When Paleontologists Attack...

[IanC]

Powered by Google Docs

Here is a short lecture from my personal hero, Richard Feynman. It describes how to do science and explains the type of errors that you can make. Global Warming science is chock full of all the things he said to avoid. AWG may be true or false, but we can't tell from the evidence that is being presented. In particular he says to avoid data mining and selective publishing. Needless to say, AGW falls apart if it has to follow the rules of true science.

I see. Then we are just to ignore melting Ice Caps and Glaciers?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

while evidence for AGW is at least somewhat present, the actual negative impact on our climate is highly questionable. more importantly, our knowledge of how to counteract the increase of CO2 is very weak, and horribly expensive. and if past experience holds, our efforts will probably just exacerbate the problem.

we are not going to stop burning fossil fuels until they are used up. crippling the economies of the countries that are most likely to develope the new energy sources needed is not going to help.

 

[IanC]

from a science philosopher, who has suffered from the tyranny of the scientific echo chamber.

Anyone who has been a scientist for more than a couple of decades will realize that there has been a progressive and pervasive decline in the honesty of scientific communications. Yet real science simply must be an arena where truth is the rule; or else the activity simply stops being science and becomes something else: Zombie science. Although all humans ought to be truthful at all times; science is the one area of social functioning in which truth is the primary value, and truthfulness the core evaluation. Truth-telling and truth-seeking should not, therefore, be regarded as unattainable aspirations for scientists, but as iron laws, continually and universally operative. Yet such is the endemic state of corruption that an insistence on truthfulness in science seems perverse, aggressive, dangerous, or simply utopian. Not so: truthfulness in science is not utopian and was indeed taken for granted (albeit subject to normal human imperfections) just a few decades ago. Furthermore, as Jacob Bronowski argued, humans cannot be honest only in important matters while being expedient in minor matters: truth is all of a piece. There are always so many incentives to lie that truthfulness is either a habit or else it declines. This means that in order to be truthful in the face of opposition, scientists need to find a philosophical basis which will sustain a life of habitual truth and support them through the pressure to be expedient (or agreeable) rather than honest.

Medical Hypotheses: Truthfulness in science should be an iron law

it dismays me that science is being driven and directed by ideological funding rather than straight forward searching for truth.

 

[Bfgrn]

I love the "either/or" world of the right. Everything black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. Such a "simple" world.

There is no doubt of an impact. The entire central part of the US has enormous iridium deposits that match the timing of the creator and the geology perfectly.

The debate is whether the "impact" was the "reason" the dinosaurs became extinct or the "final nail in the coffin" of an on going process that included weather change, massive volcanic activity, disease or possibly a combination of all three.

What I don't like about the right questioning science is their motivation.

Science questions itself all the time. That's the nature of science. The goal post is forever being moved as new evidence is discovered, knowledge and understanding obtained and new interpretation of existing date being discussed. But the motivation of the right isn't any of these things. For the right, it's all about "discredit".

The right points to scientists who may have different views of the same data as proof the data is a "lie".

Whether it's "evolution, global warming, or whatever". In the "simple" world of the right wing, if the answer isn't "simple" or if it's "debated", then that means evolution is a lie and global warming is fake. And that's what it's all about. We have a name for those that prefer "simple".
It's "Simpleton".

OK, thanks for the help...now I can address you correctly: Simpleton.

I don't mind explaining it ...again...since a Conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a Liberal understand.

You see, deanie-weanie..oops, I mean simpleton, the OP is not about science, but rather about the insidious nature of our liberals friends.

Disguised as scientists, and, of couse, this is the part that confused you, they are actually progressive/modern liberals, or- as Judge Bork refers to them, ,radical egalitarians,, who need to make sure that political agenda is supported fully by everyone they come in contact with ...sorry to end the sentence with a prepostion.

The libs have been anti-war, pacificists, since their great disappointment with President Woodrow Wilson. Their politicization of every issue overrides any interest in science, truth or interpersonal relations.

