“She was once a scientist". An unbelievable statement!What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn't even really a title "scientist" anyway. It's not like a license that you maintain, it's an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care. Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.] If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn't matter who gathered it, it's only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified.
CC, the above post goes with the fist part of your beginning post. The spam would not let me post reply to your post. Sorry.When that happens, go back and write something at the botton of your post, such as "spam line". When I do that the post always goes through. CFI's Spam Nazi is easily disarmed. He's overly sensitive and stupid. Thanks Lois. There are times I can get passed the Spam program and other times I just must give up. Right now, I give up on about half of my reply postings. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Stick in a whole paragraph of new text at the bottom of the post that's been rejected. It could be the first paragrapph of the Gettysburg address, for example. My posts are seldom rejected again when I add something at the bottom. It sure beats writing something all over again or trashing it. Lois
“She was once a scientist". An unbelievable statement!What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn't even really a title "scientist" anyway. It's not like a license that you maintain, it's an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care. Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.] If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn't matter who gathered it, it's only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified. JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link.
“She was once a scientist". An unbelievable statement!What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn't even really a title "scientist" anyway. It's not like a license that you maintain, it's an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care. Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.] If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn't matter who gathered it, it's only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified. JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link. She calls the scientific community "tribal" and says they "stonewall" review. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to work with other scientists. Her response is to start her own blog, so she can publish whatever she wants, review or not, again, unscientific. She wants social media to be recognized as part of the academic system. She is a promoter of uncertainty, even creating the term "Uncertainity Monster". For these reasons, I don't consider her a scientist.
“She was once a scientist". An unbelievable statement!What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn't even really a title "scientist" anyway. It's not like a license that you maintain, it's an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care. Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.] If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn't matter who gathered it, it's only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified. And if she lies about the science and misrepresents the science - what can we call here then? A fraud? Yes, that would be it, Judith Curry has turned into a fraud. One time serious scientists are known to occasional get lost and to get sucked down into the deep end because of personal not science related issues, just look at the ancient fart Dyson and his utterly disconnected comments regarding climate science, which he doesn't know a damned thing about and never ever studies beyond reading a few contrarian missives.
How do you explain Judith Curry? Posted by Greg Laden on August 20, 2015 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/08/20/how-do-you-explain-judith-curry/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry Criticisms from climate scientists Criticisms of outreach communication Laundry list Curry's contrarian-leaning "public outreach" public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact."[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. ... Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources ... Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science ... 2011: Berkeley Earth Project "BEST" dissension, and widely publicized claims of "pause" Curry was a member of the partially-Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Project temperature reanalysis project headed by former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, which reanalyzed existing weather station data and found yes, global warming was real. The project FAQ[2] (and a draft paper, which lists Curry among the authors[3]) reported there was no evidence to indicate the rate of global warming had changed in the last decade. But despite Curry's having agreed (as evinced by her coauthorship) with this conclusion, London Daily Mail contrarian (and oft-misrepresenting[4], [5], [6]) journalist David Rose portrayed a vigorously-disagreeing Curry saying, "This is 'hide the decline' stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline."[24]. Curry backtracked somewhat on her blog, saying "The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended"[24], but didn't step back from "Our data show the pause", and "There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998."[25] When pressed for the scientific basis for these statements, Curry admitted the time period was too short for a statistically significant difference to emerge. ...Climate disinformer Judith Curry, "pragmatic ethicist" despicably perpetuates a lie.... http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/climate-disinformer-judith-curry-and.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htmHere's a windy article by Michael D. Lemonick "Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues" and was first printed in the Scientific American. Michael D. Lemonick http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html He does his damnedest to be balanced and impartial, so much so that he makes no mention of deliberately misrepresenting the science being seen as some free speech right. But it does explain the Judith Curry Creepiness in rather more detail than others have. Ironically, Mike refuses to understand what even causes current global warming, hell he even have the nerve to say Earth receives infrared radiation from the sun, and go on and on - I find it impossible to believe he's are actually so oblivious, leaves me with thoughts of another fraudster in action. One who is totally unwilling to absorb and learn from new information.
