In 1974, they tried to lie to you about a coming ice age. They're at it again.

[nowhereman 1]

This fear mongering worked then..... (carter was elected a year later and he congress implemented all types of changes).

The only fall out to this scam was it helped create a generation of sceptics which were indoctrinated in schools all across the country at the time (my school system included).

As the latest scam "global Warming" is crumbling, just imagine the fallout?

Case in point... Danno thinks the global warming theory is some sort of conspiracy. His mind is made up & don't confuse him with facts!

Edited December 8, 2009 by nowhereman

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This fear mongering worked then..... (carter was elected a year later and he congress implemented all types of changes).

The only fall out to this scam was it helped create a generation of sceptics which were indoctrinated in schools all across the country at the time (my school system included).

As the latest scam "global Warming" is crumbling, just imagine the fallout?

Case in point... Danno thinks the global warming theory is some sort of conspiracy. His mind is made up & don't confuse him with facts!

Danno wouldn't know science if it wore a red dress and sat on his lap.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Actually the data probably was pointing to the coming of a little ice age in the 70's. There were so many CFCs in the air that it was causing cooling. The trend broke because of environmental reform in the 70's/80's.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Actually the data probably was pointing to the coming of a little ice age in the 70's. There were so many CFCs in the air that it was causing cooling. The trend broke because of environmental reform in the 70's/80's.

So you're saying that human activity almost caused an ice age but now that we've enacted the necessary reforms we're in for the opposite since that's where the earth was headed anyway?

[mawilson 2,133]

1961?

2009?

Yes, 1961. All climate scientists agreeing... a consensus, imagine that.

Those stupid 1961 scientists. Of course, we know better now, right?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually the data probably was pointing to the coming of a little ice age in the 70's. There were so many CFCs in the air that it was causing cooling. The trend broke because of environmental reform in the 70's/80's.

So you're saying that human activity almost caused an ice age but now that we've enacted the necessary reforms we're in for the opposite since that's where the earth was headed anyway?

So, in essence, the answer to Global Warming is to bring back those CFC's. That was easy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard – "How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?" – must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time. But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time human time scales. The results are currently in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

• 7 articles predicting cooling
• 44 predicting warming
• 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.

link

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Actually the data probably was pointing to the coming of a little ice age in the 70's. There were so many CFCs in the air that it was causing cooling. The trend broke because of environmental reform in the 70's/80's.

So you're saying that human activity almost caused an ice age but now that we've enacted the necessary reforms we're in for the opposite since that's where the earth was headed anyway?

So, in essence, the answer to Global Warming is to bring back those CFC's. That was easy.

Yes its one very very dangerous answer. One that may have to be used if other solutions do not work.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually the data probably was pointing to the coming of a little ice age in the 70's. There were so many CFCs in the air that it was causing cooling. The trend broke because of environmental reform in the 70's/80's.

So you're saying that human activity almost caused an ice age but now that we've enacted the necessary reforms we're in for the opposite since that's where the earth was headed anyway?

So, in essence, the answer to Global Warming is to bring back those CFC's. That was easy.

Yes its one very very dangerous answer. One that may have to be used if other solutions do not work.

For the record, I wasn't being serious.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

But all the same, research has been put into filling the atmosphere with CFCs to shield the earth...and it is an option that's on the table years from now.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Sousuke

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm gonna start stockpiling hairspray.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I should clarify that CFCs themselves may not be used...but other types of reflective material could be used.

[mawilson 2,133]

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

• 7 articles predicting cooling
• 44 predicting warming
• 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.

link

So, in other words, we know more today than we did 40 years ago?

Wowsie wow wow!!!

So... perhaps in 40 years scientists will look back on today and say "what a bunch of idiots, with their primitive computer models and theories of global warming"?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So... perhaps in 40 years scientists will look back on today and say "what a bunch of idiots, with their primitive computer models and theories of global warming"?

That's crazy talk.

The Great Gore has spoken. His will shall be done.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm gonna start stockpiling hairspray.

Personally I'm betting on synthetic trees in combo with mirror satellites. Hey maybe with Japan's style solar satellite and the mirrors we may have a great power source.