Now here is the key that will allow your mini-brain to unlock the essence of this thread: If one is opposed to any aspect- any - of the liberals' propaganda, then they must be manipulated, intimidated, and/or attacked:

1."...the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

2. "...dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers ..."

3. "...even privately branded as militarists..."

4. "...anyone who questions ..."

5. "...the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter''...the movement for nuclear disarmament..."

6. "... debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political..."

And this article is from the NYTimes!!!!

Why, I can practically hear you slapping your forehead, and saying "Oh...Now I get it...."

So you see, my dense little teddy bear, the naughty liberals are always imposing outlooks and ways of thinking on unsuspecting individuals.
Now, stop being an unsuspecting individual.


Now, for any readers who are a couple of notches above deanie....er, the simpleton,
here, ideas from Melanie Philips, "The World Turned Upside Down:"

"[There are] extraordinary similarities between the attempt by the Western intelligentsia to impose secular ideologies such as materialism, environmentalism or scientism and the attempt to impose Islam on the free world. Not only do these ideologies display zero tolerance for dissent, but in enforcing what amounts to a secular Inquisition the Western world displays a modernized version of medieval millenarian and apocalyptic movements- replicated also in the present-day Islamic jihad- which not only repudiated reason in the name of religion but led to tyranny, oppression, persecution and war."

I think, friends, that the OP exposes another example of said "zero tolerance for dissent" and "a secular Inquisition the Western world displays a modernized version of medieval millenarian and apocalyptic movements..."

WOW PC, your liberal paranoia has become psychosis. When you crawl out from under your bed to sneak to the grocery store for bread and milk, can you spot these evil 'liberals' in the scurrying crowds?

Your OP describes human foible. It is not exclusive to any political persuasion, it is a shared trait of ALL humans. But I am glad you admit that ALL intelligent humans in the field of science are liberals.

Is it possible some scientists that do dismiss the 'meteorite theory' ALSO dismiss that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war? If that view were forwarded, it SHOULD be ostracized.

When were you going to mention that 800 lb. gorilla in the 'climate' debate room? That climate 'deniers' are a contrived group that was actually created by industries, corporations, mining cartels and major polluters that have a HUGE monetary stake in delaying any restrictions of their raping of our planet? If they are willing to spend billions of dollars to create the echo chamber, how much money is really at stake?

So PC, here is my prescription to treat your psychosis. Go buy a carton of cigarettes and smoke your little ass off, because the SAME scientists you trust on climate change said there is no link between smoking and cancer.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

 

[JakeStarkey]

The breadth of your scientific knowledge is staggering. You are an expert on climatology, alternative energy, and now you show your expertise in paleontology.

By the way, it is entirely possible that the scientific consensus is wrong. It wasn't that long ago that the scientific consensus was that we were headed for a man caused Ice Age.

Never happened, Quantum.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

I don't have to read an essay that tries to revise history.

The major concern of the early 1970s was that air pollution that was heavy in particulates could lead to global cooling.

10 Dec 1976 Science magazine warned of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation as a result of the projected cooling.

Feb 1973 Science Digest reported that the consensus of climatologists was that we needed to prepare for an ice age.

I could go on citing articles from the time period that prove that the consensus back then was that we were headed for a period of cooling, and I am sure you can find more idiots that are willing to deny the facts and rewrite history. Since I can point to actual peer reviewed articles that existed in the 1970s, and actually are still available to anyone who wants to look them up, and all you can point to is a blog that ignores those papers and that consensus.

BTW, the reason that they were wrong then is not that CO2 is a better greenhouse gas than was thought back then, it is that we tackled the problem of particulate based air pollution and won.

QWB, we all learned a long time ago to not accept your opinions as based in fact. The opposite was true from the 1970s, not that we were headed for cooling but for heating of the atmosphere.

You not only politicize science, you lie about it.

