Climate Science Is Not Settled

[Darwin333]

Yep I remember that as well. I also remember being taught that the oil/gas would be gone by the year 2000. I put the global warming prophets in the same pot. When "scientists" start predicting cataclysm they strike me not as scientists but as religious zealots. Unfortunately when these boneheads are proven wrong about the catastrophe, they simply will be replaced by other "scientists" who will start predicting another looming crisis which we can only avert by devastating the economy. In reality, these scientists are just a bunch of luddites and anti-social misfits who hate humanity.

I agree that we shouldn't fuck up the economy of a single country to try and solve a global problem simply because it won't work.

Can you agree that, without fucking up the economy, it's simply a good idea to fuck up the environment as little as possible?

 

[Paul98]

China is banning coal with High ash or sulfur, not all coal.

 

[Darwin333]

A few posts back you said there was never a global cooling theory, now your calling it a "fringe scientific opinion", yet it was considered main stream enough to be in California text books. It's apparent that you don't know anything about it, you're simply pulling statements out of your ass because you never learned how to say "I don't know".

In my science textbook I was taught that the universes rate of expansion was slowing down. We got bigger, better and way cooler instruments since then and discovered that its actually speeding up and we have no idea why.

One of the, if not THE, best parts of science is it gladly admits that its wrong. Matter of fact, being wrong is often "cooler" than being right.

 

[bshole]

I agree that we shouldn't fuck up the economy of a single country to try and solve a global problem simply because it won't work.

Can you agree that, without fucking up the economy, it's simply a good idea to fuck up the environment as little as possible?

Well obviously. The problem is with the definition of "fuck up the environment". For example, when a company puts a solar plant in Nevada that kills 10s of thousands of birds each and every year, I would quantify that as fucking with the environment..... while you would quantify it as saving the earth. We have a difference in vocabulary. You worry about some monstrous thing that may occur at some nebulous date in the future, I worry about the environment/society I live in RIGHT here and now.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air

 

[chucky2]

Hey dude, it's ok. Science is hard. However one note here. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas all the time. Even if crunchy hippies are saying "crazy" things about "Gaia". It doesn't change the amount of CO2 we put into the air or what CO2 does once it's there.

I'm mean if you think because Al Gore said something CO2 disappears from the air or changes chemical properties in a water into wine sort of way, well you've just gone and made your self a religion.

Doesn't even matter what I believe though, it's what Believers believe. Either they believe or they don't. If they don't, then no need to go all Believer, they don't believe in the first place. If they do believe, as they profess to, then they should be taking action themselves to reign in their energy and goods consumption to a bare minimum, to save Gaia. Even more so since those pesky Deniers aren't buying into their pitch, so the Believers will need to cut back even more to make up for them.

Let me guess though...those personal cutbacks based on their Belief can't be done without the Fed gov mandating it, managing it, and taxing it, amirite?

 

[unokitty]

"An international mechanism to address loss and damage from climate change is a clear demand of people in developing countries. Our governments cannot back down from our demand for compensation for the harm caused by the climate change locked-in by the pollution of the rich."

Believe in Climate Change?

Go ahead and pay the politicians.

Just keep your hands out of my pockets. I don't believe that giving more money to the politicians is going to save the planet.

Uno

 

[SharpHawk]

Even more so since those pesky Deniers aren't buying into their pitch, so the Believers will need to cut back even more to make up for them.

Did that make sense to you as you were writing it?

 

[chucky2]

Did that make sense to you as you were writing it?

Yes? If I need to empty a 100 gal tank, and have 100 people each with a gallon bucket, and the pitch is for each person to take one gallon out of the 100 gallon tank, we'd arrive at an empty tank if everyone participates, right? So when 50 of the people decide to not participate, how will the 100 gal tank get emptied? The remaining 50 we have chosen to participate will need to not just empty their 50 gallons, but empty more to reach the goal.

What part of that in regards to energy consumption and pollution (which is goods consumption) does not make sense to you?

 

[WHAMPOM]

And in the real world, globally the 2014 month of August is the warmest on record.
Oceans are not rising 'cause ice volume contracts when melted.
Oceans' temp is not rising as predicted, could be melting Pole ice is cooling the seas and
cool seas do not expand and rise.
Antarctic record Winter ice due to the fact increased fresh water glacier melt freezes faster then salt water. Plus record snow falls on the greatest desert continent on Earth.
It's Spring down under now, let's see what the ice measures out at in the height of Summer.

Now just what science is settled? Einstein redefined Newton's Law Of Gravity, Genetics is doing the same for Darwin's theories.

 

[Riparian]

Yes? If I need to empty a 100 gal tank, and have 100 people each with a gallon bucket, and the pitch is for each person to take one gallon out of the 100 gallon tank, we'd arrive at an empty tank if everyone participates, right? So when 50 of the people decide to not participate, how will the 100 gal tank get emptied? The remaining 50 we have chosen to participate will need to not just empty their 50 gallons, but empty more to reach the goal.

