Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And probably mess up a bunch of other stuff in trying to “fix” something that isn’t broken.
And what you should learn from history is to not believe the mainstream media’s misrepresentation of the underlying science. The view presented by Time in 1974 did not reflect scientific thinking at the time.
So how do you know that Time did not reflect scientific thinking at the time? So you are saying they deliberately distorted the facts in order to present a story to the public at large?
And now you are asking me to believe that the mainstream media’s presentation of “the underlying science” is unbiased, accurate and truthful?
Sorry dude. And I’m not at all picking a fight here but you can’t have it both ways. If the MM was untruthful/distorted back then I don’t see how you can ask me to cast that aside and believe them now. And if they were correct back then, I’m equally unsure of how you can ask me to believe there has been a trend from irreversible freezing to irreversible warming.
Please present me with a cogent summary of the underlying scientific views of 1974 showing why people who thought there was actually a warming trend could be reported by Time magazine as just the opposite. Then explain to me how if the MM screwed it up so bad back then, why I am supposed to believe what they say now about this or much else?
if you google the topic you’ll find many references to the Global Cooling Myth of the 1970’s - how it never had serious or significant scientic support
Sorry dude. And I’m not at all picking a fight here but you can’t have it both ways. If the MM was untruthful/distorted back then I don’t see how you can ask me to cast that aside and believe them now.
I don’t ask you to believe the mainstream media now. Trust more the scientists who understand the issues and the research. Consider the source of your information. The closer your source is to the data, the more likely the source is going to be true to the data.
But Ken, you have “scientists” and “researchers” whose entire careers are built off of one conclusion. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!
“entire careers are built off of one conclusion” . . . you don’t understand how science works
I would not call some of the crap that gets media’s attention as actual science… Same holds true for most of the crap that comes out of politically geared “think tanks”.
Its interesting how someone can argue endlessly that science doesn’t know what its talking about until it comes up with something supporting their desired worldview.
Anyway, yes, the c02 we have put into the atmosphere is causing changes that are irreversible and won’t totally dissapte for 1000s years
That does not further imply that continuing to pump c02 in the atmosphere will not make thing worse.
I refuse to read articles like this. This is like reading an article on the dow going to 4000 or that it was going to 20k when it was at 14k. People who run algorithmic models should have learned better to depend on the past to determine the future. They cannot predict the chance of randomness. Things like this move in Brownian motion…the environment is like the mathematical analysis of the price movement of a stock.
Look up Eugenics. It had mainstream scientific support also. Doesn’t make it right. The problem I have with GW is how they treat the opposition. There is no discussion, only name calling, and squashing any opposition. That is contrary to science. It is now happening again, just like it did with eugenics.
From Wikipedia:
From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Margaret Sanger, Winston Churchill, and Sidney Webb. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated Eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of “defectives” that had been pioneered in the United States.
Amazing, we have trouble accurately predicting weather a week away, yet we now know for sure that the world is ending in 1000 years.
I’m not really sure where I stand on this whole Global Warming thing, but I do know that, so far, every model they have come up with has had pretty major errors, and I assume the same with this one.