If republicans want to learn the truth about climate change and accept it, they just need to...

[thereisnospoon]

California Ban Fracking Rally No Science All Stunts

Fucking morons.

Ok this is what I am talking about. Lol you people kill me. Your response to this thread is linking an article not written by an actual scientist affiliated with the energy industry.

Bravo, H. You make things so much clearer for the rest of us about rightwing bullshit.

Of course you have something written by actual scientist affiliated with the energy to refute it, right? Yet you didn't post it, I wonder why. Is it that nothing exist to support your position? The people who do it know it's safe.

Would you prefer it if I linked you to one of the many thousands peer reviewed studies the world over that support what I am saying? I'm willing to bet you would only whine more.

Keep trolling asshole

 

[thereisnospoon]

When has the climate not changed?

Never...The climate is in constant flux....

 

[Billy000]

Drink the agw koolaid

Snort it straight from the can

Ok, so I am getting the vibe you are one of those douches who believes climate science is secretly an elaborate, global conspiracy theory to control the masses.

Lol people like you never get old.

So who runs this global conspiracy? Who are they? What do they want? Where is the evidence?

Cut the crap....This is politics. This is Obama running the country against the interests of the US.

So let me get this straight. Obama is leading this massive global conspiracy? They all just do what he says? So who was the cult leader before Obama was president?

 

[orogenicman]

California Ban Fracking Rally No Science All Stunts

Fucking morons.

Ok this is what I am talking about. Lol you people kill me. Your response to this thread is linking an article not written by an actual scientist affiliated with the energy industry.

Bravo, H. You make things so much clearer for the rest of us about rightwing bullshit.

Dying is not a lot of fun, you dumbass. If you, a dimocrat, want to learn about Global warming here is an article from the LIBERAL/democrat website...the HUFFINGTON POST about 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists who claim the following:

"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."
​

If you don't mind I'll go along with these guys. Hell, I'll go along with these guys BECAUSE you mind. Get lost dumbass.

Lol you people never cease to amaze me. Wow. Just wow. Your response to this thread is a link to a grand total of 49 ASTRONAUTS who don't believe in climate change? This is too much fun lol.

Actually, only a handful are "former" astronauts. And none of them are climate scientists. Most are pilots and/or aerospace engineers.

 

[Mustang]

...follow some very simple steps to start off with:

1) Avoid any bullshit rightwing media shit spewers that spin the truth on the matter like Fox News, Forbes.com, Rush Limbaugh, Heritage, National Review, Blaze, etc.

2) Seek out independent scientific sources (environmental science, geology, etc) with PEER-REVIEWED studies on climate change. It's easy to find small studies that are not peer-reviewed that distort their data to suggest fossil fuels have not caused changes to our climate. ANY scientific study you read needs to be peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed means the study was examined by independent experts not associated with the team that created the study. The vast majority of peer-reviewed studies from around the world provide concrete evidence human activity such as the use of fossil fuels has influenced our climate. I encourage you to read these articles written by experts with no political biases toward their work.

3) Accept that the debate is over and that you were wrong about this issue. I know it's hard for you big, tough men and women to swallow your pride, but you need to accept it.

Yes, the debate on climate change has gone through some controversy. Sure, some climatologists fudged data in the past but that didn't happen because they were trying to hide some ridiculous, elaborate conspiracy. They just did it for their OWN work to be recognized. This will be attempted in any scientific field but luckily they have the peer reviewed system.

What needs to happen now is action. We need to do something about this issue TODAY.

Start with this:

"Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'globalclimate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it."

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

What do conservatives think of the picture below?

 

[orogenicman]

Drink the agw koolaid

Snort it straight from the can

Ok, so I am getting the vibe you are one of those douches who believes climate science is secretly an elaborate, global conspiracy theory to control the masses.

Lol people like you never get old.

So who runs this global conspiracy? Who are they? What do they want? Where is the evidence?

Cut the crap....This is politics. This is Obama running the country against the interests of the US.

So let me get this straight. Obama is leading this massive global conspiracy? They all just do what he says? So who was the cult leader before Obama was president?

 

[Billy000]

California Ban Fracking Rally No Science All Stunts

Fucking morons.

Ok this is what I am talking about. Lol you people kill me. Your response to this thread is linking an article not written by an actual scientist affiliated with the energy industry.

Bravo, H. You make things so much clearer for the rest of us about rightwing bullshit.

