Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
That's a pretty weak statement, there was no consensus about cooling? Nobody ever said there was the first claims of consensus on science in this regard were with warming. All that has been said is many of the same organizations that tout warming today touted cooling then, that is true. It wasn't nearly as widespread, but there was no internet at the time.
James Hansen himself was the first guy to come out very publicly and say the people talking cooling are wrong, we're warming.
There's some AGW guy who's had a reward offered on his site for years now if you can "prove" that the same people who touted cooling are now touting warming, he's been called on it so many times it's not funny, but he refuses to pay off the reward because he made the rules of the contest so incredibly specific that literally there are about 5 people in the world who would qualify as proof of someone who used to predict cooling and now predicts warming.
He cites the lack of payoff as proof it was a myth.
That's a pretty weak statement, there was no consensus about cooling? Nobody ever said there was the first claims of consensus on science in this regard were with warming. All that has been said is many of the same organizations that tout warming today touted cooling then, that is true. It wasn't nearly as widespread, but there was no internet at the time.
James Hansen himself was the first guy to come out very publicly and say the people talking cooling are wrong, we're warming.
There's some AGW guy who's had a reward offered on his site for years now if you can "prove" that the same people who touted cooling are now touting warming, he's been called on it so many times it's not funny, but he refuses to pay off the reward because he made the rules of the contest so incredibly specific that literally there are about 5 people in the world who would qualify as proof of someone who used to predict cooling and now predicts warming.
He cites the lack of payoff as proof it was a myth.
Thomas Peterson was the one who surveryed the peer-reviewed lit at the time and came up with a score of: Warming: 44 and Cooling: 7. I think he's the one you should tell about that website.
No math to quibble over on this one. The literature is there for anyone to look at. Hell, you could get your own boys to do an article survey. You could even do it yourself Russ.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
I once got a 7 -- out of 100 -- on an English exam but still scored an A for the semester because I average 99 on the 19 other exams and recorded assignments. Weather is even more exaggerated. A decade is nothing but a blip on the radar.
Let's continue being pragmatic -- pollution sucks regardless of its impact on global temperatures because it dirties our air and exposes us to toxins -- while stop being so freakin' polarized on human's impact on global climatology. If events like the many fires on the Cuyahoga River doesn't compel you to be interested in "going green," you're a bull-headed weenie who deserves to be goaded and mocked. OTOH, if you think burning down million dollar homes is environmental progress and you don't live in a mud shack in the middle of the wilderness, go jump in the Cuyahoga River you hypocrite.
Thomas Peterson was the one who surveryed the peer-reviewed lit at the time and came up with a score of: Warming: 44 and Cooling: 7. I think he's the one you should tell about that website.
No math to quibble over on this one. The literature is there for anyone to look at. Hell, you could get your own boys to do an article survey. You could even do it yourself Russ.
All I am saying is his "study" consisted of a very specific set of papers, apparently peer reviewed papers about climate change from what I can gather. His own numbers 51 papers in a near 10 year period proves that climate change wasn't nearly as popular back then, there's more papers than that a year today.
The article readily admits there were multiple national magazines touting the coming ice age, there's a very famous book called "the Cooling" that basically pushed that idea in the 70's, it was written by Lowell Ponte. Ponte today is a warming skeptic, he points to his own book as an example of what is going on today people taking a little bit of information and running wild with it .
But the Leftist press continues to quote bug and flower scientists about global warming - including doomsayers who three decades ago were predicting a fast-approaching, planet-freezing ice age. (I should know, being author of the 1976 Prentice-Hall bestselling climate book The Cooling.)
That's from the Amazon.com review of Ponte's book.
Were many prominent scientists touting a coming ice age in the 70's absolutely, was there a "consensus" absolutely not. That's why the guy made a point of using the word consensus in his study.
So Russ fro your own words it appears that there is a significant difference. In that back then there was no concensus on the issue, now there is.
It seems that science is doing what is supposed to, that is improve and move forward. I think AJ's point is that many deniers like yourself like to point to the 70's in an effort to mock current scientific thinking.
So Russ fro your own words it appears that there is a significant difference. In that back then there was no concensus on the issue, now there is.
It seems that science is doing what is supposed to, that is improve and move forward. I think AJ's point is that many deniers like yourself like to point to the 70's in an effort to mock current scientific thinking.
The point is there is a consensus now.
Boy talk about swinging for the fences. There was no consensus back then because science isn't about consensus, it never has been. Back then nobody felt it necessary to declare a consensus to prove they were right. Global warming is the first time in my lifetime that I can recall scientists actually thinking it's important to declarea a consensus about anything.
Back in the 70's when Hansen came out and said we're warming not cooling he was attacked by the people pushing the cooling argument. He's very up front about that, the difference is nobody was claiming consensus then they just claimed to be right, he claimed they were wrong. That's one of the ironies in his constant use of the word consensus now, if anybody is familiar with being in the minority it's him, and he was convinced he was right then but finds it unfathomable now that he might be wrong while in the majority.
Widely predicted and consensus are completely different.
