Flashback 1985: Gov’t Scientists Predicted NYC Would Resemble Daytona Beach

[jc456]

Since the 1970s, the mainstream scientists have consistently predicted warming. They've been proven shown to be correct. Cronkite, not being a scientist, is irrelevant.

In contrast, the deniers have been predicting a new ice-age pretty much non-stop. They've consistently been failing for decades running now.

When you get it all right for decades running, you earn credibility, so the mainstream climate scientists have credibility. Deniers have failed at everything, so they have no credibility. They can complain about how their lack of credibility is due to the GreatSocialistConspiracy keeping them down, but that's not the case. Their science just stinks.

No. In the 1970's the prediction was freezing due to ozone depletion and aerosol products were banned. In the 1980's AGW became the fad and an opportunity for lefties to demonize the oil industry that is perceived as sympathetic to repubs.

nope that couldn't have been Manmouth is always right. ask her/him/it. he/she/it is smarter than everyone here. You're therefore delusional.

 

[mamooth]

Here is what I remember:

And here's reality. This is what the actual research in the 1970s said.

You being fooled by media hype has no bearing on the fact that the scientists were overwhelmingly predicting warming. Anyone who says they were predicting cooling is lying.

No More Snow?

So one guy said that, at some undetermined time in the future, there would be no snow.

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody predicted no snow now, and it's extremely dishonest to pretend they did.

Don't you feel ashamed to be part of group that lies like that? After all, if the facts were on their side, they wouldn't need to lie.

 

[Old Rocks]

Concerning the 1975 National Academy of Science report on this very issue.

The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Report Stoat

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Deniers have failed at everything, so they have no credibility.

No, I'm pretty sure we've been right the whole time.

When are you nut jobs going to gulp your Kool-Aid already and rid the planet of your stain?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Here is what I remember:

And here's reality. This is what the actual research in the 1970s said.

You being fooled by media hype has no bearing on the fact that the scientists were overwhelmingly predicting warming. Anyone who says they were predicting cooling is lying.

No More Snow?

So one guy said that, at some undetermined time in the future, there would be no snow.

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody predicted no snow now, and it's extremely dishonest to pretend they did.

Don't you feel ashamed to be part of group that lies like that? After all, if the facts were on their side, they wouldn't need to lie.

No lie. The prediction was freezing due to a hole in the ozone layer over the antarctic. Hairspray had to switch to primed pump dispensers because fluorocarbons were banned. I was there when it happened.
Then in the 1980's, the popular acid rain warnings were dwarfed by the propagated new fad, global warming. I had an EPA scientist as a roommate back then. He was on ABC news scaring the shit out of people with his dire warnings but he owned three cars which all predated pollution control standards.
I learned a lot about science and its politics those days.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boy, that is some stupid nonsense you are stating. In January, there were five times as many warm records set in the US as cold records. And when the whole of the US is considered, February also goes down as a warm February for the US.

 

[mamooth]

No lie. The prediction was freezing due to a hole in the ozone layer over the antarctic.

If you start a claim with "no lie", it's probably a good idea not to immediately follow with a lie, like you just did.

There was no predicting of freezing due to the ozone hole. That's bullshit on your part. The prediction was increased UV radiation. That prediction was 100% correct.

Hairspray had to switch to primed pump dispensers because fluorocarbons were banned. I was there when it happened.

And the gradual banning of CFCs did save the ozone layer. The climate scientists saved a lot of people from skin cancer. Thanks for reminding everyone of my point, which is that climate scientists have credibility because they've been so consistently correct about everything.

Then in the 1980's, the popular acid rain warnings

Popular?

I understand how your political cult tries to make science a popularity contest, but you need to learn that scientists don't think like you.

It was pointed out that sulfur emissions from smokestacks were turning lakes acidic downwind. A solution was proposed, and the problem was fixed. Another case of climate scientists saving the day, another reason they have so much credibility.

were dwarfed by the propagated new fad, global warming.

So more science proven to be 100% correct.

I had an EPA scientist as a roommate back then. He was on ABC news scaring the shit out of people with his dire warnings but he owned three cars which all predated pollution control standards. I learned a lot about science and its politics those days.

Was he the one who told you we'd all freeze because of the ozone hole?

Given how demonstrably wrong you've been about everything, you're not believable.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No lie. The prediction was freezing due to a hole in the ozone layer over the antarctic.

If you start a claim with "no lie", it's probably a good idea not to immediately follow with a lie, like you just did.

There was no predicting of freezing due to the ozone hole. That's bullshit on your part. The prediction was increased UV radiation. That prediction was 100% correct.

Hairspray had to switch to primed pump dispensers because fluorocarbons were banned. I was there when it happened.

And the gradual banning of CFCs did save the ozone layer. The climate scientists saved a lot of people from skin cancer. Thanks for reminding everyone of my point, which is that climate scientists have credibility because they've been so consistently correct about everything.

Then in the 1980's, the popular acid rain warnings

Popular?

I understand how your political cult tries to make science a popularity contest, but you need to learn that scientists don't think like you.

