Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Yes, the ice age scare is a fact - but that doesn't mean it ever had scientific backing. It was a scare largely dreamt up by journalists, and with very little scientific interest. If you genuinely do not remember or did not see the thread where this was discussed at length, it is worth looking into. One poster went as far as listing the scientific papers published on the topic. From memory there were seven - with 40 backing global warming during the same period.

[/quote]

That is the lie...the BIG lie. Obviously, you didn't look at the material provided. It is more than obvious that you didn't read this paper produced by the National Academy of Science titled "Climate Change: Chilling Possibilites. The paper shows a city under a snow globe and begins with the statement:

The unusually beneficial climate of the past few decades may be degenerating, facing humanity with a new challenge to survival

That is from the National Academy. And you claim that science wasn 't behind it...or are you now perhaps claiming that the National Academy does not represent science in any way?

The paper goes on to state:

Typical of these expressions of concern is the recent National Academy of Sciences report on global climate change (SN: 1/25/75,p. 52), with its pleas for immediate action. In tones of restrained apprehension, the academy report urgently tries to dispel the indifference with which climate is usually viewed,...

What if we are entering a period of degenerating weather-even a new ice age? How much would it really affect daily life? A look at the historical record is not encouraging. On the one hand, the great civilizations of Rome, Egypt and China developed during relatively warm, agriculturally beneficial climatic epochs; on the other hand,
drought and famine drove the original Greeks to settle in the Hellenic Peninsula and later to band together in the great city-states that marked the height of their civilization.

Reports by several prominent scientific organizations promted the infamous Newsweek article.

"A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of sciences, "because the global patterns of food producation and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century".

And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continintal U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1072.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of a half a degree in the average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72.

"The world's food producing system" warns Dr James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessement "is much more sensitive to the weather than it was even five years ago".

And do you think for a second that a bunch of journalists prompted the CIA report? As noted, there were 45 citations to published material that convinced them of a possibility of an impending cooling climate and that is in addition to the reports from NCAR, CRU, NAS, and NASA also supporting the conclusions of the CIA report.

Deny as much as you like, but the fact is that the journalists were simply reporting what science was telling them to report and all of the major players in the world of climate science were on board issuing reports and papers warning of a cooling climate.

All of the links I have provided name scientific organizations and academies as sources for their reports.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I am aware that you tend to post nonsense, and then wait 3 months before posting it again, but in this case I DO remember the last thread that covered this topic, and I am sure you do as well.

Some poster (I don't recall who) went to a lot of trouble to list all of the papers published on this topic and presented a fairly cast iron case.

I suggest you link to that thread if you wish to rebut that case.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

Rapid Climate Change

I read the 1975 NAS report the year it came out. And it did not say that an ice age was immenant. In fact, what it did say was that by the Milankovic Cycles, over tens of thousands of years, we would once again enter an ice age. It also state that there was a 'finite probability' that a cooling could occur in the next 100 years. Here is a direct quote from the conclusion section;

"The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. [this assumption that the interglacial can only last 10-ish kyr may have been correct from the info of the time; it is now dubious or wrong: WMC].... These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation...

This has been posted several times by myself and others, yet the dumb asses just keep repeating lies about what the scientists said, and what they are saying at present.

 

[SSDD]

I read the 1975 NAS report the year it came out. And it did not say that an ice age was immenant. In fact, what it did say was that by the Milankovic Cycles, over tens of thousands of years, we would once again enter an ice age. It also state that there was a 'finite probability' that a cooling could occur in the next 100 years. Here is a direct quote from the conclusion section;

Sure you did...... Such a liar.

Obviously you didn't. It is just as clear that you didn't read the information coming out of NASA, CRU, and NCAR who were also on the imminent ice age bandwagon.

Even your own cherry picked quote is a study in equivocation. They were on board but weren't but wanted a lot of money so that they could study how we might survive the coming ice age.

"The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. [this assumption that the interglacial can only last 10-ish kyr may have been correct from the info of the time; it is now dubious or wrong: WMC].... These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation...

This has been posted several times by myself and others, yet the dumb asses just keep repeating lies about what the scientists said, and what they are saying at present.

Of course it has...and no matter how many times you post this cherry picked paragraph, the study isn't going to say what you wish it said. The fact that you keep posting the same thing expecting a different result is proof positive that you are an idiot.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I am aware that you tend to post nonsense, and then wait 3 months before posting it again, but in this case I DO remember the last thread that covered this topic, and I am sure you do as well.

Some poster (I don't recall who) went to a lot of trouble to list all of the papers published on this topic and presented a fairly cast iron case.

I suggest you link to that thread if you wish to rebut that case.

Pretend and deny all you like. The fact remains that it was NASA, CRU, NCAR, and the National Academy that prompted the paper on the coming ice age by the CIA. A bunch of crackpot journalists didn't scare the CIA into producing that paper...it was a bunch of crackpot climate scientists that prompted that paper.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

and I'm sure you really believe that there is enough here for you to ignore the past 20 years of scientific research.

