Ice Age Scare of the 70's

[Wyatt earp]

Of course it will be in forty years

They will come up with another name

To justify it

Kind of sick of it. Liberals =progressive now

Fags =LBGT (A New one to me)

Climate cult = GLOBAL COOLING=GLOBAL WARMING =CLIMATE CHANGE

these folks have an identity problem

 

[Crick]

Your problem, Mr Bear, is considerably more fundamental.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Yup OP it was a big media scare, which the man made climate change cult, now trys to denie...

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism


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 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 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)

lol... you cite newspaper articles to support your claim about science? Let me guess, you haven't been in a science classroom since middle school, because even in high school, if student tried to pull that crap, they would receive an E for the absurdity of it.

don't deny Jack ass it was main stream hyperbole, you site shit, that was on the fridge lier





Like I said your ilk is like the book 1984


No
No
No
We never said that.

The post above the one that you quoted demonstrated that your full of it, but I wouldn't expect someone with such a poor understanding of both, science, and grammar, to comprehend what I posted.

Oh, and for the record, that popular news media pablum that you posted is all based upon one original media source publishing the absurd nonsense. Media outlets do that, you know. Wait, I suspect that you don't know that...

The fact is that some media websites wrote some bullshit articles that were refuted by real science. That denialist idiots with a poor understanding of factual data, science, and the English language, would harp on something that is so demonstrably wrong is telling- what a bunch of disingenuine fools... I laugh at your folly.

quit ******* lying child, the ice age was all the rage in the 70s



Dumb ****

And I just shrug my head at you for your ignorance to history......the book 1984

Dumb ****??? Really? That's really rich coming from someone that can't construct a basic sentence, or comprehend the significance of a scientific consensus.

As to history, my educational background is geosciences, but one of my passions is 20th Century history, so I am sure I can school you there, too.

 

[Old Rocks]

Glad to see another person with actual education in this subject. So many posting here speak from a scientific education level of about the third grade. And some posting here in that manner actually claim to have revelent degrees.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

I generally steer clear of topics about climate change since most of the deniers posting in them are anti-science morons with the intellectual capacity of an Ordovician gastropod, e,g; vide supra.

 

[Old Rocks]

You may be libeling poor gastropod.

 

[SSDD]

You may be libeling poor gastropod.

Why don't you two get a room already?

The ice age scare happened...it's well documented and I find it hilarious how far you will go in your attempt to defend the indefensible. Entertainment at its best.

 

[Crick]

Why is this thread here? What is its significance?

 

[Old Rocks]

You may be libeling poor gastropod.

Why don't you two get a room already?

The ice age scare happened...it's well documented and I find it hilarious how far you will go in your attempt to defend the indefensible. Entertainment at its best.

There was a 'scare' only for those too ignorant and lazy to do a little research. From '70 to '80, I was 27 to 37, and interested in AGW because of a lecture in a Geology class in the mid-'60's.

 

[SSDD]

You may be libeling poor gastropod.

Why don't you two get a room already?

The ice age scare happened...it's well documented and I find it hilarious how far you will go in your attempt to defend the indefensible. Entertainment at its best.

There was a 'scare' only for those too ignorant and lazy to do a little research. From '70 to '80, I was 27 to 37, and interested in AGW because of a lecture in a Geology class in the mid-'60's.

NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all predicting cooling...who else was there rocks? As best as I can tell, they comprised the climate science establishment of the day and they thought it was going to cool....who comprised the climate science establishment of the day that you claim were predicting warming? Were there two climate science establishments? Who made up the one you are claiming?

 

[Old Rocks]

Aerosols Volcanoes Dust Clouds and Climate

Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds and Climate

Haze from small particles surely affected climate, but how? Old speculations about the effects of smoke from volcanoes were brought to mind in the 1960s, when urban smog became a major research topic. Some tentative evidence suggested that aerosols emitted by human industry and agriculture could change the weather. A few scientists exclaimed that smoke and dust from human activities would cause a dangerous global cooling. Or would pollution warm the atmosphere? Theory and data were too feeble to answer the question, and few people even tried to address it. Among these few, the uncertainties fueled vigorous debates, in particular over how adding aerosols might change the planet's cloud cover. Starting in the late 1970s, powerful computers got to work on the ferociously complex calculations, helped by data from volcanic eruptions. By the 1990s it was clear that overall, human production of aerosols was cooling the atmosphere. Pollution was significantly delaying, and masking, the coming of greenhouse effect warming.

A rather long and intelligent discussion of what was said, and who said it, in the '70's, concerning cooling and warming.

 

[SSDD]

Aerosols Volcanoes Dust Clouds and Climate

Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds and Climate

Haze from small particles surely affected climate, but how? Old speculations about the effects of smoke from volcanoes were brought to mind in the 1960s, when urban smog became a major research topic. Some tentative evidence suggested that aerosols emitted by human industry and agriculture could change the weather. A few scientists exclaimed that smoke and dust from human activities would cause a dangerous global cooling. Or would pollution warm the atmosphere? Theory and data were too feeble to answer the question, and few people even tried to address it. Among these few, the uncertainties fueled vigorous debates, in particular over how adding aerosols might change the planet's cloud cover. Starting in the late 1970s, powerful computers got to work on the ferociously complex calculations, helped by data from volcanic eruptions. By the 1990s it was clear that overall, human production of aerosols was cooling the atmosphere. Pollution was significantly delaying, and masking, the coming of greenhouse effect warming.

