History channel presents "little ice age"

[hjmick]

Wow. All this over a show that is six years old. Amazing.

 

[konradv]

I was replying to your dishonest answer to American Horse, O.R. See the bolded in the first post, above. 'Global cooling' was all the rage back in the 1970's. You're dishonest in pretending is wasn't.

Per your post . . . didn't bother to check the links on the youtube vid, did you?

It was "all the rage" only in the minds of the skeptics/deniers. I suggest you do some research, like reading Old Rocks' links, before parroting what you've heard from obviously biased sources.

Zoom and I were alive and aware, of what the "rages" were back in the day. You are in denial of the definition of what "all the rage" means. It means in the popular mind. How much of the public was reading scientific journal sources in the 70's who weren't also scientists?

If you want to talk fads, that belongs on a different board. We're talking about the acceptance in the scientific community here. "Alien baby" stories have been "all the rage" too, but hardly worthy of discussion here.

 

[American Horse]

It was "all the rage" only in the minds of the skeptics/deniers. I suggest you do some research, like reading Old Rocks' links, before parroting what you've heard from obviously biased sources.

Zoom and I were alive and aware, of what the "rages" were back in the day. You are in denial of the definition of what "all the rage" means. It means in the popular mind. How much of the public was reading scientific journal sources in the 70's who weren't also scientists?

If you want to talk fads, that belongs on a different board. We're talking about the acceptance in the scientific community here. "Alien baby" stories have been "all the rage" too, but hardly worthy of discussion here.

It was passed off as more than a fad at the time, just as the global warminng rage is, whether or not either had or have substance; You use the usual liberal tactic; dismissiveness through ridicule.

 

[konradv]

Zoom and I were alive and aware, of what the "rages" were back in the day. You are in denial of the definition of what "all the rage" means. It means in the popular mind. How much of the public was reading scientific journal sources in the 70's who weren't also scientists?

If you want to talk fads, that belongs on a different board. We're talking about the acceptance in the scientific community here. "Alien baby" stories have been "all the rage" too, but hardly worthy of discussion here.

It was passed off as more than a fad at the time, just as the global warminng rage is, whether or not either had or have substance; You use the usual liberal tactic; dismissiveness through ridicule.

Was it? If it was big in poular magazines, that's a fad. For it to be a generally accepted scientific theory, which is what we should be discussing here, you have to look to the scientific literature and those citations are few in number.

 

[Old Rocks]

Zoom and I were alive and aware, of what the "rages" were back in the day. You are in denial of the definition of what "all the rage" means. It means in the popular mind. How much of the public was reading scientific journal sources in the 70's who weren't also scientists?

If you want to talk fads, that belongs on a different board. We're talking about the acceptance in the scientific community here. "Alien baby" stories have been "all the rage" too, but hardly worthy of discussion here.

It was passed off as more than a fad at the time, just as the global warminng rage is, whether or not either had or have substance; You use the usual liberal tactic; dismissiveness through ridicule.

If one chooses to get their science from the National Enquirer, you can expect nought but ridicule.

 

[gslack]

oldsocks and son kornhole are still crying I see...Oldsocks gets his science from Greenpeace and kornhole pulls his out of oldoscks butt...LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Such an elegant reply.

 

[Ducky]

" They are airing a show soon called "Little Ice Age: Big Chill" "

soon ??

nope, the History Channel first aired that 2005 documentary back in 2007

 

[American Horse]

If you want to talk fads, that belongs on a different board. We're talking about the acceptance in the scientific community here. "Alien baby" stories have been "all the rage" too, but hardly worthy of discussion here.

It was passed off as more than a fad at the time, just as the global warminng rage is, whether or not either had or have substance; You use the usual liberal tactic; dismissiveness through ridicule.

If one chooses to get their science from the National Enquirer, you can expect nought but ridicule.

Never read a copy of National Enquirer; it's not in my repetoire. "It' was in news reports, and among others Time and Life magazines.

EDIT: I'm sorry to see you and Konrad are involved in some real one-upmanship and dogmatism.
Sorry to see that, I thought that was beneath you Old Rocks

 

[wirebender]

We also know why the climate has changed and we know that different events can effect the climate.

No. We do not KNOW why the climate has changed. There are those who have put forward hypotheses detailing why they think the climate changed, or is changing, but alas, when the perameters of those reasons are put into models, the output does not match the observations. At present, the best we can do is guess as to why the climate has changed, and is changing.

When someone can input a set of parameters into a simulation and be dead bang accurate on past changes, as well as accurately match present observations, then there is a pretty good chance that you have hit upon what actually causes the clmate to change. At present, we aren't even close and won't be till the myth of the greenhouse effect is scrapped in favor of a model of the real world instead of the present models that represent the world as a flat disk being irradiated by the sun 24 hours a day by enough energy to create a sort of twilight.

 

[gslack]

Such an elegant reply.

ANd true... Don't deny it greenpeace, you already busted yourself doing it..

 

[gslack]

" They are airing a show soon called "Little Ice Age: Big Chill" "

soon ??

nope, the History Channel first aired that 2005 documentary back in 2007

Well they airing it again, and?

 

[gslack]

If you want to talk fads, that belongs on a different board. We're talking about the acceptance in the scientific community here. "Alien baby" stories have been "all the rage" too, but hardly worthy of discussion here.