There isn't even really a title "scientist" anyway.Right and since she has stopped being, thinking or acting like a scientist, there's no point in pretending that she is some shinning example of what a scientist is supposed to be, as contrarians like you keep doing. She stands and falls on the validity of her statements and those damn her to the hell of Know-nothings. Oh and you keep sharing what she "feels" and says, but how about focusing on the actual science questions??? Enunciate your skeptical points, clearly so that they can be responded to constructively - telling me that this bitch hates serious climate scientists and believes uncertainty is more important than all the rock solid evidence on hand, doesn't say shit. Oh but yeah, creating confusion is your thing. Actual constructive learning doesn't interest you so much - keep your taxes low, that's what fires your intellect. Yippy. If I could do thee 'ol cartoon teleportation I'd send you straight to Galveston for a close up of what warming can do.
Gulf of Mexico 'Hot Tub' Could Fuel Hurricane Season Toward Peak By Jonathan Belles Jul 20 2016 https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hot-gulf-of-mexico-hurricane-tropical-storm-mid-june
JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link.She calls the scientific community "tribal" and says they "stonewall" review. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to work with other scientists. Her response is to start her own blog, so she can publish whatever she wants, review or not, again, unscientific. She wants social media to be recognized as part of the academic system. She is a promoter of uncertainty, even creating the term "Uncertainity Monster". For these reasons, I don't consider her a scientist. She certainly did drop out of the science and right into the lap of Morano and the GOP science bashing (for fun and profit) crowd. Mike, dare you to mention one bit of serious science she's done lately. Bet you can't :smirk: Blog post and ranting don't count!
“She was once a scientist". An unbelievable statement!What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn't even really a title "scientist" anyway. It's not like a license that you maintain, it's an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care. Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.] If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn't matter who gathered it, it's only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified. JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link. She calls the scientific community "tribal" and says they "stonewall" review. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to work with other scientists. Her response is to start her own blog, so she can publish whatever she wants, review or not, again, unscientific. She wants social media to be recognized as part of the academic system. She is a promoter of uncertainty, even creating the term "Uncertainity Monster". For these reasons, I don't consider her a scientist. I really don’t see JC in the same light. She has stated that this problem of politicization of the trade has been developing over several decades. She is pushing the climate models to be used in the whole field of climate change. Not just the human factor. JC has just released a report called “Climate Models for the layman". //www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/HON301/Curry-2017.pdf The way I view the subject is that climate models will advance the science of global warming the way DNA did to antiquity. Instead of the scientists arguing for years and decades on who thinking is correct, the DNA solved many of the problems. We just don’t have the time to spend watching the scientists debate who is right on global warming. The world keeps turning and we have got to kept the scientific progress moving in a scientific direction and the climate models may be our best bet. Senior research professor Isaac M. Held stated that “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash. ‘It’s fair to say all models have tuned it…." //www.gfdl.noaa.gov/isaac-held-homepage/ In other words, the scientific community has gotten off track on the development of the climate models. And who has decided to bring this to the public’s attention? None other than our Dr. Curry. JC is trying to balance that very fine line that Professor Halihan is talking about in post #39. University scientists don’t set policies. They present the facts. At least that is the way it is supposed to work. JC has now moved up the ladder and is working with the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while openminded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated. They work with the news and public to keep the global warming information correct. You could say she is helping to balance the scales to keep the computer models moving forward. The “Uncertainty Monster". Is the uncertainty in projecting future climate trends. If the climate models can’t project future climate trends, then what good are they? The question you should be asking yourself is, do you want our scientists to have a robust, healthy, and respectful debate when it comes to interpreting data and testing hypotheses. “When the IPCC consensus is challenged or the authority of climate science in determining energy policy is questioned, these activist scientists and organizations call the questioners ‘deniers’ and claim ‘war on science.’ These activist scientists seemless concerned with the integrity of the scientific process than they are about their privileged position and influence in the public debate about climate and energy policy. They do not argue or debate the science – rather, they denigrate scientists who disagree with them. These activist scientists and organizations are perverting the political process and attempting to inoculate climate science from scrutiny – this is the real war on science." www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/03/Climate-Science-March20171.pdf
wwww.thegwpf.FRAUDS/content/uploads/2017/03/Climate-Science-March20171.blah.blah.bs.bsMore empty words. Say something with some substance. Oh yeah, you don't possess any substance - just have to look at who you turn to for your information: Global Warming Policy Foundation They are a political advocacy group that does zero work on the science of global warming. Their sole mission is to feed political animals like you bullshit to help con confuse the situation and stonewall all constructive efforts for understand and deal with the reality facing us.
Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation Background The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies" designed to mitigate climate change. The group was established on November 22 2009, just three days after the first set of “Climategate" emails were released on the University of Tomsk's server. [1], [2] Nigel Lawson describes the GWPF as an “all-party and non-party think-tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated." Although Lawson claims to be “open minded" on global warming, the GWPF website has a banner depicting a short-term temperature graph that suggests the world is not warming. [3] ...
Global Warming Policy Foundation donor funding levels revealed Accounts show extent to which secretive thinktank is funded by anonymous donors rather than income from membership fees https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors The Guardian Reveals Key Funder of Global Warming Policy Foundation Is Michael Hintze By Guest • Wednesday, March 28, 2012 https://www.desmogblog.com/guardian-reveals-key-funder-global-warming-policy-foundation-michael-hintze
about the GWPF https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation
JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link.She calls the scientific community "tribal" and says they "stonewall" review. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to work with other scientists. Her response is to start her own blog, so she can publish whatever she wants, review or not, again, unscientific. She wants social media to be recognized as part of the academic system. She is a promoter of uncertainty, even creating the term "Uncertainity Monster". For these reasons, I don't consider her a scientist. She certainly did drop out of the science and right into the lap of Morano and the GOP science bashing (for fun and profit) crowd. Mike, dare you to mention one bit of serious science she's done lately. Bet you can't :smirk: Blog post and ranting don't count! Any way you look at what JC is doing. She is questioning the computer models and how the system is being used. Which is very much needed today. I want all this disagreement BS to end. And that will happen if the IPCC can get the computer models working. Take a minute and review one question on the ProCon.org website. And then tell me that you think this is where a country that has spent so much on its education system should be at! //climatechange.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001445
Take a minute and review one question on the ProCon.org website. And then tell me that you think this is where a country that has spent so much on its education system should be at! //climatechange.procon. org/view.answers.php?questionID=001445What kind of joke is that. What are you trying to demonstrate? With a lines such as "Climate models used by the IPCC [United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] fail to reproduce known past climates without manipulation and therefore lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision-making..." How the fuck do you make forecast models without manipulating the data??? That is the very definition of forecasting models intended to understand the components of weather and climate change. Lets see what else, "The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a coalition of 140+ climate scientists, economists, and engineers, in the "Core Principles" section of its website" What the hell do economists and engineers have to tell anyone about climate science??? Why do you keep cutting out the real experts??? Hmmm, ""Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual..." That's utterly insane and unsupported by any serious science. "Claims that 'consensus' exists among climate experts regarding the causes of the modest warming of the past century are contradicted by thousands of independent scientists... " There is nothing "modest" about the past century's manmade global warming. "independent" scientists? you mean scientists outside the field who hate taxes???
Global Warming - temperature anomalies by country 1900-2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLSZ6U_VyGk Carbon Tracker's "Pumphandle 2016" - History of atmospheric CO2 from 800,000 years ago until January 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH6fQh9eAQE"Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously..." More utter stupidity that totally ignores the vast amount of observations and understanding scientists have achieve of our sun's influence on our planet. Bull shit lies like that should be action as crimes of malicious vandalism, of information the public has a right to have presented honestly! Mike our public education system suck because we allowed a bunch of malicious avaricious egomaniacal people demand that lies are to be treaded seriously and libel and slander against experts is their Free Speech Right. It's utterly morally criminal thinking. Disgusting The important climate models and scientific forecasts have been amazingly accurate, you lying sack................... But you ignore all that. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html
Bull shit lies like that should be actionable as crimes of malicious vandalism!