What part of that in regards to energy consumption and pollution (which is goods consumption) does not make sense to you?

What happens when those 50 who refuse to participate decide to not only not participate but start filling in 1 gallon each and so on?

 

[Moonbeam]

What happens when those 50 who refuse to participate decide to not only not participate but start filling in 1 gallon each and so on?

That's not the question. The question is what happens to a
society governed by people with CBDs, society run,in effect, madmen. N

 

[IGBT]

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=2e3e0ad9c1&e=f4e33fdd1e



It was the usual post-communist leftie march. That is, it was a petit-bourgeois re-enactment of meaningless ritual that passes for serious politics among those too inexperienced, too emotionally excited or too poorly read and too unpracticed at self-reflection or political analysis to know or perhaps care how futile and tired the conventional march has become. Crazed grouplets of anti-capitalist movements trying to fan the embers of Marxism back to life, gender and transgender groups with their own spin on climate, earnest eco-warriors, publicity-seeking hucksters, adrenalin junkies, college kids wanting a taste of the venerable tradition of public protest, and, as always, a great many people who don’t think that burning marijuana adds to the world’s CO2 load, marched down Manhattan’s streets. --Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 21 September 2014

 

[chucky2]

What happens when those 50 who refuse to participate decide to not only not participate but start filling in 1 gallon each and so on?

Well that's the best part of this! What I didn't tell you was that 100 gal tank? Studies have shown it's at - no, past - the limit it can hold water. And, it gets better! Those 100 people? They're all adding water in close to equal amounts (for the most part, there are a few outliers on each end). Here comes the best part:

Your 1 gal bucket, and the water you take or put into the tank, represent how much energy and 'stuff' (and, stuff equals pollution for the most part) you get! Those taking away from the tank are in effect taking away from themselves - they get less energy and 'stuff'. Those adding to the tank, they get more energy and 'stuff' for themselves. So to your question: What happens when someone say, decides to go add 5 gallons of water to the tank, to say, cover their airplane flight for personal pleasure to Europe? Well, it means those 50 Believers need to find a way to remove not only their 1 gal, but now, cover that one Denier (and obviously it must be a Denier, because, a Believer would have to be an incredible selfish asshole to Believe the science but then consume and pollute that much for something so unnecessary as a personal joy ride) who selfishly added 5 gal to the tank. So if they each take an equal share, they have to cover their 1 gal and another .1 gal.

If we believe the Believers, this must be done, for if we don't, that 100gal tank will burst and drown us all out. I just find it incredibly interesting that with so many Believers, so little water is being taken out of the tank, you know? Generally we just see Believers adding water to the tank at the same (or even, gasp!, greater) rates as Deniers. Crazy strange huh?

 

[Moonbeam]

and, as always, a great many people who don’t think that burning marijuana adds to the world’s CO2 load, marched down Manhattan’s streets. --Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 21 September 2014

It is only by the grace of God and the CBD's terror of any altered state of reality other than the one they inhabit that keeps the entire world's production of energy from being generated by burning hemp. Can you sustain imagine the planetary oven that would produce. Terrifying.

 

[Greenman]

Actually, I never said it was never a theory, I said it was never a mainstream theory. Now I'm continuing to call it a fringe scientific opinion, yes. During the period where "global cooling" was popularized by the media, only a small fraction of papers supported cooling while the vast majority supported... you guessed it...global warming.

Hell, just a quick reading of the wiki article would tell you that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So not only do you not know what you're talking about in regards to global warming but you can't even read my posts correctly. Speaking of someone who never learned how to say "I don't know"...

My search turned up a few articles about the subject. Perhaps the fellow who wrote the wiki piece had his own opinion. The point is, it was a theory, it's was reasonably well reported, and it was apparently wrong.

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 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 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)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972&#8206
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972&#8206
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 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
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)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974&#8206
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974&#8206
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ‎December 5, 1974&#8206
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (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 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975&#8206
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)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ‎January 17, 1978&#8206
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, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us?

 

[Paratus]

My search turned up a few articles about the subject. Perhaps the fellow who wrote the wiki piece had his own opinion. The point is, it was a theory, it's was reasonably well reported, and it was apparently wrong.

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 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 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)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972&#8206
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972&#8206
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 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
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)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974&#8206
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974&#8206
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ‎December 5, 1974&#8206
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (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 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975&#8206
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975&#8206
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)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ‎January 17, 1978&#8206
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, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us?

Interesting. Not a single peer reviewed article, only newspaper articles..........

Not seeing widespread support for global cooling in the 70's from mainstream scientific sources. So I'm not sure how this proves it was a widely supported theory in credible scientific circles at the time.