It was passed off as more than a fad at the time, just as the global warminng rage is, whether or not either had or have substance; You use the usual liberal tactic; dismissiveness through ridicule.

Was it? If it was big in poular magazines, that's a fad. For it to be a generally accepted scientific theory, which is what we should be discussing here, you have to look to the scientific literature and those citations are few in number.

Douchebag, it was a hypothesis put forth in the scientific community by scientists. Just like AGW theory, the only difference being the AGW theory has the IPCC political body wanting to spread the joys of commune living to the poor, and the algorian faithful as well as so many more eco groups all dying to save the planet one way or another.

 

[IanC]

gslack quotes S Schneider in his signature. ss was a scientist actively promoting 'coming ice age' until it became more profitable to get on the AGW bandwagon. I believe there are still youtube videos of him talking about the future freeze.

 

[rdean]

Let's leave it up to the scientists. What do they say? Oops.

 

[konradv]

gslack quotes S Schneider in his signature. ss was a scientist actively promoting 'coming ice age' until it became more profitable to get on the AGW bandwagon. I believe there are still youtube videos of him talking about the future freeze.

People can't honestly change their minds? I guess you have to impugn people's motives, since this story, despite its repeated telling by the skeptic/denier side, actually indicates that scientists saw something in the data and it WASN'T a New Ice Age!!!

 

[konradv]

It was passed off as more than a fad at the time, just as the global warminng rage is, whether or not either had or have substance; You use the usual liberal tactic; dismissiveness through ridicule.

Was it? If it was big in poular magazines, that's a fad. For it to be a generally accepted scientific theory, which is what we should be discussing here, you have to look to the scientific literature and those citations are few in number.

Douchebag, it was a hypothesis put forth in the scientific community by scientists. Just like AGW theory, the only difference being the AGW theory has the IPCC political body wanting to spread the joys of commune living to the poor, and the algorian faithful as well as so many more eco groups all dying to save the planet one way or another.

It was a theory put forth by a few, UNLIKE AGW, which had a much greater acceptance level. This happened BEFORE the big money and Al Gore, so your whole argument appears to amount to a gross manipulation of the timeline!!!

 

[gslack]

gslack quotes S Schneider in his signature. ss was a scientist actively promoting 'coming ice age' until it became more profitable to get on the AGW bandwagon. I believe there are still youtube videos of him talking about the future freeze.

People can't honestly change their minds? I guess you have to impugn people's motives, since this story, despite its repeated telling by the skeptic/denier side, actually indicates that scientists saw something in the data and it WASN'T a New Ice Age!!!

Yeah he was one of those "few scientists" and so-called experts you just cried about.. He changed his mind why? Because BEFORE agw climate science was the nobody in science. No money, no grants, no big research funding and certainly no one paid any attention to them. Ice age was their first attempt and global warming their second. The difference in the two as I said before, is now they had the IPCC, AL GOre, and the eco- groups all in it as well.

They had to have a problem with the climate and they were going to get one one way or another.. And the IPCC wants what the UN wants, and that is control and to ensure that people cannot function without them. They adore people like you and oldsocks, all they have to do is tell you its good for you and you two will defend it till the end....

 

[gslack]

Was it? If it was big in poular magazines, that's a fad. For it to be a generally accepted scientific theory, which is what we should be discussing here, you have to look to the scientific literature and those citations are few in number.

Douchebag, it was a hypothesis put forth in the scientific community by scientists. Just like AGW theory, the only difference being the AGW theory has the IPCC political body wanting to spread the joys of commune living to the poor, and the algorian faithful as well as so many more eco groups all dying to save the planet one way or another.

It was a theory put forth by a few, UNLIKE AGW, which had a much greater acceptance level. This happened BEFORE the big money and Al Gore, so your whole argument appears to amount to a gross manipulation of the timeline!!!

THE IPCC asshole... Al Gore went by what the IPCC said and glamorized it... IPCC before al gore get it?

dam you're idiotic...

 

[konradv]

gslack quotes S Schneider in his signature. ss was a scientist actively promoting 'coming ice age' until it became more profitable to get on the AGW bandwagon. I believe there are still youtube videos of him talking about the future freeze.

People can't honestly change their minds? I guess you have to impugn people's motives, since this story, despite its repeated telling by the skeptic/denier side, actually indicates that scientists saw something in the data and it WASN'T a New Ice Age!!!

Yeah he was one of those "few scientists" and so-called experts you just cried about.. He changed his mind why? Because BEFORE agw climate science was the nobody in science. No money, no grants, no big research funding and certainly no one paid any attention to them. Ice age was their first attempt and global warming their second. The difference in the two as I said before, is now they had the IPCC, AL GOre, and the eco- groups all in it as well.

They had to have a problem with the climate and they were going to get one one way or another.. And the IPCC wants what the UN wants, and that is control and to ensure that people cannot function without them. They adore people like you and oldsocks, all they have to do is tell you its good for you and you two will defend it till the end....

Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen. They don't require evidence, unlike AGW, which is why you gravitate towards them. Everyone should be able to see you're playing with the timeline here. AGW theory was big before the money came online and before Gore was on the scene.