Lots of things in life can kill you and you should actually be worried about them, a 2 degree rise in temperature isn't one of them. All that has to happen is a volcanic eruption in the Yellowstone and you will be wishing for global warming. They told us a pack of BS in the 70s, don't trust everything "science" tells you.

Start your remediation from the unfounded fear, right here:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Oh and it isn't the 2 degree increase itself that is harmful, it is what that change does do the environment.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Drink the agw koolaid

Snort it straight from the can

Ok, so I am getting the vibe you are one of those douches who believes climate science is secretly an elaborate, global conspiracy theory to control the masses.

Lol people like you never get old.

So who runs this global conspiracy? Who are they? What do they want? Where is the evidence?

Cut the crap....This is politics. This is Obama running the country against the interests of the US.

So let me get this straight. Obama is leading this massive global conspiracy? They all just do what he says? So who was the cult leader before Obama was president?

I never stated there was a global conspiracy...
Obama has been seething over his inability to ram his green energy agenda down our throats.
Hence the reason why he removed the EPA from Congressional oversight....
Obama has clearly stated he is opposed to fossil fuel based energy.
About a month ago, Obama once again shot off his mouth by stating that Americans should not get used to lower prices for fuel. Now WHY would he feel compelled to even make such a statement?.....

 

[SAYIT]

If republicans want to learn the truth about climate change and accept it, they just need to....

Have a radical lobotomy, just like you.

 

[orogenicman]

California Ban Fracking Rally No Science All Stunts

Fucking morons.

Ok this is what I am talking about. Lol you people kill me. Your response to this thread is linking an article not written by an actual scientist affiliated with the energy industry.

Bravo, H. You make things so much clearer for the rest of us about rightwing bullshit.

Dying is not a lot of fun, you dumbass. If you, a dimocrat, want to learn about Global warming here is an article from the LIBERAL/democrat website...the HUFFINGTON POST about 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists who claim the following:

"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."
​

If you don't mind I'll go along with these guys. Hell, I'll go along with these guys BECAUSE you mind. Get lost dumbass.

Lol you people never cease to amaze me. Wow. Just wow. Your response to this thread is a link to a grand total of 49 ASTRONAUTS who don't believe in climate change? This is too much fun lol.

No high school Billy...that was 49 former astronauts AND scientists you dumb little fuckhead. Here try this guy pissant.

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock 8216 Laughs 8217 at Global Warming 8211 8216 Global warming is nonsense 8217 Top Prof. Declares Climate Depot

Don't bother me again, junior.

This is a perfect example of why scientists don t vote Republican

or the past decade and more, conservatives have trumpeted to the heavens any scientist with respectable-sounding credentials who is willing to dispute the international consensus on climate change. This week brought one more sad example of this phenomenon, with Red State editor Erick Erickson tweeting this Breitbart post, which gleefully parrots the views of one Professor Les Woodcock. He is that rarest of beasts, a climate denier with a science degree — but not in climatology, naturally.

So some doddering chemist emeritus doesn't believe in climate change. So what, right? But Woodcock's assertions are noteworthy for just how magnificently bogus they are. And the fact that he has been embraced by influential people in the conservative media-sphere shows both the intellectual bankruptcy of movement conservatism and the way it has poisoned the climate change debate.

Here's the line in question: "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years." That is an extraordinary statement, and a position that cleverer climate deniers tend to avoid. He's not just saying that warming isn't happening, or that warming is happening but humans aren't causing it. He's flatly asserting, with no hedging whatsoever, that carbon dioxide concentrations haven't increased.

There's just one flaw with his analysis: carbon dioxide concentrations are very easy to measure! All you do is shine a beam of infrared light through an air sample, look at the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide, and then deduce the concentration using Beer's Law. It's a classic experiment in Chemistry 101.

Carbon dioxide concentrations are being measured in this manner right now (as well as with more sophisticated techniques). It's being done all the time in fact, in hundreds of places across the globe, organized by the Cooperative Air Sampling Network. Here's a chart (borrowed from Skeptical Science, but you can make your own) comparing thousands of global measurements to the longest-running individual station, on Mauna Loa:

I literally cannot imagine a statement that would be more scientifically incorrect and humiliating than the one Professor Woodcock made. It's like saying you don't believe in the existence of cheese. And somehow I doubt such a person would be convinced if you did the scientific equivalent of slapping him across the face with a big round of Stilton.