Although, certain types of pollution did have cooling effects but also caused acid rain and ozone depletion. Most of these were banned. Maybe that's what you are getting at.

 

[Paratus]

Neither makes any sense.

Then why did you suggest 97% of climate scientists are finding MMGW due to bribery if it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Riparian]

Well that's the best part of this! What I didn't tell you was that 100 gal tank? Studies have shown it's at - no, past - the limit it can hold water. And, it gets better! Those 100 people? They're all adding water in close to equal amounts (for the most part, there are a few outliers on each end). Here comes the best part:

Your 1 gal bucket, and the water you take or put into the tank, represent how much energy and 'stuff' (and, stuff equals pollution for the most part) you get! Those taking away from the tank are in effect taking away from themselves - they get less energy and 'stuff'. Those adding to the tank, they get more energy and 'stuff' for themselves. So to your question: What happens when someone say, decides to go add 5 gallons of water to the tank, to say, cover their airplane flight for personal pleasure to Europe? Well, it means those 50 Believers need to find a way to remove not only their 1 gal, but now, cover that one Denier (and obviously it must be a Denier, because, a Believer would have to be an incredible selfish asshole to Believe the science but then consume and pollute that much for something so unnecessary as a personal joy ride) who selfishly added 5 gal to the tank. So if they each take an equal share, they have to cover their 1 gal and another .1 gal.

If we believe the Believers, this must be done, for if we don't, that 100gal tank will burst and drown us all out. I just find it incredibly interesting that with so many Believers, so little water is being taken out of the tank, you know? Generally we just see Believers adding water to the tank at the same (or even, gasp!, greater) rates as Deniers. Crazy strange huh?

Sure sounds like you're advocating for an entity to force collective action on the entirety instead of hoping for large offsets by a subset.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting. Not a single peer reviewed article, only newspaper articles..........

Not seeing widespread support for global cooling in the 70's from mainstream scientific sources. So I'm not sure how this proves it was a widely supported theory in credible scientific circles at the time.

Although, certain types of pollution did have cooling effects but also caused acid rain and ozone depletion. Most of these were banned. Maybe that's what you are getting at.

Exactly. Bad news reporting doesn't change scientific opinion. It was simply never a mainstream theory, which is why invoking it to attempt to discredit the consensus now is not credible or honest.

 

[chucky2]

Sure sounds like you're advocating for an entity to force collective action on the entirety instead of hoping for large offsets by a subset.

Well, two things really there:

1.) I am not advocating for an entity (in our case we would call it the Bottomless Pit, aka Fed gov) to do that, the Believers are.

2.) Regardless of their advocacy for such an entity, in the meantime, that is, until they can shout and whine long enough to get what they want, if they actually believe the science, the severity of the problem, and the magnitude of impact (Gaia is dying!), then their action on this must be clear: They won't wait for compulsory taxation, they'll take any and all steps themselves to save Gaia. When your kid is on fire you don't wait for the fire dept to get there and put him out, you do whatever you can right then - your kid is on fire, he's not merely burned a pinkie. In the case of Believers, it's Gaia dying - can you get a more severe threat to human existence? I sure hope they Believe more in this cause than the 'Rich need to pay more taxes' cause...we can see how much Belief the rich ones touting that had...:hmm:

 

[IGBT]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/10-ways-to-tell-tuesdays-un-climate-summit-isnt-about-climate/

Here are ten ways to tell the United Nations really isn’t interested in climate per se. Some of us suspected over 20 years ago this would happen, back when the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was being formed to help combat “global warming”.

 

[Greenman]

In my science textbook I was taught that the universes rate of expansion was slowing down. We got bigger, better and way cooler instruments since then and discovered that its actually speeding up and we have no idea why.

One of the, if not THE, best parts of science is it gladly admits that its wrong. Matter of fact, being wrong is often "cooler" than being right.

In the 7th grade the book said the smallest particles were the proton, neutron, and electron. Things change, even things that have achieved "consensus".

 

[Greenman]

Interesting. Not a single peer reviewed article, only newspaper articles..........

Not seeing widespread support for global cooling in the 70's from mainstream scientific sources. So I'm not sure how this proves it was a widely supported theory in credible scientific circles at the time.

Although, certain types of pollution did have cooling effects but also caused acid rain and ozone depletion. Most of these were banned. Maybe that's what you are getting at.

The point was that it was considered main stream enough to be in the text books used in CA, and that it was apparently wrong.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The point was that it was considered main stream enough to be in the text books used in CA, and that it was apparently wrong.

What text books?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...hey-really-predicting-an-ice-age-in-the-1970s

 

[ivwshane]

What text books?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...hey-really-predicting-an-ice-age-in-the-1970s

Thank you! His shit gets so tiring after he is repeatedly told he is wrong. I'm sure he will bitch out again and backtrack and explain away what he was "really trying to say".


Go ahead greenmam show us how you don't have CBD.