Against what? The information that the public has a right to have presented honestly!
Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Simple Explanation of Climate Change
(that is human caused global warming driven Climate Change)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VUPIX7yEOM
<strong>1959</strong>
An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change:
"A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth.
This raises an interesting question: How do Man's activities influence the climate of the future?"
<strong>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/</strong>
1967
The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)0242.0.CO;2
<strong>1975</strong>
"Climatic Change:Are We on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming?"
<strong>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf</strong>
<strong>https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/</strong>
1981
“Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf
1981 climate change predictions were eerily accurate
(RealClimate: Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection)
But wait there's more,
A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972
<strong>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972</strong>
MANMADE CARBON DIOXIDE AND THE “GREENHOUSE" EFFECT
<strong>www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf</strong>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One for the road.
How quantum mechanics explains global warming - Lieven Scheire
<strong>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk</strong>
You've probably heard that carbon dioxide is warming the Earth. But how exactly is it doing it?
Lieven Scheire uses a rainbow, a light bulb and a bit of quantum physics to describe the science behind global warming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<blockquote><em>And a night cap. Consider where our fundamental understanding came from to begin with:</em>
Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies - Cambridge Research Lab
<strong>http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html</strong>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CO2 Science - Why We Can Be Sure.
<strong>http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-science-just-facts.html</strong></blockquote>
What makes you so deeply contemptible Mike Yohe is that you deliberately refuse to learn anything - you refuse to process new information.
Your words display all the hall marks and rhetorical slight of hand of a confirmed reality denialist.Why don’t you be honest? The news articles of the past reflex’s the thinking and understanding of the time. Here is some of what the public was being fed. And it was not coming from Exxon or the government. It was coming from scientific community telling us we were heading into the next Ice Age. I for one believed in our scientist and really thought we were headed into the next Ice Age.Which just goes to show that you don't understand how to interpret scientific data. Your bias is showing. On the one hand, you want to prove that the scientists are often wrong, so you grab a bunch of headlines and you remember what you were thinking at the time. On the other hand, you want to blame media for misrepresenting the science, so you grab some internet links from people with titles and who published some things, but are now promoting bad science, outside the consensus. There is no "media" or "scientists" as one thing. There is a zeitgeist and a scientific consensus. If you want to go with the crowd and laugh at science with your drinking buddies, go ahead. If you want to evaluate the current consensus, that's going to take some work. In the same time those articles came out, I believed Bigfoot real. But when I figured out I was wrong, I didn't blame the guy who made that scratchy video, I blamed myself for not learning how to determine what's true.
Why don’t you be honest? The news articles of the past reflex’s the thinking and understanding of the time. Here is some of what the public was being fed. And it was not coming from Exxon or the government. It was coming from scientific community telling us we were heading into the next Ice Age. I for one believed in our scientist and really thought we were headed into the next Ice Age. 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, February 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) 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) 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) 1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, December 5, 1974) 1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – December 5, 1974) 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) 1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – March 2, 1975) 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) 1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, March 2, 1975) 1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, March 3, 1975) 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) 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? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)\ And not a fucking link to be found. Headlines is that were you get your filtered education from??? No wonder you are so astoundingly stupid when it comes to the actual facts and details you yap away on, with such blissful absolutist certainty.