But the likes of Erick Erickson are patently uninterested in even the slightest scrap of scientific detail. All he wants is to claim the mantle of scientific legitimacy to justify his prior beliefs. Thus all the transparent puffery about Woodcock's "long and distinguished academic career" and so forth from Breitbart (not that these chumps had even heard of him before). Any publication that gave a hoot about science would realize that gleefully repeating such obviously false garbage is like defiling Isaac Newton's corpse.

It's no wonder that only six percent of scientists are Republican.

And it's also a good reminder that centrists like Clive Crook are completely wrong in their belief that scientists are somehow responsible for polarizing the issue of climate change. Erickson is one of the most influential conservatives in the country, and he simply doesn't care about getting the science right. He's a Lysenkoist to the bone.

I really do hate that so many people are invested in politicizing every freaking thing in America.

 

[orogenicman]

Drink the agw koolaid

Snort it straight from the can

Ok, so I am getting the vibe you are one of those douches who believes climate science is secretly an elaborate, global conspiracy theory to control the masses.

Lol people like you never get old.

So who runs this global conspiracy? Who are they? What do they want? Where is the evidence?

Cut the crap....This is politics. This is Obama running the country against the interests of the US.

So let me get this straight. Obama is leading this massive global conspiracy? They all just do what he says? So who was the cult leader before Obama was president?

I never stated there was a global conspiracy...
Obama has been seething over his inability to ram his green energy agenda down our throats.
Hence the reason why he removed the EPA from Congressional oversight....
Obama has clearly stated he is opposed to fossil fuel based energy.
About a month ago, Obama once again shot off his mouth by stating that Americans should not get used to lower prices for fuel. Now WHY would he feel compelled to even make such a statement?.....

Erm, at the same time we are seeing record oil production in the U.S. Not buying it, dude.

 

[z_luzhina]

What do conservatives think of the picture below?

Better yet, what do they think of these:

World Of Technology Climate Change Illustrated 7 gifs

 

[thereisnospoon]

Drink the agw koolaid

Snort it straight from the can

Ok, so I am getting the vibe you are one of those douches who believes climate science is secretly an elaborate, global conspiracy theory to control the masses.

Lol people like you never get old.

So who runs this global conspiracy? Who are they? What do they want? Where is the evidence?

Cut the crap....This is politics. This is Obama running the country against the interests of the US.

So let me get this straight. Obama is leading this massive global conspiracy? They all just do what he says? So who was the cult leader before Obama was president?

I never stated there was a global conspiracy...
Obama has been seething over his inability to ram his green energy agenda down our throats.
Hence the reason why he removed the EPA from Congressional oversight....
Obama has clearly stated he is opposed to fossil fuel based energy.
About a month ago, Obama once again shot off his mouth by stating that Americans should not get used to lower prices for fuel. Now WHY would he feel compelled to even make such a statement?.....

Erm, at the same time we are seeing record oil production in the U.S. Not buying it, dude.

What's that got to do with Obama?.....The fact you people like to evade is while Obama can easily control oil and gas production on federal lands, he is powerless to do anything about it on private lands.
The latest production upturn is from privately owned property.
Those federal leases you Obamabots keep chirping about are unproductive or extraction is so costly, the leases are a waste of time.
The bottom line is production is at it's current levels in spite of Obama's policies. Not because of them....
And for you to deny any notion of Obama being opposed to fossil fuels is just you lying to yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

Ok, so I am getting the vibe you are one of those douches who believes climate science is secretly an elaborate, global conspiracy theory to control the masses.

Lol people like you never get old.

So who runs this global conspiracy? Who are they? What do they want? Where is the evidence?

Cut the crap....This is politics. This is Obama running the country against the interests of the US.

So let me get this straight. Obama is leading this massive global conspiracy? They all just do what he says? So who was the cult leader before Obama was president?

I never stated there was a global conspiracy...
Obama has been seething over his inability to ram his green energy agenda down our throats.
Hence the reason why he removed the EPA from Congressional oversight....
Obama has clearly stated he is opposed to fossil fuel based energy.
About a month ago, Obama once again shot off his mouth by stating that Americans should not get used to lower prices for fuel. Now WHY would he feel compelled to even make such a statement?.....

Erm, at the same time we are seeing record oil production in the U.S. Not buying it, dude.