 

[IanC]

So PC, here is my prescription to treat your psychosis. Go buy a carton of cigarettes and smoke your little ass off, because the SAME scientists you trust on climate change said there is no link between smoking and cancer.

really? the same scientists are working on both global warming AND smoking? I did not know that.

not that I am supporting smoking but the surgeon general did fudge the truth a bit back in the seventies when he said smokers that quit would improve their longevity even though the studies did not support that conclusion. politically correct expediency to change people's behaviour for the better is still a version of 'the ends justify the means'.

speaking of which, why were we bombarded in the nineties and naughties with the dire warnings that everybody was at great risk to get HIV/AIDS when in fact only high risk groups had any meaningful chance of contracting the virus? more PC prevaricating for our 'own good'.

 

[editec]

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”

Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?

So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?

Sort of like not getting grants?

And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?

Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - New York Times

Yes, in every human endeavor (including academics) those who stray too far from the current dogma are apt to suffer for thinking independently

What that has to do with political liberalism or conservatism, I surely don't know.

 

[Bfgrn]

So PC, here is my prescription to treat your psychosis. Go buy a carton of cigarettes and smoke your little ass off, because the SAME scientists you trust on climate change said there is no link between smoking and cancer.

really? the same scientists are working on both global warming AND smoking? I did not know that.

not that I am supporting smoking but the surgeon general did fudge the truth a bit back in the seventies when he said smokers that quit would improve their longevity even though the studies did not support that conclusion. politically correct expediency to change people's behaviour for the better is still a version of 'the ends justify the means'.

speaking of which, why were we bombarded in the nineties and naughties with the dire warnings that everybody was at great risk to get HIV/AIDS when in fact only high risk groups had any meaningful chance of contracting the virus? more PC prevaricating for our 'own good'.

‘Climate Cover-up’

There is a growing band of contrarian voices, many of whom are very media savvy, and who are increasingly getting an airing. But Hoggan’s book starts by taking a closer look at the phenomenon of ‘Manufactured Doubt’. It started with the tobacco industry, and the tactics it used to prevent legislation to ban smoking. For many years after the science that proved the link between smoking and cancer, tobacco industry-funded PR companies sowed doubt about the science, questioning its rigour and lobbying Governments. It worked, for many years. The same thing was seen with ozone depletion, and now with climate change.

A range of high profile contrarians appear regularly now in the media, sowing doubt about the science, picking up on small errors like the recent IPCC glacier mistake, or the emails leaked from University of East Anglia, and arguing that that means that the entire science of climate change is wrong. The reality, according to Hoggan, is very different. Although the media is full of stories questioning climate science, the body of scientific knowledge arguing that human activity is affecting climate is vast. In 2005, Naomi Oreskes published a paper in Science which searches the database of peer reviewed science on climate change published between 1993 and 2003. She found 928 articles, none of which challenged the consensus that human activity was changing the climate. At the same time, another study by Jules and Max Boykoff looked at the coverage in the four main US papers at that time, finding that 53% of stories also quoted a contrarian ’spokesperson’ in order to maintain ‘balance’. In other words the media were presenting ‘the other side’, in spite of the unanimous scientific opinion that there was no legitimate ‘other side’.

The book offers a blistering exposee of shadowy think tanks, pretend grassroots organisations, lobbyists and charismatic speakers, who dedicate their time to manufacturing doubt about climate change. The funding links between these individuals and groups and the fossil fuel or other energy intensive corporations who fund them are laid out clearly. This includes the Western Fuels Association, whose film ‘The Greening of Planet Earth’, which argued that increases in CO2 are actually good for the earth (“Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life”) has to be seen to be believed, and also Dr. Timothy Ball.