Why don’t you be honest? The news articles of the past reflex’s the thinking and understanding of the time. Here is some of what the public was being fed. And it was not coming from Exxon or the government. It was coming from scientific community telling us we were heading into the next Ice Age. I for one believed in our scientist and really thought we were headed into the next Ice Age.Which just goes to show that you don't understand how to interpret scientific data. Your bias is showing. On the one hand, you want to prove that the scientists are often wrong, so you grab a bunch of headlines and you remember what you were thinking at the time. On the other hand, you want to blame media for misrepresenting the science, so you grab some internet links from people with titles and who published some things, but are now promoting bad science, outside the consensus. There is no "media" or "scientists" as one thing. There is a zeitgeist and a scientific consensus. If you want to go with the crowd and laugh at science with your drinking buddies, go ahead. If you want to evaluate the current consensus, that's going to take some work. In the same time those articles came out, I believed Bigfoot real. But when I figured out I was wrong, I didn't blame the guy who made that scratchy video, I blamed myself for not learning how to determine what's true. I was countering CC claim that since 1959 the scientists knew that carbon was heating the earth. Trying to balance the scales. Now if the response is criticism of the president or the scientists. Then I know that CC is politically force driven. If the response is scientific force driven then I would expect some logical responses. For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age? We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age. Don’t make the same mistake CC is always making. Telling me what I think and believe. Because she is wrong half of the time. I don’t know if the scientists were or are right or wrong. I have decided to follow the IPCC findings even if I disagree with the findings. But if the IPCC gets to politicalized then I will have to change. And that is what these postings are about. Dr. Curry has claimed that the IPCC is getting very political in methods and that needs to be checked. What are we being fed today in the news? Popular Science – two days ago. Scientists are solving the mystery of Earth’s thermostat Our planet can control its climate—very slowly. www.popsci.com/earths-climate-regulates-itself You forgot to tell me the earth had a thermostat. Would somebody please go and turn that sucker down. Educated women are the key to reversing climate change //thenextweb.com/science/2017/08/24/educated-women-are-the-key-to-reversing-climate-change/#.tnw_2CPiNvIX I knew we would eventually get around to talking about solving the problem. What is CC going to post when she finds out things that President Trump is trying to do today will help in solving the climate change. Everything is going to get a carbon footprint. Immigration, boarder walls and stuff like air travel. It is becoming known that people are the problem that causes Climate Change. Our government system gives economic incentives to people to have more children. Don’t move people from third world nations to first world nations where they have a bigger carbon footprint. It will take decades to fix these problems. And most likely the Democrats will fight the changes needed. Point being, the Democrats will at some point not want an educated public on Climate Change. That is why the Paris Agreement was so important. Get the taxes and regulations in place now before the science if finished. Remember it has only been a month since we got the new correct figures of the amount of energy coming from the sun. An item that needs to be correct for the computer models to work correctly.
For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age? We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age.By learning what the scientists were actually saying and why!!! Here's a nice easy lesson for those who are actually interested in learning about what's going on with this game.
In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age greenman3610 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M Everyone has a favorite decade, and for Climate deniers, that decade has got to be, the 70s. Yes, the decade of disco, kung fu, and watergate Because in the 70's, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. Those crazy climate scientists! Why can't they make up their minds? But is that really true? Maybe a little historical perspective is in order. This remix is re-edited, includes better sound, and new film clips. Definitely a Christmas must-see for Uncle Dittohead and Aunt Teabag!Here's something a bit meatier
THE MYTh OF THE 1970s GlOBAl COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS by Thomas C. Peterson, William m. Connolley, and John Fleck Peterson—NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; Connolley—British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Fleck—Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico 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. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 The abstract for this article can be found in this issue, following the table of contents. DOI:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 In final form 8 February 2008 ©2008 American Meteorological Society ... Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth" sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales that would be significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979). However, perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time — each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions—was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today. RECOGNITION OF A PROBLEM: THE POTENTIAL FOR WARMING In 1965, when U.S. President Lyndon Johnson asked the members of his President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) to report on the potential problems of environmental pollution, climate change was not on the national agenda. ...Perpetuating the Myth The following are examples of modern writers perpetuating the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Citing Singer (1998) as their source of information, Singer and Avery (2007) indicate that the National Academy of Science (1975) experts exhibited “hysterical fears" about a “finite possibility" that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth, and that Ponte (1976) captured the “then- prevailing mood" by contending that the Earth may be on the brink of an ice age. ...![]()
Why don’t you be honest? The news articles of the past reflex’s the thinking and understanding of the time. Here is some of what the public was being fed. And it was not coming from Exxon or the government. It was coming from scientific community telling us we were heading into the next Ice Age. I for one believed in our scientist and really thought we were headed into the next Ice Age. 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) ..................... 1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979) 1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)\ And not a fucking link to be found. Headlines is that were you get your filtered education from??? No wonder you are so astoundingly stupid when it comes to the actual facts and details you yap away on, with such blissful absolutist certainty. What you think these are all fake? Try Time Magazine or Newsweek and check out the article. I know you are using the democratic method of, if you can’t destroy the facts, then destroy the author. Sorry the point here is very simple and it has been made. Deal with it.
