The effects of Climate Change on the earth

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 520721

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Just 68 studies, HA HA HA, I can post well over 500 papers talking about COOLING

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

285 Papers 70s Cooling 2

285 Papers 70s Cooling 3

Skeptical science LIED to you!

 

[Independent thinker]

Effects - NASA Science

Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets...

climate.nasa.gov

This is very real. Scientist have been predicting these things for a long time. We are beginning to see many of them happen.

I really expect the next real crisis will be the availability of drinkable water. The struggle will cause economic chaos and, in some cases, wars.

We've had wars over drinking water for centuries upon centuries. Personally, I'm fine if California, Oregon, and Washington burn down to the ground. Let's increase pollution! The sooner the better.

 

[JimH52]

We've had wars over drinking water for centuries upon centuries. Personally, I'm fine if California, Oregon, and Washington burn down to the ground. Let's increase pollution! The sooner the better.

You are as low as the former guy....which is belly on the ground low....

 

[JimH52]

We've had wars over drinking water for centuries upon centuries. Personally, I'm fine if California, Oregon, and Washington burn down to the ground. Let's increase pollution! The sooner the better.

Don't worry...the water crisis and the hurt the earth is going to receive due to climate change is going to start in the west and makes its way across the country. You will not be spared. Remember when the former guy even made a rule that the term "climate change" could not be uttered in his regime? He pulled out of the Paris accords....he helped doom thousands...in addition to his complicity in the COVID screw up.

 

[Independent thinker]

Don't worry...the water crisis and the hurt the earth is going to receive due to climate change is going to start in the west and makes its way across the country. You will not be spared. Remember when the former guy even made a rule that the term "climate change" could not be uttered in his regime? He pulled out of the Paris accords....he helped doom thousands...in addition to his complicity in the COVID screw up.

Nobody is going to stop it, even if the left got absolutely everything they wanted.

 

[Old Rocks]

Could you explain why that in the Ordovician period 450 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level in Earth’s atmosphere was approximately 800% higher than it is today, glaciation occured?

RESEARCH ARTICLE| APRIL 01, 1994

Bathymetric and isotopic evidence for a short-lived Late Ordovician glaciation in a greenhouse period​

P. J. Brenchley;

J. D. Marshall;

G. A. F. Carden;

D. B. R. Robertson;

D. G. F. Long;

T. Meidla;

L. Hints;

T. F. Anderson

Geology (1994) 22 (4): 295–298.
https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0295:BAIEFA>2.3.CO;2
Article history

• Cite
• Share Icon Share
• Tools Icon Tools

Abstract​

The end Ordovician glaciation is distinct among Phanerozoic glaciations in that CO2, levels were generally high, yet major continental ice sheets accumulated on the Gondwana supercontinent. New oxygen isotopic data indicate substantial changes in sea-water temperatures and ice volume coinciding with glacio-eustatic changes in sea level reflecting the growth and decay of the Gondwana ice cap. Major glaciation was apparently confined to the Hirnantian and was 0.5-1 m.y. long, rather than the 35 m.y. of earlier estimates. Carbon isotope values indicate significant changes in carbon cycling as the oceans changed from a state with warm saline bottom waters to a state with cold deep-water circulation and then back again. We believe that the changes in the carbon cycle effected a reduction in PCO2 levels in the oceans and atmosphere and thus promoted glaciation but were unable to sustain icehouse conditions in a greenhouse world.

RESEARCH ARTICLE| JUNE 01, 2003

Obliquity forcing with 8–12 times preindustrial levels of atmospheric pCO2 during the Late Ordovician glaciation​

Achim D. Herrmann;

Mark E. Patzkowsky;

David Pollard

Geology (2003) 31 (6): 485–488.
https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0485:OFWTPL>2.0.CO;2
Article history

• Cite
• Share Icon Share
• Tools Icon Tools

Abstract​

Results from coupled ice-sheet and atmospheric general circulation models show that the waxing and waning of ice sheets during the Late Ordovician were very sensitive to changes in atmospheric pCO2 and orbital forcing at the obliquity time scale (30–40 k.y.). Without orbital forcing, ice sheets can grow with pCO2 level as high as 10 times preindustrial atmospheric level (PAL). However, with orbital forcing, ice sheets can grow only with pCO2 levels of 8 times PAL or lower. These results indicate that the threshold of pCO2 for the initiation of glaciation is on the lower end of previously published estimates of 8–20 times PAL. The ice-sheet model results further indicate that during exceptionally long periods of low summer insolation and low pCO2 levels (8–10 times PAL), large ice sheets could have formed that were able to sustain permanent glaciation under subsequently higher pCO2 values. This finding suggests that in order to end the Late Ordovician glaciation with a rise in pCO2, atmospheric pCO2 must have risen to at least 12 times PAL. Ice sheets therefore introduce nonlinearities and hysteresis effects to the Ordovician climate system. These nonlinearities might have also played a role in the initiation and termination of other glaciations in Earth history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He pulled out of the Paris accords....he helped doom thousands

Which ones?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Which ones?

