Global Warming alarmists doctored 97% consensus claim

[exiledNms]

Does anyone else of my elderly vintage recall being hearing back in the mid 70s that the "science was settled" & that we were facing a coming ice age? We had to read some stuff about this in HS.

 

[Bamaro]

Does anyone else of my elderly vintage recall being hearing back in the mid 70s that the "science was settled" & that we were facing a coming ice age? We had to read some stuff about this in HS.

No, back then no one said it was settled although some believed we could be heading towards a cooling period. Thats only being claimed now to cast doubt about what we know today. Science advances over 40 years. We had 3 or 4 TV channels coming through an antenna back then too.

 

[exiledNms]

No, back then no one said it was settled although some believed we could be heading towards a cooling period. Thats only being claimed now to cast doubt about what we know today. Science advances over 40 years. We had 3 or 4 TV channels coming through an antenna back then too.

I have no dog in the climate change science debate/argument. I like to read both the "fer it" and the "agin' it" folks--including links you've posted here in the past--as I think that makes for better information. And despite what you posted, I actually did read stuff in HS days that said the science showed that we were headed for a cooling. So, one of us is in error about what was read in my HS science classes; based on what I learned about logic & reasoning & such, I'll lean toward the one who was, you know, actually IN my HS science classes reading the stuff when deciding what was said & read back then. Note carefully, Bamaro, I didn't say they were right, scientifically credible, wrong, or clueless. Neither did I say I agreed or disagreed with them. I just noted that I remember reading that stuff.

I'd respond with an insult as you did, but that seriously weakens one's argument, and I'm not arguing a side of climate change science in the first place.

 

[skrayper77]

Science is not fixed. Science is ever evolving as our knowledge grows; therefore it is dynamic, not static, and as we understand more it can change. Something are pretty set in stone, but the weather is one of those things that has millions of variables and therefore harder to pin down than, say, quantum mechanics.

The biggest issue, honestly, originated with the pay-for-news cycle, when news broadcasts began selling advertising. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, attracts viewers to the news than BAD news. End of the world, end of the economy, looming war... that stuff sells. Some scientist releases a paper on the possibility of there might be a temperature change in the future, potential causes, and possible ramifications.

News article?

"Scientist claims Earth doomed to melt like ice cream cone!"

 

[Bama4Ever831]

This isn't a scientific issue anymore. It is only political. Science is impartial. This is not.

 

[BamaFlum]

This isn't a scientific issue anymore. It is only political. Science is impartial. This is not.

As long as fallible humans interpret the results in science, "science" is not impartial.

 

[swoop10]

This isn't a scientific issue anymore. It is only political. Science is impartial. This is not.

Science isn't impartial when they recieve most of their money from the government and that is why most of us are non-believers in the man made global warming debate. All of the GW alarmist want to say oil money is paying scientist on the non-GW side but totally ignore the fact that the pro-GW side gets almost all of their money from the government.

 

[Bamaro]

I have no dog in the climate change science debate/argument. I like to read both the "fer it" and the "agin' it" folks--including links you've posted here in the past--as I think that makes for better information. And despite what you posted, I actually did read stuff in HS days that said the science showed that we were headed for a cooling. So, one of us is in error about what was read in my HS science classes; based on what I learned about logic & reasoning & such, I'll lean toward the one who was, you know, actually IN my HS science classes reading the stuff when deciding what was said & read back then. Note carefully, Bamaro, I didn't say they were right, scientifically credible, wrong, or clueless. Neither did I say I agreed or disagreed with them. I just noted that I remember reading that stuff.

I'd respond with an insult as you did, but that seriously weakens one's argument, and I'm not arguing a side of climate change science in the first place.

I did not mean to say that some weren't predicting cooling back then, they were. My only issue was with your term "science was settled", it wasn't.
I'm not sure what you feel I said was an insult. :conf2: That was not my attempt.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

As long as fallible humans interpret the results in science, "science" is not impartial.

If you want me to put the qualifier "supposed to be," I'd be willing, but you have to realize this issue is totally different from most other scientific questions. You have two completely biased, partisan sides arguing... The data hasn't changed just the flow of money and thus the media lens.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I find it hard to believe that science will have no more advancements/discoveries on this subject.

I find it harder to believe that giving more money to the government - which is the end game in all this - will do anything worth while.

 

[bamachile]

I don't know if it's getting hotter or not, but since we did away with R-12 it sure feels hotter.

 

[exiledNms]

I did not mean to say that some weren't predicting cooling back then, they were. My only issue was with your term "science was settled", it wasn't.
I'm not sure what you feel I said was an insult. :conf2: That was not my attempt.