Except of course - we both know that you do not believe that for a minute.

It's one thing for you to post this nonsense - quite another to convince anything you believe it.

 

[Saigon]

We should make a list of the Ten Best Reasons to Avoid Science - between you and SJ you have the start of a terrific list!

 

[editec]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8]Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science (Exclusive Video) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

and I'm sure you really believe that there is enough here for you to ignore the past 20 years of scientific research.

Except of course - we both know that you do not believe that for a minute.

It's one thing for you to post this nonsense - quite another to convince anything you believe it.

Show me one repeatable experiment that either demonstrates back radiation or that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming. Without at least one of those proofs you have a failed hypothesis that only idiots would accept.

 

[SSDD]

We should make a list of the Ten Best Reasons to Avoid Science - between you and SJ you have the start of a terrific list!

It is you and yours who are avoiding science. Look up the definition of the scientific method and try to apply it to climate science.

Here is a description of the scientific method:


The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

The only experiments by climate science are models and they are failures.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Repeatable experiments is simply another excuse to avoid talking about what you know to be true.

Weather cannot be reproduced in a lab - that does not mean weather does not occur.

Neither you nor Westwall strike me as being terribly bright, but I credit both of you with the intelligence and literacy to know full well that AGW is occuring, and has been for some time now. It's proven scientific fact, measurable on the ground, and increasingly a part of the life of every person and the strategy of every company, government and political party.

The only question remaining really is now long you guys are going to keep up this pretence of denial?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD -

Repeatable experiments is simply another excuse to avoid talking about what you know to be true.

Weather cannot be reproduced in a lab - that does not mean weather does not occur.

Neither you nor Westwall strike me as being terribly bright, but I credit both of you with the intelligence and literacy to know full well that AGW is occuring, and has been for some time now. It's proven scientific fact, measurable on the ground, and increasingly a part of the life of every person and the strategy of every company, government and political party.

The only question remaining really is now long you guys are going to keep up this pretence of denial?

The arrogance of the AGWCult is only surpassed by their claims to intelligence.

You claim that 200ppm of additional CO2 over a 100 year period is causing the planet to "broil" under "sweltering heat" and we're saying hhhhhmmmkay we'll let you add 200ppm of CO2 instantaneously, you show us the broiling

We're not asking you to spawn Cat 5 hurricanes but that also is what you say happens

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

The opinions of someone who patently cannot read or write aren't of terrific interest to me, nor I suspect to anyone else. I have you on ignore mode, at least until such time as I see a sentence of yours that doesn't look as if it was written by a chimpanzee.

Start by learning what these signs " " mean.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Repeatable experiments is simply another excuse to avoid talking about what you know to be true.

Predictably, you can not relate climate science to the scientific method. Don't worry, there was never an expectation that you would.

Weather cannot be reproduced in a lab - that does not mean weather does not occur.

No one suggested that it was. The physical phenomena upon which the AGW hypothesis depends, however, could be demonstrated in a lab if, in fact, they existed in the real world. Not one single experiment exists, or has ever been done that demonstrates backradiation which is the backbone of the AGW hypothesis. Any other sort of radiation can be demonstrated conclusivley and undeniably in a laboratory environment..why not backradiation?

Any chemist could predict changes within an environment with the addition of additional gasses and demonstrate those changes that were predicted by the natural laws at work. Why then, can no experiment be devised which demonstrates a temperature increase of X when Y amount of additional CO2 is introduced into the system?

The scientific method requires certain experimental proofs....proofs which climate science has never made any effort to produce in a laboratory setting. Why do you suppose that is so?

As the definition of the scientific method states...the distinguishing feature of science vs "something else" is letting reality speak for itself. Climate science does't do that. When reality speaks for itself, climate science points at failing models. When predictions do not come to pass, they claim that the predictions were never made...when the one predicted smoking gun of man's effect on the climate (the hot spot in the troposphere) never materialized, the failure of the hypothesis was simply swept under the rug.

Neither you nor Westwall strike me as being terribly bright

Bright enough to tear you a new one every time we try.

but I credit both of you with the intelligence and literacy to know full well that AGW is occuring, and has been for some time now.

Climate change is occuring...as it has always.

It's proven scientific fact, measurable on the ground, and increasingly a part of the life of every person and the strategy of every company, government and political party.

Climate change is a proven scientific fact....the claim that the change is due to antropogenic causes has yet to be proven. The two key lynchpins in the hypothesis can not be proven in any sort of repeatable way...acceptence of them is a matter of faith, not demonstrable fact...the third key factor in the hypothesis...as predicted by every climate model in existence and predicted by climate science in general is the tropospheric hot spot. It has never happened. That fact lays waste to all claims of CO2 causing warming because if it did, the hot spot would be easy to detect.

