120 years of climate scares (global warming, pollution, buy, energy)
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.
According to "the law of averages", sooner or later one of them HAS to be right.
We will know in 10 or 12 years, according to the current crop of doom and gloom sayers.
One does need a certain amount of skepticism regarding prognostications, but climate disasters do happen. See the little ice age, for example. At least we live in a time period when it is reasonably possible to forecast climate trends within a certain margin of error. Safeguarding against the worst likely events is reasonably prudent behavior. Such outcomes are the reason people buy life insurance.
Sigh..
global weather changes every roughly 12 000 years, due to Earth orbit precession change. It fluctuates between very hot and very cold weather. Precession cares less about Al Gores and whatever is that girl from Sweden. Precession does what precession do.
Please keep this thread ONLY about past modelling of climate change, not the current models. The thread on glaciers has developed into the discussion on the current models, and has covered a lot of ground that doesn't need to be repeated.
One does need a certain amount of skepticism regarding prognostications, but climate disasters do happen. See the little ice age, for example. At least we live in a time period when it is reasonably possible to forecast climate trends within a certain margin of error. Safeguarding against the worst likely events is reasonably prudent behavior. Such outcomes are the reason people buy life insurance.
Remember the Y2K scare? The more doom and gloom predictions they made the more skeptical I became. I took what I believed were reasonable precautions similar to what we do to prepare for an approaching hurricane. Y2K came and went with no trouble. My precautions didn’t get wasted as I didn’t stockpile huge amounts of food, water, and other supplies. I look at global climate change the same way. I do what I can at home and work to reduce energy usage and pollution.
I have heard the cry of wolf my entire 67 years. Nuclear war, population bomb/mass starvation, ice age, ozone hole, acid rain, peak oil, and now global warming, its all nonsense.
This is why I’m skeptical of all these doom and gloom claims.
American thinker is an oxymoron. Actually more - a moron!
Please, be sceptical about your source of science, OP.
Your source is HIGHLY questionable and exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.
Actually, bias ALWAYS exists in science. There is a constant battle that is core to the way it works. It was only in recent years that "Steady State" lost out to "Big Bang." "Big Bang" now is fighting against newer theories.
That the source of the article is biased is noted, but not particularly relevant, as the material presented in the article is easily verified, and pretty much on target. I remember Rachel Carson moaning about the coming ice age. She was right about the thin egg shells, but otherwise incredibly biased and often wrong. Edison was biased against alternating current.
If you want to argue the veracity of the article, then do so by providing proof that the quotes were incorrect. Don't resort to lazy smears and sneers.
This is why I’m skeptical of all these doom and gloom claims.
Many items in the list in the article are one-and-done predictions made by some pundit who may or may not have been a scientist. Many are also weather and not climate related. None before about 1960 originated from a panel of scientists. Panels are important to get a consensus and filter out the odd lone-wolf. And most after 1960 are basically all talking about warming so are consistent with the IPCC.
There is a lot of noise out there, the article is right about that. So it is important to have a noise filter in your head that throws out the unqualified info from the qualified. Personally I like to go to the source, such as the IPCC. That way you remove the veneer that some journalist puts on it. If someone publishes something "scientific" without a link to the source material, be a little skeptical.
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.