"Science was settled" was not my term; it was the thrust of the stuff we had to read back then.

You said, "Science advances over 40 years. We had 3 or 4 TV channels coming through an antenna back then too. " Hard to read that without seeing contempt aimed my way.

But I'll end my thread semi-hijack here. Bodhi's & Bama4Ever831's recent two posts are much more substantive & worth reading than this.

 

[Bamaro]

"Science was settled" was not my term; it was the thrust of the stuff we had to read back then.

You said, "Science advances over 40 years. We had 3 or 4 TV channels coming through an antenna back then too. " Hard to read that without seeing contempt aimed my way.

But I'll end my thread semi-hijack here. Bodhi's & Bama4Ever831's recent two posts are much more substantive & worth reading than this.

Sorry you took it as a personal jab. I was simply pointing out by example how much things can change over 40 years. The bottom line is climate science is much better understood today than 40 years ago although there is still much to discover.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Sorry you took it as a personal jab. I was simply pointing out by example how much things can change over 40 years. The bottom line is climate science is much better understood today than 40 years ago although there is still much to discover.

Do we know enough for government to force the hand of commerce with billion dollar "green" initiatives (which are packed full of fees and taxes)?

 

[Bamaro]

Do we know enough for government to force the hand of commerce with billion dollar "green" initiatives (which are packed full of fees and taxes)?

We know enough that a significant portion of warming is caused by the massive amounts of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere. Rectifying this problem is not easy or cheap. Results from all this CO2 will also be very costly. Unfortunately we understand the problem much better than the solution.

 

[RollinTider1335]

I'm not a climatologist and I'm relatively agnostic on global warming. However, it doesn't pass (and never has) the "sniff" test.

They start with temperature. Every single time we have hotter than normal weather, they will say "See, we set a record high." But the moment a record low is set they will insult you by saying that you don't understand the difference between climate & temperature - give them a few seconds and they'll be saying that cold is caused by (wait for it) global warming. So they continually move the goal posts. I think it no accident that this thing cranked up in NASA in 1988. What happened that would have caused that? Well remember, we started throwing money at NASA seconds after Challenger exploded. In 1988, Discovery was going up and after that - cuts in funding. How do you avoid that? Create a crisis that demands money and NOW!!!!

I've seen too many crises that demanded billions and never happened. Remember when AIDS was going to kill us all? A few brave souls pointed out why - scientifically - the heterosexual AIDS wipeout was never going to happen. Michael Fumento - who btw DOES espouse climate change - wrote a column on how Magic Johnson was a fundraising bonanza for the AIDS alarmists. He pointed out WHY the AIDS epidemic was never going to happen. He was called a non-scientist, a homophobe, and all kinds of names. But 2000 has come & gone and we don't even flinch anymore at the mention of AIDS. But remember - they had the science to prove it.

Or you can go back to Paul Ehrlich. How much of the world was going to starve? How much of the US? Never happened. But remember - the science supported him.

Or the energy crisis of the 1970s. Or Alar in the apples. Or the dioxin. Or asbestos, another mostly manufactured crisis that has made a ton of lawyers rich. Or the ozone hole, which completely was abandoned for global warming.

Now with all I've said it sounds like I'm a hardened skeptic. I'm not. I know enough to know I don't know enough. But can I actually get an unbiased report from someone without an economic stake in the outcome? And that goes both ways btw.

Capitalism is good for a "free" market but NOT in government where they create the supply and demand.

I think there is a term for that.....

 

[Bamaro]

Science isn't impartial when they recieve most of their money from the government and that is why most of us are non-believers in the man made global warming debate. All of the GW alarmist want to say oil money is paying scientist on the non-GW side but totally ignore the fact that the pro-GW side gets almost all of their money from the government.

Government funding has resulted in the development of vaccines and other health advances. People readily take advantage of these discoveries with very little skeptisism. It is a hollow complaint implying that researchers for climate issues skew their results based on public funding. I agree that the source of funding, especially from the private sector should be somewhat suspect but there is very little correlation between climate research and some nefarious government agenda.

 

[Tide1986]

We know enough that a significant portion of warming is caused by the massive amounts of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere. Rectifying this problem is not easy or cheap. Results from all this CO2 will also be very costly. Unfortunately we understand the problem much better than the solution.

What problem exists today?

 

[Bamaro]

What problem exists today?

The ridiculous claims that there is no warming or, if there is, its all natural. Solutions cant be developed if problems aren't recognized.

 

[Tide1986]

The ridiculous claims that there is no warming or, if there is, its all natural. Solutions cant be developed if problems aren't recognized.

I'm not insinuating that warming has not occurred. I'm asking you to be more specific about the problem that you see existing today.