What's that got to do with Obama?.....The fact you people like to evade is while Obama can easily control oil and gas production on federal lands, he is powerless to do anything about it on private lands.
The latest production upturn is from privately owned property.
Those federal leases you Obamabots keep chirping about are unproductive or extraction is so costly, the leases are a waste of time.
The bottom line is production is at it's current levels in spite of Obama's policies. Not because of them....
And for you to deny any notion of Obama being opposed to fossil fuels is just you lying to yourself.

That is not true. Even oil production on private lands must meet federal and state guidelines.

 

[bodecea]

...follow some very simple steps to start off with:

1) Avoid any bullshit rightwing media shit spewers that spin the truth on the matter like Fox News, Forbes.com, Rush Limbaugh, Heritage, National Review, Blaze, etc.

2) Seek out independent scientific sources (environmental science, geology, etc) with PEER-REVIEWED studies on climate change. It's easy to find small studies that are not peer-reviewed that distort their data to suggest fossil fuels have not caused changes to our climate. ANY scientific study you read needs to be peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed means the study was examined by independent experts not associated with the team that created the study. The vast majority of peer-reviewed studies from around the world provide concrete evidence human activity such as the use of fossil fuels has influenced our climate. I encourage you to read these articles written by experts with no political biases toward their work.

3) Accept that the debate is over and that you were wrong about this issue. I know it's hard for you big, tough men and women to swallow your pride, but you need to accept it.

Yes, the debate on climate change has gone through some controversy. Sure, some climatologists fudged data in the past but that didn't happen because they were trying to hide some ridiculous, elaborate conspiracy. They just did it for their OWN work to be recognized. This will be attempted in any scientific field but luckily they have the peer reviewed system.

What needs to happen now is action. We need to do something about this issue TODAY.

Start with this:

"Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'globalclimate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it."

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming

I see no problem in ensuring that Conservatives get to live on all the low lying coastal land. .

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See how agw worship is cultlike? You have to BELIEVE it, it's an article of faith

 

[Porker]

This is a perfect example of why scientists don t vote Republican

]

No, you're wrong...this is the perfect example...

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

References:

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 (The 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 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 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 (Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 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 - Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Coming (Deseret News, September 8, 1972)
1972 - There's a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)
1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 - British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere(Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (The Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎)
1972 - New Ice Age Slipping Over North (The 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)
1972 - Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters - Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)
1973 - The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 - 'Man-made Ice Age' Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)
1973 - Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (The Spartanburg Herald, June 28, 1973)
1973 - Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)
1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 - Ominous Changes in the World's Weather (PDF) (Fortune Magazine, February 1974)
1974 - Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming?‎ (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)
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 (Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 - Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 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 Sentinel, 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? (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 (Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 - Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 - Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 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 Sentinel, December 11, 1975)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1976 - Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976)
1976 - Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976)
1976 - It's Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 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)
1977 - The Ice Age Cometh... (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)
1977 - Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)
1977 - We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 - Ice! [Book] (Arnold Federbush, 1978)
1978 - The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 - Winter May Be Colder Than In Last Ice Age (Deseret News, January 2, 1978)
1978 - Current Winters Seen Colder Than In Ice Age‎ (The Telegraph, January 3, 1978)
1978 - Winter Temperatures Colder Than Last Ice Age (Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Register-Guard, January 3, 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' (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 - Another Ice Age? (Kentucky New Era, February 12, 1978)
1978 - Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, ‎February 13, 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 - The Sixth Winter [Book] (John R. Gribbin, 1979)
1979 - The New Ice Age Cometh (The Age, January 16, 1979)
1979 - Ice Age Building Up (Daily Record, June 5, 1979)
1979 - Large Glacial Buildup Could Mean Ice Age (Daily Chronicle, June 5, 1979)
1979 - Ice Age On Its Way (Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 7, 1979)
1979 - Get Ready to Freeze (Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

* Note: A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper.


