Here is a Great CIA Report on Climatology from 1974

[Old Rocks]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

 

[Old Rocks]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/all.final.1978-2006.mov

 

[flacaltenn]

Flacaltenn, for a guy that thought that Homo Sap was only 40,000 years old as a species, and claimed that 400,000 years was over half the time that the ice ages had existed, you sure continue to demonstrate your vast ignorance on all things concerning science.

Significant Climate Papers

Author(s): Wallace S. Broecker
Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4201 (Aug. 8, 1975), pp. 460-463
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract. If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

I have no idea what 40,000 yr claim you THINK i made. With your feeble memory -- who knows or cares..

Wow ---- Good Boy !!! You fetched ONE STUDY from the 1970s?? Good Dog.. SIT !!! Wanna biscuit? Does the good little doggy wanna biscuit?? OK. Go lie down...

 

[RollingThunder]

Yes, we were lied to back then and we are being lied to now.

Your insanely paranoid response to scientific information that you're obviously incapable of understanding is rather hilarious.

I guess time magazine didn't write an article back then that showed that there was a consensus.

No, they didn't. As should be obvious even to a moron like you if you had actually bothered to read the whole article that your rightwingnut propaganda outlet quoted. Did you somehow think this paragraph indicated a "consensus", Klod?

"Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program)."

 

[Kosh]

Your insanely paranoid response to scientific information that you're obviously incapable of understanding is rather hilarious.

I guess time magazine didn't write an article back then that showed that there was a consensus.

No, they didn't. As should be obvious even to a moron like you if you had actually bothered to read the whole article that your rightwingnut propaganda outlet quoted. Did you somehow think this paragraph indicated a "consensus", Klod?

"Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program)."

Actually it did. AS the media was promoting said consensus until it change to the now big cash cow of AGW.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here is the fraudulent photoshopped Time magazine cover pictures that were widely circulated by the denier cult blogs to try to support their braindead propaganda meme that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970's that the Earth was cooling and therefore (supposedly) we shouldn't trust the conclusions scientists have reached now after almost four more decades of intensive scientific research and rapidly accumulating physical evidence.

Here's the actual Time magazine cover picture and lead article that was actually published April 7th, 2007.

 

[Kosh]

Here is the fraudulent photoshopped Time magazine cover pictures that were widely circulated by the denier cult blogs to try to support their braindead propaganda meme that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970's that the Earth was cooling and therefore (supposedly) we shouldn't trust the conclusions scientists have reached now after almost four more decades of intensive scientific research and rapidly accumulating physical evidence.

Here's the actual Time magazine cover picture and lead article that was actually published April 7th, 2007.

Oh my the AGW church members will believe anything that is put before them as gospel.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here is the fraudulent photoshopped Time magazine cover pictures that were widely circulated by the denier cult blogs to try to support their braindead propaganda meme that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970's that the Earth was cooling and therefore (supposedly) we shouldn't trust the conclusions scientists have reached now after almost four more decades of intensive scientific research and rapidly accumulating physical evidence.

Here's the actual Time magazine cover picture and lead article that was actually published April 7th, 2007.

YET --- in 1977 there WAS a Time Article on Global Cooling and a BOOK..... From my list above.....

1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)

1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)

You are attempting to rewrite media coverage and history.. Please continue to show your desperation...

 

[RollingThunder]

Here is the fraudulent photoshopped Time magazine cover pictures that were widely circulated by the denier cult blogs to try to support their braindead propaganda meme that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970's that the Earth was cooling and therefore (supposedly) we shouldn't trust the conclusions scientists have reached now after almost four more decades of intensive scientific research and rapidly accumulating physical evidence.

Here's the actual Time magazine cover picture and lead article that was actually published April 7th, 2007.

YET --- in 1977 there WAS a Time Article on Global Cooling and a BOOK..... From my list above.....

1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)

1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)

You are attempting to rewrite media coverage and history.. Please continue to show your desperation...

I never said that Time and other news sources didn't have articles speculating about the unusually cold weather that was common in those years. Which, BTW, was discovered to be a result of the rampant air pollution happening in that period, which had a cooling effect. Many of those articles also mentioned the possibility of CO2 driven warming, but you deniers just cherry-pick the cooling parts of the articles.

