Walter Cronkite Reported on Climate Change, the Science Is Settled

[Weatherman2020]

Another Ice Age is Coming!



5 years later Howard K. Smith reported that “an ice age is returning to the Earth, with glaciers down to the Mason-Dixon line and freezing temperatures south of that.”

ABC Climate Video

With nearly a half-century of enviro-doomsday crankery and not-so-final countdowns, no wonder no one believes them anymore.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I can remember first learning about climate change from such as Jacques Cousteau.

Sadly, many of us are unable to learn. Worse, they really don't give a damn about their own children and grand children.

All that matters to the short sighted right is putting middle class dollars in the pockets of the 1%.

 

[deannalw]

I was just reading about this last night!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"With nearly a half-century of enviro-doomsday crankery and not-so-final countdowns, no wonder no one believes them anymore."

You really are short sighted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can remember first learning about climate change from such as Jacques Cousteau.

Sadly, many of us are unable to learn. Worse, they really don't give a damn about their own children and grand children.

All that matters to the short sighted right is putting middle class dollars in the pockets of the 1%.

If only we spent more money on windmills, we could cool the planet.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I can remember first learning about climate change from such as Jacques Cousteau.

Sadly, many of us are unable to learn. Worse, they really don't give a damn about their own children and grand children.

All that matters to the short sighted right is putting middle class dollars in the pockets of the 1%.

Jacq too was very concerned about the coming ice age.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"With nearly a half-century of enviro-doomsday crankery and not-so-final countdowns, no wonder no one believes them anymore."

You really are short sighted.

Half a century of hysteria from the left.
And every crisis passes unnoticed as it's expiration date expires.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.

 

[Crick]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

 

[skookerasbil]

Walter must be spinning in his grave to see the direct collusion between the DNC and the MSM.

 

[Weatherman2020]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

Just like today, the science of man controlling the climate of the planet is a myth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Amazing, WM throws this old lie out. Most of the scientists of that time were already sounding the tocsins about global warming.

That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”

One of the undying, zombie-like arguments against climate change is that you can’t trust climate scientists because they started out making doom and gloom claims about global cooling in the 1970s. But this, along with many other things comedian Dennis Miller has said on late night talk shows, needn’t be taken seriously.

By the time fears of an ice age reached the public's attention, there was a long history of concerns about warming. The idea that burning fossil fuels would warm the planet can be traced back to an 1896 paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. In the 1930s, Britain’s Guy Callendar concluded that global warming was already underway. So it seems a bit odd that anyone worried about cooling. What was really going on back in the '70s—both in science and in the media?

Reaching maturity
For climate science, the 1970s were a pivotal era. Even though the discipline was born much earlier, it’s probably fair to say that climate science grew up in that decade.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Amazing, WM throws this old lie out. Most of the scientists of that time were already sounding the tocsins about global warming.

That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”

One of the undying, zombie-like arguments against climate change is that you can’t trust climate scientists because they started out making doom and gloom claims about global cooling in the 1970s. But this, along with many other things comedian Dennis Miller has said on late night talk shows, needn’t be taken seriously.

By the time fears of an ice age reached the public's attention, there was a long history of concerns about warming. The idea that burning fossil fuels would warm the planet can be traced back to an 1896 paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. In the 1930s, Britain’s Guy Callendar concluded that global warming was already underway. So it seems a bit odd that anyone worried about cooling. What was really going on back in the '70s—both in science and in the media?

Reaching maturity
For climate science, the 1970s were a pivotal era. Even though the discipline was born much earlier, it’s probably fair to say that climate science grew up in that decade.

Lie? What lie? You claiming Cronkite and Smith videos were faked? That CBS and ABC national news did not warn America of an impending ice age coming?

I would think you lefties would be immune to being busted in your lies it happens so frequently.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is Walter Cronkite a climate scientist? Smith? How many people at CBS and ABC were climate scientists? In 1975, the National Academy of Science put out a paper concerning whether the earth was warming or cooling. Basically they said that most scientists thought it was warming, but at that time they simply did not have enough information to make accurate predictions.

Logicalscience

Given this conflict, I decided to buy the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report and see for myself. The report is titled "Understanding Climatic Change, A Program for action" and is featured in the picture above. A picture that I took with my very own camera. The ISBN# is 0-309-02323-8.

So what does it say inside?

At the bottom of page V of the forward it says:
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.Wow. It says we "can't predict climate". So what does it say we need to do? What actions are needed? Lets skip to page 9 which is the beginning of the chapter titled Summary of Principle Conclusions and Recommendations. It lists 6 recommendations. They are:

1) Adopt a national program to study the climate
2) Analyze climate data from conventional instruments, satellites, etc.
3) Develop a program to monitor and index all climate data.
4) Accelerate research on climate.
5) Adopt an international program to study climate. (same as #1 but just international)
6) Try to reconstruct the history of the earths pre-industrial climate via tree rings, fossils, etc.

There is no doom and gloom, no national emergency, there are no dire predictions of the world coming to an end. It's just a bunch of scientists saying there might be a problem but we don't know because nobody has studied this crap. So please exercise some common sense and hire someone to study the earth. In short, it is exactly how William Connelley describes it on his website.