Sources:

Calgary Herald, Chicago Tribune, Fortune Magazine, Hartford Courant, International Wildlife (Magazine), Isaac Asimov, Los Angeles Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Montreal Gazette,Newsweek (Magazine), New York (Magazine), Radio Times (Magazine), Sarasota Herald-Tribune,Science News (Magazine), St. Petersburg Times, Time Magazine, The Age, The Blade, The Boston Globe, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, The Saturday Review (Magazine), The Sydney Morning Herald, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report

Bangor Daily News (Maine), Beaver Country Times (Beaver, Pennsylvania), Boca Raton News (Boca Raton, Florida), Daily Chronicle (Spokane, Washington), Daily Record (Ellensburg, Washington), Deseret News (Utah), Eugene Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon), Harlan Daily Enterprise (Kentucky), Kentucky New Era (Hopkinsville, Kentucky), Lewiston Evening Journal (Lewiston, Maine), Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho), Ludington Daily News (Ludington, Michigan), Middlesboro Daily News (Kentucky), Pittsburgh Press (Pittsburg, Pennsylvania), Reading Eagle (Reading, Pennsylvania), Sumter Daily Item (Sumter, South Carolina), The Argus-Press (Owosso, Michigan), The Bryan Times (Bryan, Ohio), The Daily Sentinel (Ohio), The Day (New London, Connecticut), The Free-Lance Star (Fredericksburg, Virginia), The Ledger (Florida), The Portsmouth Times (Ohio), The Press-Courier (Oxnard, California), The Robesonian (Lumberton, North Carolina), The Schenectady Gazette (Schenectady, New York), The Southeast Missourian (Missouri), The Spartanburg Herald (Spartanburg, South Carolina), The Sun (Vancouver, Canada), The Telegraph (Nashua, New Hampshire), The Windsor Star (Windsor, Canada), Times Daily (Florence, Alabama), Tri City Herald (Kennewick, Washington), Youngstown Vindicator (Youngstown, Ohio)


Hypocrisy:

You ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider;

And then there's this....

Rest in Peace The List of Deceased Solar Companies Greentech Media

See updated list here.

***

We listed the more than 200 VC-funded solar startups back in 2008.

We knew that we'd be writing about most of them on their way up -- as well as on their way down.

Add one more solar company to the list of insolvent solar firms. It's one you may not have heard of: Concentrator Optics. The firm had received investment from Capricorn Venture Partners to build Fresnel lenses for theCPV market.

Imagine approaching a VC firm with that pitch today.

GTM Research forecasts 21 gigawatts of PV module manufacturing capacity coming offline by 2015 as the global market reconciles a dire supply-demand imbalance. (See PV Technology, Production and Cost Outlook: 2012-2016.)

Capacity coming offline means less-efficient companies closing down. Of course there's another long list of relatively unknown Chinese companies closing down as well. Here's an incomplete list of the solar firms that have left the building -- either by closure, bankruptcy, or fire-sale acquisition:

2009 to 2010

Bankrupt, closed, acquired

• Advent Solar (emitter wrap-through Si) acquired by Applied Materials
• Applied Solar (solar roofing) acquired by Quercus Trust
• OptiSolar (a-Si on a grand scale) closed
• Ready Solar (PV installation) acquired by SunEdison
• Solasta (nano-coaxial solar) closed
• SV Solar (low-concentration PV) closed
• Senergen (depositing silane onto free-form metallurgical-grade Si substrates) closed
• Signet Solar (a-Si) bankrupt
• Sunfilm (a-Si) bankrupt
• Wakonda (GaAs) closed

2011

Bankrupt, closed

• EPV Solar (a-Si) bankrupt
• Evergreen (drawn Si) bankrupt
• Solyndra (CIGS) bankrupt
• SpectraWatt (c-Si) bankrupt
• Stirling Energy Systems (dish engine) bankrupt

Acquisition, sale

• Ascent Solar (CIGS) acquired by TFG Radiant
• Calyxo (CdTe) acquired by Solar Fields from Q.cells
• HelioVolt (CIGS) acquired by Korea's SK Innovation
• National Semiconductor Solar Magic (panel optimizers) exited systems business
• NetCrystal (silicon on flexible substrate) acquired by Solar Semiconductor
• Soliant (CPV) acquired by Emcore