It was pointed out that sulfur emissions from smokestacks were turning lakes acidic downwind. A solution was proposed, and the problem was fixed. Another case of climate scientists saving the day, another reason they have so much credibility.

were dwarfed by the propagated new fad, global warming.

So more science proven to be 100% correct.

I had an EPA scientist as a roommate back then. He was on ABC news scaring the shit out of people with his dire warnings but he owned three cars which all predated pollution control standards. I learned a lot about science and its politics those days.

Was he the one who told you we'd all freeze because of the ozone hole?

Given how demonstrably wrong you've been about everything, you're not believable.

I was there and apparently you weren't.

 

[Freewill]

Here is what I remember:

And here's reality. This is what the actual research in the 1970s said.

You being fooled by media hype has no bearing on the fact that the scientists were overwhelmingly predicting warming. Anyone who says they were predicting cooling is lying.

No More Snow?

So one guy said that, at some undetermined time in the future, there would be no snow.

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody predicted no snow now, and it's extremely dishonest to pretend they did.

Don't you feel ashamed to be part of group that lies like that? After all, if the facts were on their side, they wouldn't need to lie.

I don't really know where the figures were obtained for your graph. But I lived then. I was there I read what they said. I provided you with the quotes. I am telling you there was no mention of warming whether or not there were lots of papers written I don't know but I know what the popular opinion was.

Any one truly honest and grew up in that time, and paid attention, has to agree with me. Those who did not live then have to resort to graphs that a meaningless.

 

[Freewill]

No, Just Crazy, no evidence in your postings that you have ever has a thought. No scientist named in the article, no paper cited. Strictly hearsay, and therefore, worthless.

the article is about what was reported in the NYTs no experts required. It is what they reported.

 

[mamooth]

And that's why they call you deniers. If the facts disagree with your political cult, you deny the facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is what I remember:

And here's reality. This is what the actual research in the 1970s said.

You being fooled by media hype has no bearing on the fact that the scientists were overwhelmingly predicting warming. Anyone who says they were predicting cooling is lying.

No More Snow?

So one guy said that, at some undetermined time in the future, there would be no snow.

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody predicted no snow now, and it's extremely dishonest to pretend they did.

Don't you feel ashamed to be part of group that lies like that? After all, if the facts were on their side, they wouldn't need to lie.

I don't really know where the figures were obtained for your graph. But I lived then. I was there I read what they said. I provided you with the quotes. I am telling you there was no mention of warming whether or not there were lots of papers written I don't know but I know what the popular opinion was.

Any one truly honest and grew up in that time, and paid attention, has to agree with me. Those who did not live then have to resort to graphs that a meaningless.

Silly ass, I was 32 years old in 1975, and read the PNAS article shortly after it was published. And it stated that not enough was known at the time to make knowledgable predictions concerning the climate, but most climate scientists thought that we would see a warming. Which is exactly what has happened.

 

[cnm]

the article is about what was reported in the NYTs no experts required. It is what they reported.

That's useful if one wants one's scientific information brought to one by classified ad sellers.

 

[cnm]

I don't really know where the figures were obtained for your graph. But I lived then. I was there I read what they said. I provided you with the quotes. I am telling you there was no mention of warming whether or not there were lots of papers written I don't know but I know what the popular opinion was.

Any one truly honest and grew up in that time, and paid attention, has to agree with me. Those who did not live then have to resort to graphs that a meaningless.

What quotes did you provide, that Walter Cronkite said so? So what, is he a climate scientist? More to the point, did he seek the consensus or did he go for 'newsworthy'?

In any case a failing memory does not counter objective data.

 

[cnm]

I don't know where you get the idea that climate scientists are responsible for what the media reports.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s

Climate Myth...
Ice age predicted in the 70s
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

 

[cnm]

The great global cooling myth

The great global cooling myth Climate Feedback

But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a ‘global cooling ’ consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming.​

 

[Politico]

And ten years before that they were claiming we were all going to freeze to death in another Ice Age.

And the AGW cult can't understand why so many of us are skeptical of these "scientists" claims.

Flashback 1985 Gov t Scientists Once Predicted NYC Would Resemble Daytona Beach The Daily Caller

Shhh Progressives don't like history.

 

[jc456]

I don't know where you get the idea that climate scientists are responsible for what the media reports.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s

Climate Myth...
Ice age predicted in the 70s
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

just one question, was there reported that there was a hole in the Ozone?

 

[mamooth]

Yes, there was an ozone hole reported. That's because there was an ozone hole, one that was not present in the 1956 measurements. There's still an ozone hole, which peaked in size around 2006, but it's turned the corner and is beginning to shrink, thanks to the gradual CFC phaseouts.

 

[jc456]

Yes, there was an ozone hole reported. That's because there was an ozone hole, one that was not present in the 1956 measurements. There's still an ozone hole, which peaked in size around 2006, but it's turned the corner and is beginning to shrink, thanks to the gradual CFC phaseouts.

And what was going to happen to us as a result of that hole?