Hoggan describes Ball thus, “there are few ’skeptical scientists’ with as little actual experience and as much ambition as the Canadian geography professor Dr. Timothy Ball. Never a climate scientist per se, Dr Ball quit his position as an associate professor at the University of Winnipeg in 1995, apparently ending an academic career that featured a lifetime output of just four peer-reviewed journal articles, none of which addressed atmospheric science”. Yet after 10 years, Ball was a highly visible contrarian, even testifying before a committee of the Canadian parliament, coming out with gems like “Environment Canada [the Canadian national weather service] can’t even predict the weather! How can you tell me that they have any idea what it’s going to be like 100 years from now if they can’t tell me what the weather is going to be like in four months, or even next week?” (an absurd argument I still read every week in the letters column of our local paper).

‘Climate Cover-up’ explores the range of contrarian spokespeople and where they come from ideologically. They almost all rarely have the background or qualifications to speak authoritatively on the subject, but some come from a deeply libertarian political perspective, usually from the political Right, such as ‘Lord’ Monckton, who told the Glen Beck Program on Fox News that he was seeking to “fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense”, some just do it because the funding is very attractive, some, and such as Taylor, take an almost Messianic David Icke-style ‘everything you know is wrong and the Truth will set you free’ type approach. They all believe the entire science is questionable to the extent that we should scrap it and start again. On top of this one can also add George Monbiot’s observations that they are mostly men of above a certain age who use climate denial as a tool for avoiding their own mortality (very interesting, worth a read).

The reality though is very different. Of course there is doubt about climate science, that’s how science works… science is built on, and thrives on doubt. As Hoggan puts it, in probably the most important paragraph in the book;

“Who says climate science is a scientific certainty? No one really. Certainties are rare in science. Even the reappearance of the sun over the horizon tomorrow morning can be reduced to a question of probability. On the question of climate change, scientists say they are more than 90% sure that it’s happening and that humans are responsible. Scientists embrace that kind of skepticism. It is through doubting the certainties of the world (the flatness of the Earth, the usefulness of bloodletting) that scientists advance human knowledge. But no serious scientist will stand up and denounce a widely held scientific theory without making a verifiable argument to the contrary. Scientists – real scientists – bind themselves to a strict discipline, setting out their theories and experiments carefully, subjecting them to review by other credible scholars who are knowledgeable in their field, and publishing them in reputable journals, such as Science and Nature. The people who approach the science of climate change with that kind of integrity have agreed on its underlying components for years”.

Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.

Leveraging four years of original research conducted through Hoggan’s website, DeSmogBlog.com, Hoggan and Littlemore documented the participation of lapsed scientists and ExxonMobil-funded think tanks. Then they analyzed and explained how mainstream media stood by — or in some cases colluded — while deniers turned a clear issue of science (and an issue for public safety) into a partisan argument that no one could win.

This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up.

 

[IanC]

Bfgrn-- I am not denying that human activity has had an impact on CO2 levels and the climate. I am skeptical of the importance of it. The earth has been much warmer and much cooler, had more CO2 and less. Much like the human body has homeostasis, so does the earth. The advocates for global warming have done themselves a disservice having dopes like Al Gore preaching incorrect data and acting like chicken little. There is a lot of bad science and overstating of the case for AGW. It pisses me off when I am lied to for no reason. And it pisses me off that so many people are taken in by shoddy work and a glib speech. Again, I am not denying that the climate is changing, just the importance of our part in it, and perhaps more importantly, our ability to do anything about it.

 

[midcan5]

As you are unaware or unable to comprehend the damage done to freedom and liberty by the radical egalitarianism of folks like your self, I must tell you that you appear somewhat silly and possibly invidious, in attempting to dissuade me from revealing real and dangerous trends by the use of some sort of personal insult.

I am somewhere between you, and tough.

I take no satisfaction, as in 'I told you so," each time a new element of the Liberal sharia is imposed on a formerly free society,...you can't say this, or you can no longer do that, or eat or drink that...

the kids can't play dodgeball, or buy candy cigarettes, ...