2012

Bankrupt, closed

• Abound Solar (CdTe) bankrupt
• AQT (CIGS) closed
• Ampulse (thin silicon) closed
• Arise Technology (PV modules) bankrupt
• Azuray (microinverters) closed
• BP (c-Si panels) exits solar business
• Centrotherm (PV manufacturing equipment) bankrupt
• CSG (c-Si on glass) closed by Suntech
• Day4 Energy (cell interconnects) delisted from TSX exchange
• ECD (a-Si) bankrupt
• Energy Innovations (CPV) bankrupt
• Flexcell (a-Si roll-roll BIPV) closed
• GlobalWatt (solar) closed
• GreenVolts (CPV) closed
• Global Solar Energy (CIGS) closed
• G24i (DSCs) bankrupt in 2012, re-emerged as G24i Power with new investors
• Hoku (polysilicon) shut down its Idaho polysilicon production facility
• Inventux (a-Si) bankrupt
• Konarka (OSCs) bankrupt
• Odersun (CIGS) bankrupt
• Pramac (a-Si panels built with equipment from Oerlikon) insolvent
• Pairan (Germany inverters) insolvent
• Ralos (developer) bankrupt
• REC Wafer (c-Si) bankrupt
• Satcon (BoS) bankrupt
• Schott (c-Si) exits c-Si business
• Schuco (a-Si) shutting down its a-Si business
• Sencera (a-Si) closed
• Siliken (c-Si modules) closed
• Skyline Solar (LCPV) closed
• Siemens (CSP, inverters, BOS) divestment from solar
• Solar Millennium (developer) insolvent
• Solarhybrid (developer) insolvent
• Sovello (Q.cells, Evergreen, REC JV) bankrupt
• SolarDay (c-Si modules) insolvent
• Solar Power Industries (PV modules) bankrupt
• Soltecture (CIGS BIPV) bankrupt
• Sun Concept (developer) bankrupt

Acquisition, fire sale, restructuring

• Oelmaier (Germany inverters) insolvent, bought by agricultural supplier Lehner Agrar
• Q.Cells (c-Si) insolvent, acquired by South Korea's Hanwha
• Sharp (a-Si) backing away from a-Si, retiring 160 of its 320 megawatts in Japan
• Solibro (CIGS) Q-Cells unit acquired by China's Hanergy
• Solon (c-Si) acquired by UAE's Microsol
• Scheuten Solar (BIPV) bankrupt, then acquired by Aikosolar
• SolFocus (CPV) layoffs, restructuring for sale
• Sunways (c-Si, inverters) bought by LDK, restructuring to focus on BIPV and storage

2013

Bankrupt, closed

• Bosch (c-Si PV module) exits module business
• Concentrator Optics (CPV) bankrupt
• Suntech Wuxi (c-Si) bankrupt

Acquisition, sale, restructuring

• Diehl (Germany inverters) inverter division sold to PE firm mutares AG
• ISET (CIGS) moving into "microsolar"
• MiaSolé (CIGS) acquired by China's Hanergy
• Nanosolar (CIGS) restructuring for sale
• NuvoSun (CIGS) acquired by Dow
• Twin Creeks (kerfless Si) acquired by GT Advanced Technology
• Wuerth Solar (installer) business turned over to BayWa

 

[orogenicman]

What Dr. Schneider actually said:

Stephen Schneider - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This paper used a one-dimensional radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.[5]

Carbon dioxide was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was lower than other estimates by a factor of about three, as noted in a footnote to the paper.

The story made headlines in the New York Times. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.[6]

In a 1976 book The Genesis Strategy he discusses both long-term warming due to carbon dioxide and short-term cooling due to aerosols,[7] and advocated for adopting policies that are resilient to future changes in climate.[8]

And so he corrected himself. Self correction is what makes science so powerful, dude. Care to correct your bullshit post?

 

[Porker]

What Dr. Schneider actually said:

Stephen Schneider - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This paper used a one-dimensional radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.[5]

Carbon dioxide was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was lower than other estimates by a factor of about three, as noted in a footnote to the paper.

The story made headlines in the New York Times. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.[6]

In a 1976 book The Genesis Strategy he discusses both long-term warming due to carbon dioxide and short-term cooling due to aerosols,[7] and advocated for adopting policies that are resilient to future changes in climate.[8]

And so he corrected himself. Self correction is what makes science so powerful, dude. Care to correct your bullshit post?

DUDE...No matter what the bastion of liberal bullshit, N.Y. Times says anybody said...global cooling DIDN'T fucking happen. Just like global warming HAS NOT HAPPENED. You goddamn clowns can eat shit until hell freezes over. HUMAN BEINGS cannot control the climate or PREDICT climate change.

 

[mamooth]

Most of the climate scientists were predicting warming, even back in the 1970s.

In contrast, denier kooks have been consistent about predicting an ice age, even up to today. And they've all been totally wrong, but they still keep predicting that ice age.

So, scientists have been getting it all correct for decades running.

Deniers have been failing hard for decades running.

Oddly, Porker says we should trust the Deniers. Must be a religious thing.