Where it's needed

[Old Rocks]

no, hamster wheels are far cheaper and are even more eco friendly, so are bicycles at spin classes in gyms who just waste all that energy instead of harnessing it and nuclear power is clean, cheap and made from nature...so there's that

aahhh the classics...I remember the ice age of the 70's due to all those things which of course all the "fools" whom never learned a thing from it are now doomed and condemned to repeating.

Damn, another ignorant fool. No, the scientists in the 70's were not predicting an immanent ice age.

"Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dumb-de-dumb dumb. Rust batteries do not burn. In the meantime we have natural gas explosions destroying homes and businesses. Many of the new and less expensive battery chemistries do not burn. Of course, if one is a dedicated Luddite, nothing new can be good. LOL

How many 50% losses until wind and solar are cheaper than natural gas?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."

which makes my case not yours.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Damn, another ignorant fool. No, the scientists in the 70's were not predicting an immanent ice age.

and someday down the road a new generation of rubes will be explaining how nobody but the "ignorant fools" believe this generation was predicting "an immanent" man made climate disaster.

"Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s.

what did exist exactly as it does today was the demand for funding to save the planet from impending doom.

The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists.

TRANSLATION: "they were not corrupted by politics as climate science is today"

Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

Just an attempt to explain away the last scam and put some distance between that canard and this one along these/those same lines...the 70's were all about the coming ice age [end of the 60's too] not just in the media but schools as well and anyone who was of school age was taught this/that, the ice age dominated current events in schools...someday this new 'climate change' too will/may need to be denied as ever occurring when a new demand for money to fix the weather arises...btw, what did the science of the seventies discover that netted the EPA both a permanent [but non binding/unofficial] cabinet position and something called a superfund where money flow, much like today, was the undeniable 'science' of the day, and without the coming ice age of the time money would be/is the only thing that faux climate disaster and this one have in common...once they got their "superfunding" financing through the ice age urgency disappeared like tax dollars at the hands of shysters...this one would do the same.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age,

you think it is popular now? back then it was the 'end all-be all' of scientific talk, rivaled the Apollo missions

 

[toobfreak]

Dumb-de-dumb dumb.

All laughs aside, I know what I'm talking about, you cannot generate DC electricity, store it in batteries of any kind, then invert it back to rectified AC w/o losing a lot of the energy you started with as each stage of energy conversion is not a lossless process! Each stage of the conversion and handling necessarily has a power dropped across it (unless maybe you are using super-cooled, super-conductive components making the process even costlier). So laugh all you want OR, but if you know anything at all, you know I'm right, it is all just basic electrical physics, and this just adds to the overall cost and complexity of "renewable" energy.

 

[EMH]

Damn, another ignorant fool. No, the scientists in the 70's were not predicting an immanent ice age.

"Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

YES there was a Global Cooling scam in the 1970s.

It had a primary talking point, the growth of the Greenland Ice Age.

Once again we see CO2 FRAUD lying its ass off about what it was actually claiming in the past...

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

THE QUESTION IS: "What do you get when you cross Karl Marx with Star Trek"

 

[Frankeneinstein]

More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth,

this is to move the topic away from looking at the "myth"/hoax so as not to have to explain it any further...

this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."

...^that^ is exactly what it/you are being accused of...'a 70's hoax being perpetrated today'

 

[EMH]

the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

will hopefully be outed soon as a prize awarded for fraud and fudging data.

Demise of CO2 FRAUD may be accelerated with Pam Bondi no longer protecting it.

 

[EMH]

THE QUESTION IS: "What do you get when you cross Karl Marx with Star Trek"

The "Mirror Mirror" episode?

 

[westwall]

LOL Even with storage, wind and solar are the least expensive form of electrical generation. Fools like you love to pay more for power from fossil fuels, all the while loving the pollution of the air you breathe and the water you drink. You really cannot fix stupid.

That's true, you're still spewing the same stupid BS after all these years!