Climate change is a farce and the Obamas just proved it.....

[SassyIrishLass]

Climategate the sequel How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph

 

[edthecynic]

How many times are you stupid SUCKERS going to post that fake 1977 Time cover?

TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake TIME.com

The actual 2007 cover before the dishonest deniers doctored it, like they doctor everything.

EDTheLiar isn't NUANCED enough to know SATIRE making a point, from simply STATING the TRUTH.... He's amusing, like fleas on a dog!

Whenever the Right are caught outright lying, they pretend their lie was satire.

But It's NOT a lie, you foolish ignoramus! It was Cooling in the 70's, warming in the turn of the century, and now, because they haven't a fucking clue, it CLIMATE CHANGE.....WE could call it WEATHER and be just as correct!

We haven't had a cooling cycle for 100 years. We had a flat period, but to deniers that passers for "cooling."

 

[HenryBHough]

How about all you Global Warming acolytes run a naked protest down Commonwealth Avenue from Brighton to Kenmore Square? If you leave now you can get there before Midnight! Once there stand around changing for maybe 90 minutes to ensure good TV coverage.

 

[Old Rocks]

How many times are you stupid SUCKERS going to post that fake 1977 Time cover?

TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake TIME.com

The actual 2007 cover before the dishonest deniers doctored it, like they doctor everything.

Were they forecasting global cooling in 1977? Hmmmmmmm? Get around that one

No, the scientists were not forecasting global cooling in 1977. And, in 1981, Dr. James Hansen had this article published;

Science 28 August 1981:
Vol. 213 no. 4511 pp. 957-966
DOI: 10.1126/science.213.4511.957

• ARTICLES

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

1. J. Hansen1,
2. D. Johnson1,
3. A. Lacis1,
4. S. Lebedeff1,
5. P. Lee1,
6. D. Rind1,
7. G. Russell1

+Author Affiliations

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

How about doing a little research before making yourself look like an utter fool, Lassie.

 

[Old Rocks]

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

What 1970s science said about global cooling

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. A must read paper.

If you chose to get your science from Time and Newsweek, you are going to be very poorly informed concerning science.

 

[westwall]

The cover certainly is fake. But the Newsweek article below isn't.

 

[Old Rocks]

Those of us that were actively reading science at that time, much prefer the PNAS publication, "Understanding Climate Change, A Program for Action". And, by 1981, Dr. James Hansen made his very accurate predictions of what we were to see right now;

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

 

[edthecynic]

The cover certainly is fake. But the Newsweek article below isn't.

Well look at that, another denier lie exposed! They were calling it "climate change" all the way back in 1975.

We started looking now at the scientific impact and the fact that over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming.Hence the name change, you notice how it went from “global warming” to “climate change.” Whenever the left gets in trouble, they change the name! It was liberals, now the public has repudiated liberalism, and now it’s “progressivism.” They did the same thing with “global warming” and switched over to “climate change.”
- Tim Phillips, president of Americans For Prosperity

 

[jc456]

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

What 1970s science said about global cooling

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. A must read paper.

If you chose to get your science from Time and Newsweek, you are going to be very poorly informed concerning science.

So how warm does 10 ppm of CO2 make the climate?

 

[Crick]

Warmer than no added CO2

 

[jc456]

Warmer than no added CO2

How warm?

 

[westwall]

The cover certainly is fake. But the Newsweek article below isn't.

Well look at that, another denier lie exposed! They were calling it "climate change" all the way back in 1975.

We started looking now at the scientific impact and the fact that over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming.Hence the name change, you notice how it went from “global warming” to “climate change.” Whenever the left gets in trouble, they change the name! It was liberals, now the public has repudiated liberalism, and now it’s “progressivism.” They did the same thing with “global warming” and switched over to “climate change.”
- Tim Phillips, president of Americans For Prosperity

Never said they weren't. I just find it amusing that the same people were claiming global cooling back then who are claiming global warming now. The reality is the temp is virtually unchanged from that time to now. All of your hysterical claims are coming to naught.

Must piss the hell out of you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Warmer than no added CO2

DO tell... Please show the math, data, and methods of how it affects the earths atmosphere... I'll wait..

 

[Vigilante]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many times are you stupid SUCKERS going to post that fake 1977 Time cover?

TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake TIME.com

The actual 2007 cover before the dishonest deniers doctored it, like they doctor everything.

Were they forecasting global cooling in 1977? Hmmmmmmm? Get around that one

Deniers were, scientists weren't. That is why deniers had to photoshop a 1977 cover! DUH!

"Ever since, Gwynne's "global cooling" story – and a similar Time Magazine piece....."

How the Global Cooling Story Came to Be - Scientific American

Hide the Decline, fuckwad

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmer than no added CO2

Yeah. That's why Mars has that runaway Greenhouse Effect

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[edthecynic]

"Ever since, Gwynne's "global cooling" story – and a similar Time Magazine piece....."

How the Global Cooling Story Came to Be - Scientific American

Hide the Decline, fuckwad

You are too stupid to even read your own link:

Mark McCaffrey, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education based in Oakland, Calif. "If it weren't for the fact that humans had become a force of nature, we would be slipping back into an ice age, according to orbital cycles."

But earth's glacial rhythms are "being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels," McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling "are convenient for people to trot out and wave around," he said, but they miss the point:

"What's clear is we are a force of nature. Human activity – the burning of fossil fuels and land change – is having a massive influence. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment."