue because there's some serious stuff going on in my life and I don't have the energy... i posted the links regarding Lindzen simply because I thought some might find it interesting. That is all I had intended to add to the thread... and then I got sucked in.

  You probably won't convince me either that you have actually read Lindzen . In my post that you missed, I suggested that you read his testimony he gave before the House Subcommittee on Science and Technologhy linked below. His email address is on the first page. Why not tell him what you think?

  http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf

  Bohm,

  As you said... you have only read part of the CIA report. I have read the whole thing. If you haven't read it...how do you know it's not as strong as I think?

  You don't need to answer... just sayin...

  Again... I am not going to debate this issue...never intended to, as I said in my first post on this thread. Somehow I got sucked in, when I only intended to post links that I thought some would find interesting.

  Coffee who has a busy day planned...and it starts now.
• 

  bohm

  CB, I have read the executive summary, the conclusion and the "milestones" section. if i am missing something essential could you point to the section where it is in, it is very hard to read.

  I dont mind reading it but i dont see the point. as i have written again and again, yes, some reports pointed to global cooling in the 70s. The report you quote is one of those. but the majority spoke about global warming. pointing to a single report again and again does not alter this fact, any less than me pointing to a single pro-warming report in the 70s would change it.

  i have on the other hand quoted a survey (by the way, did you read the survey?) that demonstrate my point by surveying all the avaliable litterature from the 70s.

  Perhaps its clearer if i frame it as a question:

  Did the majority of the published work by climatologists in the 70s point towards global warming or global cooling?

  if you say global cooling, what is your sources for that claim?

  if you dont want to reply thats fine. i just think its rather tiering to hear the same things again and again when i believe its 100% demonstrably wrong.
• 

  villabolo

  Coffee_black:

  "Yes, Villabolo I have read pro global warming material...lots of it... Nothing I say is going to convince you of that though... that's ok."

  Coffee, since you're too busy yet seem willing to reply, I believe that a very short simple answer to my asking you which specific Global Warming websites would have taken no more than ten seconds to type out. There are only three major professional ones. I did not ask for minutia. It still seems like you're dodging that very simple question.

  Villabolo
• 

  villabolo

  As for the ice age prediction issue the facts are listed below. If the CIA was looking for different information than they were most probably biased and emphasized, by selective picking of individuals.

  Bottom line, temperatures were anywhere from rock steady to slightly cooler from the 1950s to the late 1970s which gave some very careless scientists who where incapable of taking Carbon Dioxide into account, the false impression that they would continue cooling. It took some courage for scientists in the 1960s and 1970s to predict Global Warming in spite of a temporary hiatus in temperature increase.

  We now lnow that this was due to aerosols reflecting sunlight and compensating for the increasing Carbon Dioxide. Aerosol levels have dropped somewhat due to, ironically, cleaner combustion methods and smog control devices.

  I present the entire argument from http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

  Villabolo

  ---

  Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

  The skeptic argument...

  Ice age predicted in the 70s
  "The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. In 1975, cooling went from 'one of the most important problems' to a first-place tie for 'death and misery'. The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming." (Fire and Ice).

  What the science says...

  Select a level...	Basic
  The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

  In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

  At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

  By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

  

  The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

  Rebuttal written by John Russell. Last updated on 19 August 2010.

  Further reading

  • Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? by William Connelly documents all the scientific literature in the 70's on global cooling.
  • Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations by Spencer Weart(part of the History of Global Warmingseries)documents the development of ice agescience.
  • Logical Science goes to the trouble of purchasing the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report to see what the NAS had to say about globalcooling in the 70's.
  • James Hansen responds to the claims that "Hansen predicted an ice age in the 70's", explaining the role of his computer program used in Rasool's paper.
  • Check out thisNew York Times article from 1956 that discusses a forecasted increase in global temperatures as emissions from burning fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO2. Thanks to George Morrison for the heads up.
  • Robert Brulle at the Wonk Room looks at a range of New York Times articles on climate science in the late 60's and early 70's.
  • The 1979 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment" finds "when it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes."
• 

  coffee_black

  Villabolo: It still seems like you're dodging that very simple question

  Villabolo, you can think whatever you like of me. Doesn't bother me a bit. My daughter and mother of 3 has been diagnosed with a severe case of congestive heart failure, and it is possible if things do not improve significantly, that she will need a heart transplant. It is hard to focus on much these days...which is why I have insomnia. So give me a break, will ya...and take me at my word. Everyone who really knows me does.

  Coffee
• 

  villabolo

  Coffee_black-sweetheart I'm sorry about your troubles but why do you even keep responding? You have to realize that part of the reason anyone writes something anywhere is for others to read it. It's up to you to give yourself a break by not responding at all but give me one by not quoting me out of context.

  It would have taken you less time to write out the following (If it's true) and be done with it with no further response:

  Villabolo, I do regularly read: www.skepticalscience.com www.climateprogress.org and www.realclimate.org

  Compared to:

  Villabolo, you can think whatever you like of me. Doesn't bother me a bit. My daughter and mother of 3 has been diagnosed with a severe case of congestive heart failure, and it is possible if things do not improve significantly, that she will need a heart transplant. It is hard to focus on much these days...which is why I have insomnia. So give me a break, will ya...and take me at my word. Everyone who really knows me does.

  Now get some sleep dear lady (Try some sublingual melatonin) and stay off JWN or any other website altogether. And yes, my heart goes out to you on behalf of your daughter and mom. I hope the best for all of you. Good luck and goodbye.

  Villabolo
• 

  BizzyBee

  It's up to you to give yourself a break by not responding at all