Weird but I recently saw candy cigarettes, it may have been in a dollar store? But that is not the relevant point here. It is hardly a left wing conspiracy to stop children from dodge ball - it is the American parents of today and their fear of life, a fear you demonstrate frequently in your distorted argument that the left is out to do some bad thing. But you fail completely to see that? Somehow you overlook your own paranoia as you point out examples of paranoia and then assume the cause is some left wing conspiracy. I think like most conservative types you narrow mindedly pick and choose issues and must primarily lead a sheltered life both socially and intellectually. If you led a real world life you soon see nuttiness crosses over all spectrum of people, and the majority of people left or right have other things to do then see plans that don't exist.

raising reliant kids

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn-- I am not denying that human activity has had an impact on CO2 levels and the climate. I am skeptical of the importance of it. The earth has been much warmer and much cooler, had more CO2 and less. Much like the human body has homeostasis, so does the earth. The advocates for global warming have done themselves a disservice having dopes like Al Gore preaching incorrect data and acting like chicken little. There is a lot of bad science and overstating of the case for AGW. It pisses me off when I am lied to for no reason. And it pisses me off that so many people are taken in by shoddy work and a glib speech. Again, I am not denying that the climate is changing, just the importance of our part in it, and perhaps more importantly, our ability to do anything about it.

I think you need to apply the same skepticism and scrutiny to the deniers.

They made their motives very clear in 1988...and it is NOT based on science or an honest attempt to ascertain the truth about climate change; it is a PR propaganda campaign and a war room plan...

--------------------------------------

The material below contains a memo by the API (America Petroleum Institute) from April 1998.

Global Climate Science Communications

Action Plan

Project Goal

A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.

Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the plan is implemented,

Victory Will Be Achieved When

* Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

* Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

* Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

* Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

* Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

* Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

* Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

* Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

* Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

* Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.



National Media Program Budget -- $600,000 plus paid advertising

Global warming: The campaign by the American Petroleum Institute

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[code1211]

As one of those American Workers that you deem to be of no worth, I ask you Code, did you not notice that there have been natural variations in the climate for the last 180 years that we have kept records. And that the variations in the last 50 years have been no differant, except they are on a line that shows an accelerating increase in temperature. In fact, 2008, a year of a strong La Nina and the least sunspots seen in nearly 100 years, came in as the eighth or tenth warmest on record.

By what you say, should 2008 not have come in as the eighth or tenth coolest year on record? Why did it not? Can you answer that?

Here are several graphs by differant scientists. Scientists not political partisans denying reality like you.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

To the first mis-statement, can you please produce a quote from me saying that workers are of no worth?

To the second point, all temperatures from the instrument record were adjusted downward if they were recorded prior to about 1970 and all temperatures recorded following that date were adjusted upward.

The increase in temperature has been better predicted by simply looking at what the increase has been in the past then applying this ot the future. In 1988, when Hansen went through his scenarios, all of his predictions were wrong.

At that point in time, if he had simply figured the increase based on the recent past then simply applied the past increase, he would have hit much more accurately. Instead he theorized that CO2 wold increase and the increase would cause acceleration of the temperature increase.

It did not.

There are forces increasing the climate's temperature and apparently the concetration of CO2 has very little to do with it. If it did, Hansen's predictions would have been correct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Never happened, Quantum.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

I don't have to read an essay that tries to revise history.

The major concern of the early 1970s was that air pollution that was heavy in particulates could lead to global cooling.

10 Dec 1976 Science magazine warned of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation as a result of the projected cooling.

Feb 1973 Science Digest reported that the consensus of climatologists was that we needed to prepare for an ice age.

I could go on citing articles from the time period that prove that the consensus back then was that we were headed for a period of cooling, and I am sure you can find more idiots that are willing to deny the facts and rewrite history. Since I can point to actual peer reviewed articles that existed in the 1970s, and actually are still available to anyone who wants to look them up, and all you can point to is a blog that ignores those papers and that consensus.

BTW, the reason that they were wrong then is not that CO2 is a better greenhouse gas than was thought back then, it is that we tackled the problem of particulate based air pollution and won.