'Time' organizes their articles under categories. The article you're citing here, "The Big Freeze" from 1977, was categorized under the heading of "Weather" because it was mostly talking about the unusually cold weather that the US was experiencing at that time (snow in Miami). In their August 1976 edition, there was an article, under the heading "Environment", titled "The World's Climate: Unpredictable", which was an attempt to describe the scientific understanding of the climate at that time: some scientists emphasized aerosols and cooling, some scientists emphasized CO2 and warming. There was no claim of a consensus either way.

Here's the excerpt you can get without paying.

Environment: The World's Climate: Unpredictable

Monday, Aug. 09, 1976
Subscriber content preview. Subscribe now or Log-In

Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody can do much about it even today. Short-range forecasting has improved enormously in recent years, even though squalls occur on days when the weatherman insists the precipitation probability is near zero. And despite great advances in techniques and technology, the discipline of climatology—the study of long-range trends in weather—is still an inexact science, to say the least. Climatologists still disagree on whether earth's long-range outlook is another ice age, which could bring mass starvation and fuel shortages, or a warming trend, which could melt the polar...

Read more: Environment: The World's Climate: Unpredictable - TIME Environment: The World's Climate: Unpredictable - TIME


In any case, all of the magazine or newspaper articles you can come up with aren't actually very significant because the actual state of the science is not accurately reflected in the media reports. It is reflected in the published scientific papers on the subject. From 1965 to 1979, exactly seven papers discussed the cooling effects of unrestricted aerosol pollution. Not one of them called for a new ice age. They weren't even wrong--unrestricted aerosol pollution would have resulted in cooling if we hadn't done something about it. And over that period, six times more papers discussed warming than cooling. More recently, a study by Dr. James Powell, who was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, found that of the 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change from 1991-2012, a total of only 24 papers “reject human-caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO₂ emissions for observed warming.” These 13,950 articles had a total of 33,690 authors while the number of authors of “skeptics” papers had a total of 34. This is the extent of the actual “debate” about the science. The number of scientists who say that we are causing climate change by burning fossil fuels would fill a very large stadium whereas the number of scientists who disagree wouldn't fill a bus to get to the game.

 

[Kosh]

The AGW propaganda just does not stop.

 

[RollingThunder]

The AGW propaganda just does not stop.

Retards like you, Klod, are so ignorant and clueless that you imagine that scientific research and evidence are propaganda.

 

[flacaltenn]

TrollingBlunder is like the Japanese hold-out on an isolated island that doesn't know
the war ended years ago.. The CIA, NCAR, East Anglia, and DOZENS of media articles quote MANY SCIENTISTS.. THe best the Princess can do is show that SOME scientists were skeptical..

The message was out there in the 70s.. As old Owl Gore likes to say.. "THEY PLAYED ON YOUR FEARS"...

And the CIA didn't get it wrong.. They INVENTED climate science "consensus" when they wrote that report using the words "majority of climate scientists".. And the same blurry claims of droughts and floods were mentioned..

I'm done here.. Nothing more to prove... And it's not fun dealing with mop-up of the odd resistance deniers..

But before I unsubscribe here.. Here is the word from that bastion of ClimateGate... East Anglia Univ.. Weighin in on the Ice Age predictions..

I've also got a full copy of the CIA report if anyone really wants to read it.
And THIS link is a great summary of the other documents on the 1970s Ice Age scare..

The 1970s Ice Age Scare | Real Science

Or if you want the conspiracy theory version Or a warmer and cant read --- Click

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8&feature=player_embedded]2-23 In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube[/ame]

Game over Princess.. Bye Bye now...

 

[Kosh]

The AGW propaganda just does not stop.

Retards like you, Klod, are so ignorant and clueless that you imagine that scientific research and evidence are propaganda.

AGW is not science and is propaganda.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hubert Lamb --- Probably the guy who mentored Phil Jones.. Ole Phil learned a lot about pulling stuff out of orifices from that Ivy covered Institution of Snark..

 

[RollingThunder]

TrollingBlunder is like the Japanese hold-out on an isolated island that doesn't know
the war ended years ago.. The CIA, NCAR, East Anglia, and DOZENS of media articles quote MANY SCIENTISTS.. THe best the Princess can do is show that SOME scientists were skeptical..

The message was out there in the 70s.. As old Owl Gore likes to say.. "THEY PLAYED ON YOUR FEARS"...

And the CIA didn't get it wrong.. They INVENTED climate science "consensus" when they wrote that report using the words "majority of climate scientists".. And the same blurry claims of droughts and floods were mentioned..