 

[Old Rocks]

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Is Walter Cronkite a climate scientist? Smith? How many people at CBS and ABC were climate scientists? In 1975, the National Academy of Science put out a paper concerning whether the earth was warming or cooling. Basically they said that most scientists thought it was warming, but at that time they simply did not have enough information to make accurate predictions.

Logicalscience

Given this conflict, I decided to buy the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report and see for myself. The report is titled "Understanding Climatic Change, A Program for action" and is featured in the picture above. A picture that I took with my very own camera. The ISBN# is 0-309-02323-8.

So what does it say inside?

At the bottom of page V of the forward it says:
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.Wow. It says we "can't predict climate". So what does it say we need to do? What actions are needed? Lets skip to page 9 which is the beginning of the chapter titled Summary of Principle Conclusions and Recommendations. It lists 6 recommendations. They are:

1) Adopt a national program to study the climate
2) Analyze climate data from conventional instruments, satellites, etc.
3) Develop a program to monitor and index all climate data.
4) Accelerate research on climate.
5) Adopt an international program to study climate. (same as #1 but just international)
6) Try to reconstruct the history of the earths pre-industrial climate via tree rings, fossils, etc.

There is no doom and gloom, no national emergency, there are no dire predictions of the world coming to an end. It's just a bunch of scientists saying there might be a problem but we don't know because nobody has studied this crap. So please exercise some common sense and hire someone to study the earth. In short, it is exactly how William Connelley describes it on his website.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for pushing your myth, what are his credentials?

 

[Weatherman2020]

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

"…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…

And yet 25 years later the science is settled and anyone who questions it should go to prison.

 

[Crick]

People who question it without evidence or reason should be ignored.

 

[RollingThunder]

Is Walter Cronkite a climate scientist? Smith? How many people at CBS and ABC were climate scientists? In 1975, the National Academy of Science put out a paper concerning whether the earth was warming or cooling. Basically they said that most scientists thought it was warming, but at that time they simply did not have enough information to make accurate predictions.

Logicalscience

Given this conflict, I decided to buy the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report and see for myself. The report is titled "Understanding Climatic Change, A Program for action" and is featured in the picture above. A picture that I took with my very own camera. The ISBN# is 0-309-02323-8.

So what does it say inside?

At the bottom of page V of the forward it says:
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.Wow. It says we "can't predict climate". So what does it say we need to do? What actions are needed? Lets skip to page 9 which is the beginning of the chapter titled Summary of Principle Conclusions and Recommendations. It lists 6 recommendations. They are:

1) Adopt a national program to study the climate
2) Analyze climate data from conventional instruments, satellites, etc.
3) Develop a program to monitor and index all climate data.
4) Accelerate research on climate.
5) Adopt an international program to study climate. (same as #1 but just international)
6) Try to reconstruct the history of the earths pre-industrial climate via tree rings, fossils, etc.

There is no doom and gloom, no national emergency, there are no dire predictions of the world coming to an end. It's just a bunch of scientists saying there might be a problem but we don't know because nobody has studied this crap. So please exercise some common sense and hire someone to study the earth. In short, it is exactly how William Connelley describes it on his website.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for pushing your myth, what are his credentials?

Compared to you, WitheredMan? He is at least 30 times more intelligent and almost infinitely better educated and informed.

 

[Weatherman2020]

People who question it without evidence or reason should be ignored.

Sweet, sweet irony.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Is Walter Cronkite a climate scientist? Smith? How many people at CBS and ABC were climate scientists? In 1975, the National Academy of Science put out a paper concerning whether the earth was warming or cooling. Basically they said that most scientists thought it was warming, but at that time they simply did not have enough information to make accurate predictions.

Logicalscience

Given this conflict, I decided to buy the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report and see for myself. The report is titled "Understanding Climatic Change, A Program for action" and is featured in the picture above. A picture that I took with my very own camera. The ISBN# is 0-309-02323-8.

So what does it say inside?

At the bottom of page V of the forward it says:
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.Wow. It says we "can't predict climate". So what does it say we need to do? What actions are needed? Lets skip to page 9 which is the beginning of the chapter titled Summary of Principle Conclusions and Recommendations. It lists 6 recommendations. They are:

1) Adopt a national program to study the climate
2) Analyze climate data from conventional instruments, satellites, etc.
3) Develop a program to monitor and index all climate data.
4) Accelerate research on climate.
5) Adopt an international program to study climate. (same as #1 but just international)
6) Try to reconstruct the history of the earths pre-industrial climate via tree rings, fossils, etc.

There is no doom and gloom, no national emergency, there are no dire predictions of the world coming to an end. It's just a bunch of scientists saying there might be a problem but we don't know because nobody has studied this crap. So please exercise some common sense and hire someone to study the earth. In short, it is exactly how William Connelley describes it on his website.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for pushing your myth, what are his credentials?

Compared to you, WitheredMan? He is at least 30 times more intelligent and almost infinitely better educated and informed.

Did you pick that up that comeback during recess on the playground today?