QWB, we all learned a long time ago to not accept your opinions as based in fact. The opposite was true from the 1970s, not that we were headed for cooling but for heating of the atmosphere.

You not only politicize science, you lie about it.

Funny, when I was living through the 70s everyone thought differently, I wonder why everyone feels the need to rewrite history. It is pretty easy to go back and pick and choose articles that make your point, and such the guy you site admits to essentially doing that, why should I trust what he says over my memory of what I read?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to read an essay that tries to revise history.

The major concern of the early 1970s was that air pollution that was heavy in particulates could lead to global cooling.

10 Dec 1976 Science magazine warned of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation as a result of the projected cooling.

Feb 1973 Science Digest reported that the consensus of climatologists was that we needed to prepare for an ice age.

I could go on citing articles from the time period that prove that the consensus back then was that we were headed for a period of cooling, and I am sure you can find more idiots that are willing to deny the facts and rewrite history. Since I can point to actual peer reviewed articles that existed in the 1970s, and actually are still available to anyone who wants to look them up, and all you can point to is a blog that ignores those papers and that consensus.

BTW, the reason that they were wrong then is not that CO2 is a better greenhouse gas than was thought back then, it is that we tackled the problem of particulate based air pollution and won.

QWB, we all learned a long time ago to not accept your opinions as based in fact. The opposite was true from the 1970s, not that we were headed for cooling but for heating of the atmosphere.

You not only politicize science, you lie about it.

Funny, when I was living through the 70s everyone thought differently, I wonder why everyone feels the need to rewrite history. It is pretty easy to go back and pick and choose articles that make your point, and such the guy you site admits to essentially doing that, why should I trust what he says over my memory of what I read?

You made an assertion you can't support. Why? Because it is not true. Why? Because you attempt to revise history to support a political position today. Why? Because you are about power, not good government based on good science.

 

[Old Rocks]

As one of those American Workers that you deem to be of no worth, I ask you Code, did you not notice that there have been natural variations in the climate for the last 180 years that we have kept records. And that the variations in the last 50 years have been no differant, except they are on a line that shows an accelerating increase in temperature. In fact, 2008, a year of a strong La Nina and the least sunspots seen in nearly 100 years, came in as the eighth or tenth warmest on record.

By what you say, should 2008 not have come in as the eighth or tenth coolest year on record? Why did it not? Can you answer that?

Here are several graphs by differant scientists. Scientists not political partisans denying reality like you.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

To the first mis-statement, can you please produce a quote from me saying that workers are of no worth?

To the second point, all temperatures from the instrument record were adjusted downward if they were recorded prior to about 1970 and all temperatures recorded following that date were adjusted upward.

The increase in temperature has been better predicted by simply looking at what the increase has been in the past then applying this ot the future. In 1988, when Hansen went through his scenarios, all of his predictions were wrong.

At that point in time, if he had simply figured the increase based on the recent past then simply applied the past increase, he would have hit much more accurately. Instead he theorized that CO2 wold increase and the increase would cause acceleration of the temperature increase.

It did not.

There are forces increasing the climate's temperature and apparently the concetration of CO2 has very little to do with it. If it did, Hansen's predictions would have been correct.

You stated that workering men or women create no wealth. He who creates no wealth, has no value. And that has been the attitude in all your posts concerning the working American. You can deny it, but it is clearly there for all to see.

What you state concerning the predictions by Dr. Hansen is simply a lie.

Logical Science

Urban myth: Hansen's 1988 global warming prediction was wrong | Voices.IdahoStatesman.com

One of the great myths of climate science is that James Hansen, the NASA climatologist who has been one of the main voices warning of global warming, made a prediction before Congress in 1988 and it was 300 percent off. The late novelist Michael Crichton even used it in his book State of Fear.

The only problem is it was wrong. Hansen presented three scenarios to Congress and his second was dead on. Colby Beck tells the real story in Grist. How do others judge it? Here’s another look.