Jim and Rockhead runs away thread die meanwhile they never addressed POST 20 itself.

Never addressed POST 68 either. Neither did they answer ReinyDays devastating POST 60

No, they just ran away....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jim and Rockhead runs away thread die meanwhile they never addressed POST 20 itself.

Never addressed POST 68 either. Neither did they answer ReinyDays devastating POST 60

No, they just ran away....

Well, they are pussies.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Earth How​

​

What Are the 5 Koppen Climate Classification Types?​

LIFE SCIENCE | NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Updated on January 8, 2022

Excerpt:

LINK

===

ReainyDays will love this.

 

[MisterBeale]

These threads are stupid.
The presumption is that the Earth's climate is to remain static for the benefit of humans because we stupidly built mega cities in flood prone regions. No expense must be spared preventing climate deviations that have only happened since the planet developed an atmosphere.


Next up, preventing tectonic plate shifting, because we all know it's a matter of time till the west coast disappears as California moves toward Alaska.

Also, the plugging up of toxic stacks belching heavy metals and particles, with a variety poisonous chemicals, those things we call Volcanoes, the biggest polluters of the globe.


Save the Earth!!!!!

It's killing itself.

What I find even more preposterous, is. . . the assumption that it is necessarily CO2.

They have based this all on a cause/effect fallacy, and only fund studies which mean to disprove every other possible cause. Is it possible, sure. But if you study economics, and global politics, you find, there are massive economic and global political interests that are funding the scientific paradigm behind remaking a global word government on this paradigm, and they do very little research into every other natural cause, except to "debunk," them, when the evidence, seems to me, to be there. . .


The Universe, seems to be a lot bigger, than the activities of man.

| EarthSky

Is Earth headed to a north and south pole reversal? A look at the archaeological record in southern Africa provides more information.

earthsky.org

More confirmation;

From that article;

". . .The magnetic field strength is so weak there that it’s a hazard for satellites that orbit above the region – the field no longer protects them from radiation which interferes with satellite electronics.

And the field is continuing to grow weaker, potentially portending even more dramatic events, including a global reversal of the magnetic poles.. . . "

SpaceX Says Dozens of Satellites Destroyed in Geomagnetic Storm

Elon Musk’s space venture SpaceX lost dozens of satellites to a storm, destroying the bulk of a recently launched fleet as they fell back toward Earth.

www.bloomberg.com

Elon Musk's Starlink may have lost 40 satellites due to a geomagnetic storm - Gizmochina

Starlink, the internet service provider from Tesla & SpaceX founder Elon Musk, has apparently lost a number of its satellites following a geomagnetic storm, with around 40 being destroyed. According to an official blog post, the company stated that around 40 of its 49 Starlink satellites that...

www.gizmochina.com

Magnetic reversal caused massive climate shifts​

Scientists link most recent magnetic instability to global environmental change.​

From the vault: Magnetic reversal caused massive climate shifts

About 42,000 years ago, a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles triggered massive climate shifts and caused environmental changes to sweep across the globe,

cosmosmagazine.com

 

[abu afak]

Just 68 studies, HA HA HA, I can post well over 500 papers talking about COOLING

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

285 Papers 70s Cooling 2

285 Papers 70s Cooling 3

Skeptical science LIED to you!

The usual Tommy non sequitor
285 out of how many?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

[.......]

Opposing (the AGW consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[33] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[32][34]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[138] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[139][140][141][142]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[143] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[144]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[145]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[146]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[147] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[148] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[149]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[151] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[152]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[153] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[154]
[...........]
[...........]

SQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

`

 

[skookerasbil]

Effects - NASA Science

Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets...

climate.nasa.gov

This is very real. Scientist have been predicting these things for a long time. We are beginning to see many of them happen.

I really expect the next real crisis will be the availability of drinkable water. The struggle will cause economic chaos and, in some cases, wars.