For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age? We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age.By learning what the scientists were actually saying and why!!! Lausten has the idea. Go for the zeitgeist, you will have a hard time putting together a scientific consensus.
For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age? We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age.By learning what the scientists were actually saying and why!!! Lausten has the idea. Go for the zeitgeist, you will have a hard time putting together a scientific consensus. Scientists didn't have a fucking consensus on global warming at the time !!! Go do a little serious reading for a change http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Oh and, …
What you think these are all fake?What are you talking about. You offered no substance. All you presented is up a bunch of exciting headlines. I don't suppose you've ever noticed papers love ginning up headlines to attract readers? I don't know about you, but I've read plenty of articles where after the reading I wonder where the hell the headline was conjured from.
Try Time Magazine or Newsweek and check out the article. I know you are using the democratic method of (then you come up with totally fictitious bullshit like this, NO!!! Science is not about the democratic method!!! Science is a dictatorship of facts over free flowing self-interested imagination.)
if you can’t destroy the facts, then destroy the author. Sorry the point here is very simple and it has been made. Deal with it.What facts have you brought to bear??? Oh yea a hundred and one headlines - So, that's what you believe is facts. Oh and since I do follow up on the bones malicious liars such as yourself constant toss out I googled your first item "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)" First up ww. climatedepot .com/2017/05/23/120-years ... Marc Morano the paid GOP political dirty trickster then htts: //wattsupwiththat .com ... Another confirmed contrarian for pay, Mr. Anthony Watts then one that actually offers a balanced review: The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley Posted by Greg Laden on June 4, 2013 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/ pretty funny what was done with a Time story, read about it. Then back to bullshiters like an advocacy blog interested globalization and who knows what. ww.globalresearch .ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/... I admit not being familiar with them, but poking around and finding headlines like: "Vaccine McCarthyism. What if the Vaccine Paradigm itself is Deliberately Flawed?" "Pentagon Sending “Biological Bombs" Against Europe?" makes me think agenda driven weirdos. As opposed to constructive fact building and assessing. then https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/15589-1970s-global-cooling-scare/ Another wacko site, though at least their list includes links to the articles. First one on their list "1969 - New Ice Age Threat Seen (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969)" Turns out to be about a "German surgeon and writer" Ernst Hass (no reference to any peer reviewed paper) peddling one A.T. Wilson's suggestion that "as the thickness of the Antarctic ice cap builds up over thousands of years, the increasing pressure at the base will eventually lead to the ice there melting." LOL sorry no cigar, not even close. 2nd link goes no where. 3rd link: "Archeologist Marion Meek of London, speaking Wednesday to the Storrs Willimantic branch of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), said the coming ice age is a bigger threat then a nuclear threat..." yeah let an archeologist inform you about climate science :lol: when I continue down the list, I see most links are to other sites that are trying to sell you the complete article so next to nothing can be found out about what the articles say - so again, we are left with headlines, not any serious science Then back to my original google search of MikeYohe's first item and we wind up the Mr. Poptech another nasty nasty character dedicated to attacking serious science and anyone who dares defend it. Then there's "CO2 is Life" blog :roll: and so on . . . again try a little easy learning if you are interested in unraveling the mystery of the Great Global Cooling Myth:
In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M============================================================================== Also dear spectators please notice how Yohe is incapable of addressing the links and information I'm sharing, instead it always comes back with some distraction in order not to dwell on any of the serious science - all intended to stay as far away from the threat of constructive learning as ppssible.