...not so with climate pseudoscience because it is political in nature...
Dude, everyone already agrees that deniers are entirely politically motivated cult liars. You don't need to tell anyone that. Every bit of real data contradicts their cult pseudoscience. That's why they have to steadfastly ignore all the real data, and instead dishonestly post only their select cherrypicks.
By the way, how much are you getting paid for your dishonest political shilling? Your masters are not getting their money's worth.
I am sure that you believe that there was no global cooling scare because you have been told that it is all just hype fabricated by modern warmers..
No, I know because I was there. You can't snow me with your lies. I know with 100% certainty that you're lying.
And you probably weren't old enough to have been there...or remember if you were, but there was serious talk of spreading soot on the polar ice caps in an attempt to cause melting...
"Serious talk" being "an offhand comment in a non-technical journal." That's typical of your "data". We have peer-reviewed sceintific papers that all predicted warming. You have anecdotes.
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Report 1974 (you think the CIA was in the business of sensationalizing?)
Well yes, the CIA is in that business. It's a report entirely based on the Wisconsin crank, Dr. Reid Bryson, who was a hardcore denier until his death. Only one scientist was regularly posting cooling predictions, and he was a denier. Deniers have been failing hard with their predictions for over 40 years now, which is why they have no credibility. In contrast, the good scientists have been getting it right since the 1970s, which is why they have such credibility.
According to Dr. Hubert Lamb–an outstanding British climatologist–22 out of 27 forecasting methods he examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century.
That's what Lamb said in 1971. By 1977, he had switched to warming. Dishonest of you to leave that out, which is what we expect from you.
From NASA
“Between 1880 and 1940 a net [global] warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C. … t has since been found that the rate of temperature increase decreases with increasing CO2 and increases with increasing particulates. Therefore, global particulate loading is of foremost concern. … [A]n increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age. In order that we safeguard ourselves and future generations from a self-imposed ice-age it is necessary that we effectively monitor global concentrations of particulate matter.
That was a paper talking about what a four-fold increase in particulates would do. Since we had a vast particulate decrease, it's dishonest of you to pretend it was a paper predicting cooling.
[T]he 1976 surface temperature equated the global record for the lowest temperature set in 1964; but even so the trend in global temperature since 1965 has been small compared to the 0.5°C decrease during 1960–65
Yes, that was a temperature decline period. Remember the increasing particulates?
Now it is interesting to note that if you look at modern records...that decrease has been altered beyond recognition....why?
I see you're trying to pass of a conspiracy kook lie in the midst of your lying-by-cherrypicking. Too bad you got called out on it.
The nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) have been moving northward in the Great Plains region from the late 1800s to the 1950s but now seem to be retreating from their lately acquired northern range. The armadillos have a nontypical homoiothermic blood system which makes them fairly vulnerable to cold climates.
Cool, the great armadillo conspiracy.
The cooling from about 1950 to 1974 is ~0.3°C (Brinkmann, 1976). Moran (1975) suggests that the recent drought of peninsular Florida is largely due to decreased frequencies of tropical storms, associated with the general atmospheric and oceanic cooling since about 1940 (Wahl and Bryson, 1975).
Again, nobody denies there was a cooling trend at that time. Makes it more impressive that most of the scientists correctly predicted warming.
Concern about climatic change and its effects on man has been increasing. Climatic changes affect the production of food and the allocation of energy resources. … Even with the temperature corrections included, Indiana June, July and August mean temperatures showed a decrease of approximately 3°F [-1.7°C] from 1930 to 1976.
Again, nobody claimed there wasn't a cooling trend at that time. The point is that it's been warming like crazy since the 1970s.
And I could go on for quite some time...
And I'd rip apart every dishonest claim you made, just as I ripped apart all the dishonest claims you made here. Yes, I'm very proud of the epic spanking I just delivered to your pervy Stalinist ass.
Literally hundreds of papers were published between the 1960's and the 1980's voiced concern over the possibility of global cooling.
And yet you can't find any of them, except the Bryson and early Lamb pieces.
I suppose you will believe what your political leanings tell you to believe, but if anyone is interested in seeing more papers from the period..just ask.
I'm asking. After all, I never get tired of humiliating cult liars like you, of making you scream for mama. I'd love to point out again how you deliberately misrepresent everything in your next post, so please give me that opportunity.
Go on. Cry at me now, loser. Go get Bear to cry at me with you. You know you want to, and it's not like you can best me in any argument. I'm going to be spanking you cult losers for the rest of your time here, laughing hard at your loser tears, and there's nothing you can do about it.
