Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought that's what the Teabaggers efforts (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about??
Is that the best you can do? Repeating that old lie again? Shows that you are a really fucking dumb individual.
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
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.
Well, I remember the 70s and that we were being told we were headed into an ice age, no self serving link changes what we remember, kid.
But I like how you insult my intelligence and then completely fail to grasp the point on polling people who don't believe in polls, they believe in the scientific method. Speaking of which empirical data has your lack of intelligence finger pointing in the wrong direction.
First, you remember Newsweek and Time articles, not what the scientists of that time were stating. As far as your faith in the scientific method goes, you fail to convince me of that when you quote non-scientists over scientists on a scientific subject. But back to the seventies;
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 - GLOBAL COOLING! - Digg
In 1975 the National Academy of Science (NAS) applied for funds to Establish a national climatic research program.Some journalist went to town to try and convince readers this was important stuff. The NY Times 1975: Same story as Newsweeks Cooling world. NYT says its HEATINGScroll down to where it has the subtitle Effect of Heat Waste.The NYT notes concern over CO2 levels and fears that production of energy 'heat waste' will generate so much heat as to have a major climate impact<a class="user" href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf">http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf</a>The Newsweek article was written by staff writer: Peter Gwynne.Not written a climatologist. Nor is its conclusion Global Cooling - based on a scientific paper published in a scientific journal.My guess it was a case of staff writer trying to fill a couple of pages in a quiet week for news and trying to make a dull paper requesting funding for climate research interesting. Possibly he thought he was doing the scientists a favour and helping nudge the politicians towards supporting them. Who knows?He attempts to build a case out of very little, taking information from where he can to build a case. And with very few references to sources. And given climate is measured as trends and conditions over periods typically of 30 years some of his examples wouldn't even be considered by serious climatologist. eg one year's winter snowfall.He doesn't even have a direct quote from one of the meteorologists and scientists he refers to in general terms.He selectively quotes from the NAS report, which in fact wasnt predicting a cooling but rather recommending the establishment of a National climatic research program. In that context statements such as A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale. are just making a case why funding should be considered for such a programme. Not predicting global disaster.The NASs reports chapter 2, was a "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations": 1) Establish National climatic research program 2) Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man 3) Develop Climatic index monitoring program 4) Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs (GCM = Global Climate Model)5) Adoption and development of International climatic research program 6) Development of International Palaeoclimatic data networkSo the NAS report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research and the development of climatic modelling. Very different from how the author misuses the NAS report to bolster his somewhat thin case.So where did the notion of cooling come from?The 1970s were an exciting time in the study of the ice ages and the realisation that there was arose and receded in cycles.The most impressive analysis remained the pioneering work of Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton. They could even split the 20,000 year cycle into a close pair of cycles with lengths of 19,000 and 23,000 years - exactly what the best new astronomical calculations predicted. By the late 1970s, most scientists were convinced that orbital variations acted as a pacemaker to set the timing of ice ages. <a class="user"
Yep, I do get irate that the repition of that old saw. No, the scientists were not predicting an immediate ice age in the '70's. In fact, I read the NAS paper in the same year it was published. Now if a blue collar worker, a millwright, manages to do that, where have you been?
Hey.....you know how the Teabagger-mentality has ALWAYS been concerned about those-people....
Right, the Democratic solution. If you can't logically debate them because your policies are illogical and don't work, demogog them . Then claim to be the party of science...
I thought that's what the Teabaggers efforts (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about??
Right, teabaggers oppose eliminating healthcare for "minorities." Democrats on the other hand want illegal immigrants to rape and murder minorities.
You really are stupid.
Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones?
UK Telegraph
What the survey showed is that all the toadies who the government pays to produce evidence of human caused global warming agreed that humans cause global warming.
Who ever would have thunk it?
March 19, 2006
"Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.
Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."
Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.
Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."
Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."
Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says."
"The world temperature is currently holding steady or possibly cooling, oil is not running out, the poles are not melting (in fact quite the opposite) food is not running out, in other words the world is fine and you need to think globally and act locally. Clean up your area and the rest will follow."
Hey.....you know how the Teabagger-mentality has ALWAYS been concerned about those-people....
Right, the Democratic solution. If you can't logically debate them because your policies are illogical and don't work, demogog them . Then claim to be the party of science...
Lordy, lordy. Which party at the state level, in various states, is pushing the anti-evolution agenda? From a Geological Society of America e-mail;
A bill is being considered in the Tennessee House of Representatives that would allow teachers to teach the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of topics such as global warming and evolution based on the assertion that they are controversial. House Bill 368 , introduced in February, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies," naming only biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning as controversial topics. The bill is the sixth anti-evolution bill introduced in state legislatures in 2011. A similar Oklahoma bill (Senate Bill 554) died in committee.
OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.
Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.
Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.
Scientific societies are tools of the government. They regurgitate the agenda of the bureaucrats who pay them. Many of their members don't even agree with the position papers they publish.
I thought that's what the Teabaggers efforts (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about??
Right, teabaggers oppose eliminating healthcare for "minorities." Democrats on the other hand want illegal immigrants to rape and murder minorities.
You really are stupid.
I think that you post establishs whose level of stupidity is excessive.
And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam.
Oh yes.
He would have made more selling out to the oil companies like Bush
Selling out what? Bush had a company to sell. What does Gore have to sell other than hot gas?
And the natural cycle should include cooling cycles along with the warming cycles. But for the last 100 years we are getting only neutral cycles between the warming cycles.
NCDC data has been exposed time and time again as fraudulent......
He would have made more selling out to the oil companies like Bush
Selling out what? Bush had a company to sell. What does Gore have to sell other than hot gas?
And the natural cycle should include cooling cycles along with the warming cycles. But for the last 100 years we are getting only neutral cycles between the warming cycles.I don't dispute there may be warming. Given the fact that the data is so cherry-picked and massaged, it's hard to be sure. But climate has always been cyclical.Especially since so many posters are refuting the fact that there is warming. Just like 97% of the scientists say it is
What I dispute is that man has anything to do with it.
I remember a Peanuts where Linus thought since it was getting colder and colder every day that it would always do that and summer would never return. Of course he was like 5, I don't know what the left's excuse is...We're (pretty-much) waiting for the Teabaggers to recognize that science has evolved, since "Peanuts" was recognized as being more "user friendly" for scientific-input.
And you claim you are the party of science? Please, you're still at the level of in alchemy.
I am still evaluating the data.
So how this consideration is granted global warming deniers, who are equally loony and willfully ignorant; That's something I just don't understand.
Hey.....you know how the Teabagger-mentality has ALWAYS been concerned about those-people....
Right, the Democratic solution. If you can't logically debate them because your policies are illogical and don't work, demogog them . Then claim to be the party of science...
I thought that's what the Teabaggers efforts (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about??
Right, teabaggers oppose healthcare for "minorities."
I thought that's what the Teabaggers efforts (at eliminating health-care for as-many-minorities-as-is-possible) were all-about??
Right, teabaggers oppose eliminating healthcare for "minorities." Democrats on the other hand want illegal immigrants to rape and murder minorities.
You really are stupid.
I think that you post establishs whose level of stupidity is excessive.