I'm done here.. Nothing more to prove... And it's not fun dealing with mop-up of the odd resistance deniers..

But before I unsubscribe here.. Here is the word from that bastion of ClimateGate... East Anglia Univ.. Weighin in on the Ice Age predictions..

I've also got a full copy of the CIA report if anyone really wants to read it.
And THIS link is a great summary of the other documents on the 1970s Ice Age scare..

The 1970s Ice Age Scare | Real Science

Or if you want the conspiracy theory version Or a warmer and cant read --- Click

2-23 In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube

Game over Princess.. Bye Bye now...

LOLOLOLOL.....still trying to beat a dead horse, eh fecalhead? "The game" was "over" a long time ago for you deniers but you're all too damn retarded and brainwashed to realize it.

The article you reprinted is from 1972. Climate science was still in its infancy and there was still some debate then in the scientific community as to whether the cooling trend they had been observing for some time was part of the overall slow decline in temperatures caused by the Earth's orbital cycles that would eventually plunge the world into a new ice age in ten thousand years or so, or whether the rising levels of CO2 would reverse that trend and cause global warming. You can definitely find some scientists who were leaning towards the continued cooling hypothesis but, in fact, examinations of the scientific papers published in that period of time show that the large majority of the scientists writing scientific papers at that time already thought that the warming from the increased CO2 would prevail. By the next decade, after some air pollution controls were in effect and particulates and aerosols had declined, it became obvious that that pollution had been blocking the sunlight and when that pollution was diminished, the warming trend it had masked took over and accelerated and rapid, abrupt warming occurred and is still happening.

At the risk of repeating myself, since you obviously try to filter out all of the information that contradicts your moronic denier cult myths, here's something relevant to this debate that I just said that you are completely refusing to acknowledge or respond to, even though it completely debunks your fraudulent myth about the supposed 'consensus on cooling in the 70s'. Perhaps if I emphasize it a little more, it might penetrate your 'fortress of denyitude', although I wouldn't bet on that....

In any case, all of the magazine or newspaper articles you can come up with aren't actually very significant because the actual state of the science is not accurately reflected in the media reports. It is reflected in the published scientific papers on the subject. From 1965 to 1979, exactly seven papers discussed the cooling effects of unrestricted aerosol pollution. Not one of them called for a new ice age. They weren't even wrong--unrestricted aerosol pollution would have resulted in cooling if we hadn't done something about it. And over that period, six times more papers discussed warming than cooling. More recently, a study by Dr. James Powell, who was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, found that of the 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change from 1991-2012, a total of only 24 papers “reject human-caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO₂ emissions for observed warming.” These 13,950 articles had a total of 33,690 authors while the number of authors of “skeptics” papers had a total of 34. This is the extent of the actual “debate” about the science. The number of scientists who say that we are causing climate change by burning fossil fuels would fill a very large stadium whereas the number of scientists who disagree wouldn't fill a bus to get to the game.

 

[flacaltenn]

What the hell shit is this Tink??

More recently, a study by Dr. James Powell, who was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, found that of the 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change from 1991-2012, a total of only 24 papers “reject human-caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO₂ emissions for observed warming.”

You don't even know what thread you're in and why you post 1/2 the crap you do...
Not worth my time..

Now Boys and Girls, if you clap real loud for TinkerBelle, perhaps we can revive her...

 

[RollingThunder]

What the hell shit is this Tink??

More recently, a study by Dr. James Powell, who was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, found that of the 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change from 1991-2012, a total of only 24 papers “reject human-caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO₂ emissions for observed warming.”

Well, obviously it's information that you are still in denial about and unwilling to acknowledge. Too bad you're such a brainwashed retard.

 

[flacaltenn]

You realize you could be replaced by about 32 lines of code and library
of 11 ad hominem epithets..

We could toss in a web crawler with restricted access as an option..
That would also fix your annoying font/color issue..

Big improvement..

 

[RollingThunder]

You realize you could be replaced by about 32 lines of code and library
of 11 ad hominem epithets..

We could toss in a web crawler with restricted access as an option..
That would also fix your annoying font/color issue..

Big improvement..

You could be replaced by a brain damaged chipmunk and the quality and honesty of your posts would probably improve.

 

[Kosh]

And always the AGW church is more about propaganda than science.