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.
And once more, you purposely lie. You are a dishonest peice of shit.
Were they really predicting an ice age in the 1970s? - CSMonitor.com
One common trope among climate change deniers is to point out that, in the 1970s, everyone was a panic about global cooling, even to the point of predicting an imminent ice age. If they were so spectacularly wrong back then, the argument goes, why should we be listening to them today?
The argument rests on an equivocation. In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison.
In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. As USA Today reported last year, Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral.
Science-type stuff
To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.
We also need to know what we mean by "imminent". Since the question arises in the context of the greenhouse gas/climate change debate, "imminent" is a timescale comparable to greenhouse-type timescales: ie, the next century or so. See below for my take on long-term predictions.
Comments, clarifications and corrections to this page are welcome see comments or mail [email protected].
If you think you have a new reference that may be interesting, please send it to me. I don't guarantee to check it out immeadiately: you will need to have patience. However, I will list all outstanding references below:
How damn embarrassing GoldiRocks --- and watch your language bud. Calling other posters names that severe for telling the TRUTH --- well it makes me angry..
How damn embarrassing for CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR also... Your "source" of proof that there was NO PUBLIC BLITZ of reporting on Global Cooling in the 70s.. Seems like they don't know their own history...
The following selection of links is from Newsbusters, and was posted in the comments section: (5/27/13 – this list was posted on Newsbusters by PopTech.)
1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of – TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
Here's an archived copy of the 1979 article..
New ice age almost upon us?
If you want --- I'll drive by the library tomorrow and verify the other two...
Sorry ass hypocrits...
You're NOT getting this argument GoldiRocks.. And you LOSE everytime you bring it up. Because the argument these posters are making is that the MEDIA and the NEWS of the 60s and 70s were FULL of this crap.. WE KNOW that it doesn't have to based on much science to get propaganda like coverage. The current hype over AGW tells us that. So it doesn't MATTER how many studies it was based on...
You go ahead and ignore this post and RE-USE your silly Christian Science Monitor link. Because that's the way you roll --- ain't it TurdFace?
hahahahahahahahaha. c'mon flac, why so serious? how can you take peice of shit to heart when you have been called much worse? remember when I called you a moderate? now thems fightin words!
It wasn't even ME he slimed.. But it was deliciously fun to see the CSMonitor denying the role that THEY played in magnifying junk science out of proportion.. Wonder if the author ever knew about those 3 or more articles??
Revisionist history will always plague mankind.
Revisionist history will always plague mankind.
Especially when the people funding the revisionism are heavily invested in dirty energy.
Revisionist history will always plague mankind.
Especially when the people funding the revisionism are heavily invested in dirty energy.
As opposed to ............??????
Especially when the people funding the revisionism are heavily invested in dirty energy.
As opposed to ............??????
As opposed to scientists doing what they have always done; try to find the truth.
As opposed to being funded by heavily vested interests to contrive pseudo arguments and use obfuscation to create enough confusion among the general population to destroy or delay any action on climate change. WHY? It is worth BILLIONS to destroy or delay any action.
The dirty energy cartels spelled it out very clearly in a 1998 memo written by the American Petroleum Institute's Joe Walker, a public relations representative of the petroleum institute. Their plan was to launch a PR campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is all laid out in the memo, which became public.
It doesn't talk about science, or truth. It talked about a PR campaign and a strategy.
Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
And WHERE did they find that cadre of scientists? Voila...it had already been done by big tobacco.
If you want to become a truly informed citizen, you will research the FACT that the SAME strategy, the SAME think tanks, and in many cases the SAME 'scientists' are doing the SAME collaboration in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about climate change.
Climate skeptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain
The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.
What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain | Jeffrey Sachs | Environment | guardian.co.uk
As opposed to ............??????
As opposed to scientists doing what they have always done; try to find the truth.
As opposed to being funded by heavily vested interests to contrive pseudo arguments and use obfuscation to create enough confusion among the general population to destroy or delay any action on climate change. WHY? It is worth BILLIONS to destroy or delay any action.
The dirty energy cartels spelled it out very clearly in a 1998 memo written by the American Petroleum Institute's Joe Walker, a public relations representative of the petroleum institute. Their plan was to launch a PR campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is all laid out in the memo, which became public.
It doesn't talk about science, or truth. It talked about a PR campaign and a strategy.
Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
And WHERE did they find that cadre of scientists? Voila...it had already been done by big tobacco.
If you want to become a truly informed citizen, you will research the FACT that the SAME strategy, the SAME think tanks, and in many cases the SAME 'scientists' are doing the SAME collaboration in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about climate change.
Climate skeptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain
The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.
What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain | Jeffrey Sachs | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Don't make me put up your "Squirrel" focusing reminder again...
You didn't even come CLOSE to answering my simple question.. You just piled conspiracy theory crap on top of character assassination.. Try again... Your inability to respond is like Turret's only much more verbose and with less effect..
Then you answer your own question you haughty little turd.
BFGrn:
Then you answer your own question you haughty little turd.
And there it is... The big nothing that you and Obama are gonna replace all that advanced civilized energy generation with...
BFGrn:
Then you answer your own question you haughty little turd.
And there it is... The big nothing that you and Obama are gonna replace all that advanced civilized energy generation with...
Hey, let's burn coal. The MOST expensive fuel on the planet. And fuck all the kids who have medical problems. You are ALL about hooking humans up to an exhaust pipe.
BFGrn:
And there it is... The big nothing that you and Obama are gonna replace all that advanced civilized energy generation with...
Hey, let's burn coal. The MOST expensive fuel on the planet. And fuck all the kids who have medical problems. You are ALL about hooking humans up to an exhaust pipe.
You do have a point
BFGrn:
And there it is... The big nothing that you and Obama are gonna replace all that advanced civilized energy generation with...
Hey, let's burn coal. The MOST expensive fuel on the planet. And fuck all the kids who have medical problems. You are ALL about hooking humans up to an exhaust pipe.
You do have a point