Read more: Urban myth: Hansen's 1988 global warming prediction was wrong | Voices.IdahoStatesman.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Real data on the acceleration of warming.

NASA - Climate Change Resource Reel

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB, we all learned a long time ago to not accept your opinions as based in fact. The opposite was true from the 1970s, not that we were headed for cooling but for heating of the atmosphere.

You not only politicize science, you lie about it.

Funny, when I was living through the 70s everyone thought differently, I wonder why everyone feels the need to rewrite history. It is pretty easy to go back and pick and choose articles that make your point, and such the guy you site admits to essentially doing that, why should I trust what he says over my memory of what I read?

You made an assertion you can't support. Why? Because it is not true. Why? Because you attempt to revise history to support a political position today. Why? Because you are about power, not good government based on good science.

An assertion I cannot support? I provided the citations for peer reviewed articles from the 1970s that claim that the scientific consensus at that time believed that the Earth was cooling. What assertion is it that I cannot support? Believe me, I can support my memory, I just cannot give exact quotes without putting some effort into it.

 

[IanC]

Bfgrn- ahhh, now I see where you are coming from. You see it as a competition between authorities. But you don't see where I am coming from, I don't believe the AWG argument. Its not that I believe the sceptics, its that I am unconvinced by the pro side. Typically I make up my mind on the soundness of the ideas presented. Ideas stand by themselves, it does not matter who says them. Unfortunately there are many people who decide who they want to believe, and then are uncritical of what is said.

 

[IanC]

Funny, when I was living through the 70s everyone thought differently, I wonder why everyone feels the need to rewrite history. It is pretty easy to go back and pick and choose articles that make your point, and such the guy you site admits to essentially doing that, why should I trust what he says over my memory of what I read?

You made an assertion you can't support. Why? Because it is not true. Why? Because you attempt to revise history to support a political position today. Why? Because you are about power, not good government based on good science.

An assertion I cannot support? I provided the citations for peer reviewed articles from the 1970s that claim that the scientific consensus at that time believed that the Earth was cooling. What assertion is it that I cannot support? Believe me, I can support my memory, I just cannot give exact quotes without putting some effort into it.

I have to support QWB here. I distinctly remember global cooling as the meme.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn- ahhh, now I see where you are coming from. You see it as a competition between authorities. But you don't see where I am coming from, I don't believe the AWG argument. Its not that I believe the sceptics, its that I am unconvinced by the pro side. Typically I make up my mind on the soundness of the ideas presented. Ideas stand by themselves, it does not matter who says them. Unfortunately there are many people who decide who they want to believe, and then are uncritical of what is said.

What information and frame of reference do you base your assessment on? Are you a climatologist? Is it how you feel?

 

[code1211]

[You stated that workering men or women create no wealth. He who creates no wealth, has no value. And that has been the attitude in all your posts concerning the working American. You can deny it, but it is clearly there for all to see.

]

If you will re-read my response to what you said, you will find that you are wrong and, I suspect, are intentionally misinterpreting what I said.

You expanded on this by saying something that i have never said: Quoting YOU here now: "He who creates no wealth, has no value." That is simply absurd.

You said that the working man created the plenty that we enjoy in the USA. I said that a combination of the system, the leaders and the risk takers gave an avenue for the working man in the USA to excel. I further said that the working man in the USA and the working man in other areas of the world are probably very similar.

The great industrial leaders of the USA and the West who had a vision and a plan utilized those around them within the system and together they created wealth.

However, the regulated Capitalism of the USA combined with the genius of the Fords, Rockerfellers, Firestones, Edisons and Westinghouses are what allowed the working man of the USA to work.

I ask you to prove otherwise. Careful here. A Liberal such as yourself may run into a problem claiming that the working man of the USA, a primarily white, Anglo Saxon "average man", is superior to the Browner complected men around the world who live in societies that created less wealth. That is, all of the others.

Mis-stating my position and proving it wrong are two different things.