The only question remaining really is now long you guys are going to keep up this pretence of denial?

I am afraid it is you who is the denier. You can't even apply the definition of the scientific method to 2 decades of "research" and hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures to the "findings" and claims of climate science.

 

[SSDD]

Frank -

The opinions of someone who patently cannot read or write aren't of terrific interest to me, nor I suspect to anyone else. I have you on ignore mode, at least until such time as I see a sentence of yours that doesn't look as if it was written by a chimpanzee.

Start by learning what these signs " " mean.

Spoken like someone who can not adequately answer the questions posed of him. You claim that we avoid science. We ask you to apply the very defnintion of the scientific method to the "research" and findings of climate science and you can not do it. You can't even begin to do it. The closest climate science has come to experiment is models and they are failures...they can't even hindcast known climate conditions because they are based on a flawed hypothesis. The models are the hypothesis put into motion and the results they produce do not mesh with reality. The hypothesis has failed. So the question is how long do you continue to believe in a failed hypothesis?

Surely you see the wheels falling off the AGW crazy train. How humiliating it will be for you warmers who have believed for decades to have to acknowledge that those of us who rejected the hypothesis immediately based on our actual knowledge of the laws of science were right. Of course none of us expects any such acknowledgement...you will simply disappear and then reappear with a new name promoting the next bit of pseudoscience you are told to promote.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

The opinions of someone who patently cannot read or write aren't of terrific interest to me, nor I suspect to anyone else. I have you on ignore mode, at least until such time as I see a sentence of yours that doesn't look as if it was written by a chimpanzee.

Start by learning what these signs " " mean.

Me displaying my new Saigon

Did he not read the NOAA report about how CO2 was causing us to "Broil" under "Sweltering heat"?

 

[gslack]

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

The Canadian National Newspaper: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

Four and a half billion of us apparently didn't get the memo. Anyone who takes these people seriously is as crazy as they are.

LOL, that is a fine example if the insanity that warmers spew daily..

heres another fine one...

Among Americans, Anxiety about Global Warming is Rising Again

global warming anxiety, or eco-anxiety.. LOL.. You really couldn't make this crap up...It even has a "howstuffworks" article on it...Pathetic..notice it's listed in the "science" section... Shameless...

HowStuffWorks "How Eco-anxiety Works"

Do *you burst into tears at the mere mention of the shrinking Amazon rainforests? Does the question, "Paper or plastic?" send you into a mental tailspin? Have you spent sleepless nights worrying about whether the bleach you poured into your washing machine is going to eventually make its way into your drinking water?
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you may be among the growing number of people in the United States suffering from eco-anxiety. This relatively new psychological affliction is a chronic fear of environmental doom -- the concern that increasing human development and pollution are leading us into an inevitable scourge of floods, famines, heat waves, species extinctions, and ultimately, the demise of our planet.
Eco-anxiety is real, according to some psychologists, and it can really stress you out. As one eco-anxious reporter described it, "The sight of an idling car, heat-trapping carbon dioxide spewing from the tailpipe, would send me into an hours-long panic, complete with shaking, the sweats, and staring off into space while others conversed around me" [source: Plenty].

Un-freaking-believeable....

 

[SSDD]

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

The Canadian National Newspaper: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

Four and a half billion of us apparently didn't get the memo. Anyone who takes these people seriously is as crazy as they are.

LOL, that is a fine example if the insanity that warmers spew daily..

heres another fine one...

Among Americans, Anxiety about Global Warming is Rising Again

global warming anxiety, or eco-anxiety.. LOL.. You really couldn't make this crap up...It even has a "howstuffworks" article on it...Pathetic..notice it's listed in the "science" section... Shameless...

HowStuffWorks "How Eco-anxiety Works"

Do *you burst into tears at the mere mention of the shrinking Amazon rainforests? Does the question, "Paper or plastic?" send you into a mental tailspin? Have you spent sleepless nights worrying about whether the bleach you poured into your washing machine is going to eventually make its way into your drinking water?
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you may be among the growing number of people in the United States suffering from eco-anxiety. This relatively new psychological affliction is a chronic fear of environmental doom -- the concern that increasing human development and pollution are leading us into an inevitable scourge of floods, famines, heat waves, species extinctions, and ultimately, the demise of our planet.
Eco-anxiety is real, according to some psychologists, and it can really stress you out. As one eco-anxious reporter described it, "The sight of an idling car, heat-trapping carbon dioxide spewing from the tailpipe, would send me into an hours-long panic, complete with shaking, the sweats, and staring off into space while others conversed around me" [source: Plenty].

Un-freaking-believeable....

Two words......religious frenzy.

 

[PMZ]

Anybody know what happens to any volume of matter that takes in more heat energy than it can pass on?

 

[PMZ]

Anybody know what defines a compound as a greenhouse gas?