Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My high school debate days were a decade earlier, but I can appreciate how much things deteriorated by that time.
Maybe so, I did have a few former hippies as teachers, who preached their ideology at us. Even in my teens I was a skeptic, and looked to people's motivations for pushing an issue, which drove me to find the other side of their argument. I've never been a conformist, it always insulted me when some know-it-all would talk at me, as if I should just accept what they say without question. I don't even treat my dog like that.
This is so very true, the eco-NAZIs manufacture all kinds of lies to further their agenda. My personal favorite was about the "Ozone Hole" over Alaska.
What they don't tell people is that it requires sunlight to create ozone, and for 90 days every Winter there is no sunlight above the Arctic Circle, where the ozone hole appears. They also leave out the fact that the "Ozone Hole" over Alaska completely disappears as soon as the sun rises.
The eco-NAZIs have absolutely no credibility. I don't know anyone who has taken them seriously since their 1970s man-made Global Cooling hysteria nonsense.
Actually, the hole in the ozone layer is at the South Pole, but hey, North Pole, South Pole, who cares but Santa Claus, right?
Maybe so, I did have a few former hippies as teachers, who preached their ideology at us. Even in my teens I was a skeptic, and looked to people's motivations for pushing an issue, which drove me to find the other side of their argument. I've never been a conformist, it always insulted me when some know-it-all would talk at me, as if I should just accept what they say without question. I don't even treat my dog like that.
That's why I ignore the nonsense the deniers try to peddle. I know they are just other people's tools so there's no point in being mad at them. It is important though the a country that was 5th in the world in education among developed countries when I was in HS is now 26th of 29. The sort of lies you flawlessly parrot thrive for that reason.
This is so very true, the eco-NAZIs manufacture all kinds of lies to further their agenda. My personal favorite was about the "Ozone Hole" over Alaska.
What they don't tell people is that it requires sunlight to create ozone, and for 90 days every Winter there is no sunlight above the Arctic Circle, where the ozone hole appears. They also leave out the fact that the "Ozone Hole" over Alaska completely disappears as soon as the sun rises.
The eco-NAZIs have absolutely no credibility. I don't know anyone who has taken them seriously since their 1970s man-made Global Cooling hysteria nonsense.
Category: sceptic guide
Posted on: February 27, 2006 12:42 PM, by coby
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The alarmists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's, now it's too much warming! Why should we believe them? Answer:
It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970's but a very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. On the other hand, in the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements.
Quite simply, there is no comparison. I'm sure you could find better evidence of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion.
If you want some additional detail, Real Climate has discussed this, and William Connelly has made a hobby of gathering everything that was written about global cooling at the time.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website.
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
The skeptic argument...
The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s... In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems†to a first-place tie for “death and misery.†The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming (source: Fire and Ice).
What the science says...
1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.
The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling.
Scientific studies in the 1970's re global cooling
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science... Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008). Rasool and Schneider's ice age "projection"
The main study cited by skeptics is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971). The paper doesn't actually predict an ice age. Instead, it projects a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it may trigger an ice age. Historically, what happened was aerosol levels fell. While it's unclear whether Rasool's calculations re aerosol cooling were accurate, one inaccuracy was they underestimated climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 3.
In the decades since their 1971 paper, many studies constraining climate sensitivity calculate that if atmospheric CO2 was doubled, global temperatures would rise around 3°C. These studies employ different methods (modelling, calculations from empirical observations) looking at different time periods (the 20th century, the Holocene, past ice ages), different aspects of climate (surface temperature, mid-tropospheric temperature, ocean heat intake) and response to different forcings (volcanic, CO2, solar). More on climate sensitivity...
National Academy of Sciences - now and then
The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom. Other indications of current consensus
Other scientific bodies that have released statements endorsing anthropogenic global warming include:
None of these bodies (at least the ones that existed back then) endorsed ice age predictions in the 70s. More on scientific consensus...
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of studies, even then outweighed by global warming predictions. Today, an avalanche of studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse anthropogenic global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Further reading
Check out this New York Times article from 1956 that discusses a forecasted increase in global temperatures as emissions from burning fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO2. Thanks to George Morrison for the heads up.
That's why I ignore the nonsense the deniers try to peddle. I know they are just other people's tools so there's no point in being mad at them. It is important though the a country that was 5th in the world in education among developed countries when I was in HS is now 26th of 29. The sort of lies you flawlessly parrot thrive for that reason.
You have yet to debate the issue, instead you just call people names and impugn their character. No different then al Gore, refusing to debate people on the issue, and simply deride them challenging him.
Actually, the hole in the ozone layer is at the South Pole, but hey, North Pole, South Pole, who cares but Santa Claus, right?
Actually, there is an ozone hole over both poles during the winter, when the sun doesn't shine. That was my point, which you obviously failed to grasp: No sunlight, no ozone.
Actually, there is an ozone hole over both poles during the winter, when the sun doesn't shine. That was my point, which you obviously failed to grasp: No sunlight, no ozone.
And what does that have to do with anything? I agree that at times there is a much smaller, generally insignificant and usually ignored hole at the North pole. So what do you think "no sunlight, no ozone" tells you?
You have yet to debate the issue, instead you just call people names and impugn their character. No different then al Gore, refusing to debate people on the issue, and simply deride them challenging him.
Honest to God I'm not trying to impugn your character. You are a victim of a National tragedy. Exactly what do you feel requires debate? I mean the physical universe really doesn't permit global warming not to be true and that's been well known for more than 100 years. I always kick myself when I end up saying this, but sure I'll debate if it is debate and not "dueling hyperlinks". The whole thing derives from General science principles, like the Periodic Table and the spectrum, and every conversation I've had on CD about this has ended with me being told I'm making those things up. If I mention something like that and you've honestly never heard of it say so and I won't doubt it for one second, and I'll provide you a reference. Otherwise, I'd rather debate not talk about Al Gore, the Hippie teacher who traumatized you or your dog.
Of course it matters what caused it. If WE caused it, then we can fix it. If, as some scientists believe, it's more about the earths natural cycle, then all the money we throw at it is wasted money.
This isn't to suggest that I feel we shouldn't be environmentally friendls, or conserve what energy we can, or explore alternative fuel sources. We should do all thise things. But we should do them from a position that is informed and educated, not just a panicy response to something that may not be controllable.
I don't know if I'd call a 30-year response (we were talking about global warming in the 80's) panicky.
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
I do wonder what it will take before the skeptics give up their fight, if it is even possible to convince them, no matter the evidence. When ALL the ice is gone, will they still claim nothing is happening? That we shouldn't worry, and that someone will save us (this is the someone will think of something train of thought)?
I don't know if I'd call a 30-year response (we were talking about global warming in the 80's) panicky.
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
I do wonder what it will take before the skeptics give up their fight, if it is even possible to convince them, no matter the evidence. When ALL the ice is gone, will they still claim nothing is happening? That we shouldn't worry, and that someone will save us (this is the someone will think of something train of thought)?
Don't forget John Tyndall in 1859. He took Fourier's proof that a planet with an atmosphere will retain more heat than a planet with no atmosphere and created a proof that the types of gases composing the atmosphere determine the temperature, and this can be predicted. Arrhenius demonstrated that these mathmatical models matched the observed case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