A rather long and intelligent discussion of what was said, and who said it, in the '70's, concerning cooling and warming.

So an opinion piece written in 2015 is your answer....and not even the answer to my question...Who else was there actively researching the climate if you remove the characters I already listed?

 

[Old Rocks]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

 

[SSDD]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

And still no reply...if NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all predicting cooling...who else was there?

 

[SSDD]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

And still no reply...if NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all predicting cooling...who else was there?

By the way rocks....hear that less than half of the participants at the Nobel Laureates conference were willing to sign on to AGW...lot of big brains there and less than half would sign their names to the farce. Did the physicist who wrote your opinion piece win a nobel prize?...The ones who wouldn't sign on to the AGW farce did.

 

[Crick]

I would say that your list was quite definitive and that it was a thorough mischaracterization. I would say that that is probably nearly every significant climate-related entity that ever mentioned the possibility of an ice age and that none of them ever expressed the sort of confidence in the chance of an ice age that are now used by every single science organization on the planet when speaking of anthropogenic warming.

Again this thread does absolutely nothing but further illustrate the vacuum of arguments from which deniers mandatorily operate. Keep it up.

 

[Old Rocks]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

And still no reply...if NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all predicting cooling...who else was there?

By the way rocks....hear that less than half of the participants at the Nobel Laureates conference were willing to sign on to AGW...lot of big brains there and less than half would sign their names to the farce. Did the physicist who wrote your opinion piece win a nobel prize?...The ones who wouldn't sign on to the AGW farce did.

Well, Mr. SSDD, guess you need a hearing aid. 36 out of 65 signed the declaration;

The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings Interdisciplinary Meeting with Nobel Laureates from the fields of physics physiology or medicine and chemistry

Mainau Declaration 2015
On 3 July 2015, the final day of the 65th Lindau Meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection. It states “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions.”

And here you can see what they signed;

The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings


“With this declaration, we outline the scale of the threat of climate change, and we provide the best possible advice,” says Brian P. Schmidt, Nobel laureate and a spokesperson for the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change.

He continues that he feels a “moral bound duty as a scientist on an issue that has such lasting consequences.” Four Nobel Laureates met with Brian Schmidt on Thursday, one day before the signing of the declaration on Mainau island of Lake Constance on the last day of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting. These five scientists discussed this threat to mankind and possible steps and solutions: Steven Chu, former US Secretary of Energy, George Smoot, David Gross, Peter Doherty, and Schmidt, a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist.

The declaration text itself states: “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy.”

 

[IanC]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

I'm not an american so I really dont know anything about Rush Limbaugh but I would bet that he would make you look as stupid as you are if you had the temerity to actually discuss global warming with him.

but let's talk about Monckton. you dont like that he, as a Scotsman, is pissed off at England for changing the law on hereditary titles. I dont really give a shit about politics over there but I can understand why he might be upset.

next, you make fun of his Graves's Disease and the common symptom of bulging eyes. I suppose it is not a stretch for you to focus on physical deformities rather than intellect but I do find it rather odious and low class of you.

then, you make fun of his non climate science degrees. he is obviously much more intelligent than you, with more education, wealth and wit. I am not surprised that your pedestrian envy clouds your attitude towards him.

I would call Monckton a climate science historian. he knows much, much more than you on the subject. and probably more than most climate scientists. he also has the distinction of being a published author in peer reviewed climate science. Old Rocks, you are inferior to Monckton in every way. he would slice you up and leave you bleeding on every subject under the sun, perhaps with the exception on how to change a light bulb in the mill.

 

[SSDD]

An opinion peice written by Phd physicists. But of course you prefer bonkers fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the AM radio.

And still no reply...if NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all predicting cooling...who else was there?

By the way rocks....hear that less than half of the participants at the Nobel Laureates conference were willing to sign on to AGW...lot of big brains there and less than half would sign their names to the farce. Did the physicist who wrote your opinion piece win a nobel prize?...The ones who wouldn't sign on to the AGW farce did.

Well, Mr. SSDD, guess you need a hearing aid. 36 out of 65 signed the declaration;

The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings Interdisciplinary Meeting with Nobel Laureates from the fields of physics physiology or medicine and chemistry

Mainau Declaration 2015
On 3 July 2015, the final day of the 65th Lindau Meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection. It states “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions.”

And here you can see what they signed;

The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings


“With this declaration, we outline the scale of the threat of climate change, and we provide the best possible advice,” says Brian P. Schmidt, Nobel laureate and a spokesperson for the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change.

He continues that he feels a “moral bound duty as a scientist on an issue that has such lasting consequences.” Four Nobel Laureates met with Brian Schmidt on Thursday, one day before the signing of the declaration on Mainau island of Lake Constance on the last day of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting. These five scientists discussed this threat to mankind and possible steps and solutions: Steven Chu, former US Secretary of Energy, George Smoot, David Gross, Peter Doherty, and Schmidt, a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist.

The declaration text itself states: “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy.”

36 out of 65....doesn't sound like settled science to me at all...sounds like a rapidly failing hypothesis to me....

And again rocks...if NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all predicting cooling...who else was there?

 

[Crick]

The declaration wasn't a statement of science. It was a statement of policy. And only a minority of the delegates had any particular knowledge regarding the climate.