Lol.....dOy.....

This might get stOOpidest thread of the year award folks!!

‘Couldn’t Agree More’ – Guy who runs ELECTRIC car company GETS what Biden DOESN’T about domestic production


Bah Bah Booey

 

[skookerasbil]

About 117 people care right now what the IPCC is saying.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Earth How​

​

What Are the 5 Koppen Climate Classification Types?​

LIFE SCIENCE | NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Updated on January 8, 2022

Excerpt:


View attachment 605048
LINK

===

ReainyDays will love this.

The climate in my area is still the same:

• DRY OR ARID CLIMATES (B): Dry or arid climates have low precipitation rates.

 

[ReinyDays]

The usual Tommy non sequitor
285 out of how many?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

[.......]

Opposing (the AGW consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[33] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[32][34]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[138] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[139][140][141][142]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[143] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[144]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[145]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[146]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[147] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[148] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[149]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[151] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[152]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[153] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[154]
[...........]
[...........]

SQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

`

Can I see the math that backs your claims up? ... we've been using T^4=(S(1-a))/4eo ... obviously you're not ... so what are you using? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The climate in my area is still the same:

• DRY OR ARID CLIMATES (B): Dry or arid climates have low precipitation rates.

Yeah ... the most recent warming episode started around 1980 ... you're climate is stuck in the 1950's ... just outside Moses Lake, you should still be able to see the line where the wave of social change broke and receded back out through Puget Sound ... leaving your community forever bound to Boise ... Idaho ... been there, done that ... you have my deepest commiserations ...

 

[Crick]

I remember back in the early 1970's when global cooling was the big threat to humanities survival.
Scientists said the earth was heading towards a deep freeze and all the popular magazines had articles backing their claims. ...

You remember no such thing because scientists did NOT tell us that global cooling was "the big threat to humanities (sic) survival"

 

[Grumblenuts]

But T^4=(S(1-a))/4eo is just so outdated. All the cool kids have moved on to T^6=(S(1-a))^3/ln(18eo^-7)

 

[Sunsettommy]

"285 out of how many?"

285 is a lot bigger number than 68 dumb asses!

Petersen claims far fewer than 68 papers were making cooling claims which means he sure missed a lot of papers showing cooling trends in them.

=====

Meanwhile here is the real story over SKS dishonest claims getting exposed:

Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.

No Tricks Zone

The Concoction Of ‘Consensus’ Achieved Via Exclusion​

Excerpt:

The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:

“[T]he following pervasive myth arose [among skeptics]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. … During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. … There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

William Connolley and colleagues claimed that the determination of scientific “consensus” regarding global cooling and the influence of CO2 on climate during the 1970s could be divined by counting scientific publications that fell into arbitrarily-defined categories which allowed them to intentionally exclude hundreds of papers that would undermine the alleged myth-slaying purpose of the paper.

The PCF08 authors decided that when “quantifying the consensus” (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a “cooling” paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a “full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-’79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn’t a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms … were not considered worthy of classification as a “cooling” paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed “consensus” that said the current (1960s-’70s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.

Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was “imminent”. It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes.

By tendentiously excluding 1960s and 1970s publications that documented global cooling had been ongoing and a concern, as well as purposely excluding papers that suggested the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing is weak or questionable relative to other mechanisms, the authors could brazenly claim that there were only 7 papers published in the scientific literature between 1965 and 1979 that disagreed with the “consensus” opinion that global warming would occur at some point in the future (due to CO2 increases). According to PCF08, there were 44 papers that fell into the latter warming-is-imminent-due-to-CO2 category from 1965-’79, ostensibly entitling them to claim that dangerous anthropogenic global warming projections “dominated” the scientific literature even then.

LINK

and,

"According to Stewart and Glantz (1985), in the early 1970s it was the “prevailing view” among scientists that the Earth was headed into another ice age. It wasn’t until the late ’70s that scientists changed their minds and the “prevailing view” began shifting to warming. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of PCF08, who allege warming was the prevailing view among scientists in the 1960s and early 1970s too. Furthermore, as recently as 1985, it was still acknowledged that “the causes of global climate change remain in dispute.”

and,

"According to scientists reporting to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend for the next 25 years, and “meteorological experts” were thinking an 1800s climate was around the corner, with the concomitant return to monsoon failures, shorter growing seasons, and “violent weather”.

=====

The LIES from SKS and the three authors of the stupid 2008 paper are obvious Rockhead.