I don't think you are correct Russ or at least you are playing with words.
Call it what you like but many scientific theories come to be supported by the vast bulk of the scientific community. Evolution and Quantum Mechanics come to mind easily.
I don't think you are correct Russ or at least you are playing with words.
Call it what you like but many scientific theories come to be supported by the vast bulk of the scientific community. Evolution and Quantum Mechanics come to mind easily.
But did people backing those theories go around touting a consensus?
It's quite common to hear expressions like common theory or popular theory in science but consensus is very unusual because science isn't a popularity contest it's supposed to be about being right.
Throughout history people in the minority on science theory have turned out to be right, that's why this whole consensus point now is so silly, even if you believe there's a consensus, it doesn't mean the consensus is right.
About a week ago a woman scientist who worked for years at NASA's GISS (the people responsible for most of the temperature data cited in Global Warming) retired.When she retired she came out with her first public comment on her stance, and she said she is NOT a believer in manmade global warming she thinks there's very little evidence that really supports the theory. She then said she had to suppress her personal beliefs for years while working at GISS because she knew if she made it public she'd be ostracized if not fired for daring to question the powers at be behind GISS(read James Hansen). She was supposed to be part of that all important consensus but it turns out she wasn't, she was just afraid to admit it while still employed.
I would say yes but I think you are harping on a word here as this report seems to blow holes in one of your fav ways to mock current climate science.
I'm harping on a word because it completely changes the context. The author of that paper very intentionally chose the word consensus, yet never once offered any evidence than any non believer has ever claimed there was a consensus of global cooling belief in the 70's. The standard comment is today its warming, in the 70's it was cooling, when will they make up their mind.
That's completely different from saying today it's consensus for warming, in the 70's cooling was the consensus, I've never seen anybody claim there was consensus for cooling in the 1970's, the real myth in the study is that anybody ever claimed that IMHO.
If he'd come out and said nobody was realling touting cooling and proved it, that would be significant. The headline implies that but in reality he tosses in the word consensus which completely changes the entire thing.
Seems to me you are saying that the bulk of the scientific community was not agreed on any particular conslusions realted to this subjects.
Further more even if they were it has just about nothing to do with today. Just because science thought the 'Ether' was a real in the 1800's did not make it so. Science moves on.
You are harping on about what they may or may not have thought about climate science 40 years ago. I think my comment is "Who the heck cares, what they thought 40 years ago"
If they were right or wrong has ZERO relevance to current science. Except of course to folks to want to create FUD. Science moves on Russ, all we get to deal with is what the current state of the art is. Sometimes that is accurate and gets refined, sometimes it is bogus and gets rewritten.
What they may or may not have thought 40 years ago is only relevant to you Russ, as as tool to cast doubt on current findings.
I once got a 7 -- out of 100 -- on an English exam but still scored an A for the semester because I average 99 on the 19 other exams and recorded assignments. Weather is even more exaggerated. A decade is nothing but a blip on the radar.
Let's continue being pragmatic -- pollution sucks regardless of its impact on global temperatures because it dirties our air and exposes us to toxins -- while stop being so freakin' polarized on human's impact on global climatology. If events like the many fires on the Cuyahoga River doesn't compel you to be interested in "going green," you're a bull-headed weenie who deserves to be goaded and mocked. OTOH, if you think burning down million dollar homes is environmental progress and you don't live in a mud shack in the middle of the wilderness, go jump in the Cuyahoga River you hypocrite.
Couldn't have said it better.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
That's completely different from saying today it's consensus for warming, in the 70's cooling was the consensus, I've never seen anybody claim there was consensus for cooling in the 1970's, the real myth in the study is that anybody ever claimed that IMHO.
Who cares about the word "consensus", unless you don't want to change your mind? Did he not find that cooling was a minority opinion? Can you not survey the journals yourself?
But, hey, at least you admit what he concluded. That consensus on cooling in the 70's is a myth. Ok, so you'll stop bringing that up to belittle current scientific findings on GW that you don't agree with, right?
You can still use "killer bees, aren't scientists dumb" if you want to though. No one has done a review of the literature on that, as far as I know.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
Seems to me you are saying that the bulk of the scientific community was not agreed on any particular conslusions realted to this subjects.
Further more even if they were it has just about nothing to do with today. Just because science thought the 'Ether' was a real in the 1800's did not make it so. Science moves on.
You are harping on about what they may or may not have thought about climate science 40 years ago. I think my comment is "Who the heck cares, what they thought 40 years ago"
If they were right or wrong has ZERO relevance to current science. Except of course to folks to want to create FUD. Science moves on Russ, all we get to deal with is what the current state of the art is. Sometimes that is accurate and gets refined, sometimes it is bogus and gets rewritten.
What they may or may not have thought 40 years ago is only relevant to you Russ, as as tool to cast doubt on current findings.
silly me I thought this thread was about whether or not global cooling was predicted in the 70's?
move on, maybe you should read the title to threads you respond in before responding?
Couldn't have said it better.
Linear Mode
