Cultureculturekekkekistanfrogpeperedpillayalolahwalkawayblexitschumershutdown

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 01:05 AM

Rush Busts Govt Climate Change Hoax Report Wide Open: Only The Brain Dead Buy This

Rush Busts Gov’t Climate Change ‘Hoax’ Report Wide Open: ‘Only The Brain Dead Buy This’

Leave it to Rush Limbaugh to bust open the truth on the new climate change report released by the government. The climate change hoax just keeps rearing its ugly head over and over and over. You know how it works. You’ll see politicians and the media flood the information highway with propaganda about global warming. That means there’s a new report and a push for Americans to buy into this hoax again.

The latest effort has been touted by the left as a Trump administration report that confirms we need immediate action on climate change.

Rush exposes the “scientist” in the report as an Obama crony leftover from the last administration. In reality, Rush and his team are doing the work that the mainstream media hasn’t or has chosen to hide from you.

62 replies, 457 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rush Busts Govt Climate Change Hoax Report Wide Open: Only The Brain Dead Buy This (Original post)
MumblyPeg Dec 2 OP
OneLoudVoice Dec 2 #1
Charlie Mike Dec 2 #2
OneLoudVoice Dec 2 #5
specs Dec 2 #10
Charlie Mike Dec 2 #11
Jack Burton Dec 4 #41
MumblyPeg Dec 2 #3
OneLoudVoice Dec 2 #4
MumblyPeg Dec 2 #6
OneLoudVoice Dec 2 #7
MumblyPeg Dec 2 #8
specs Dec 2 #9
It Guy Dec 2 #16
Trevor Dec 2 #19
It Guy Dec 2 #27
Bubba Dec 4 #34
Iron Condor Dec 2 #18
tikal Dec 2 #12
Cold Warrior Dec 2 #13
MumblyPeg Dec 2 #14
Cold Warrior Dec 2 #15
MumblyPeg Dec 2 #22
Cold Warrior Dec 2 #23
MumblyPeg Dec 2 #24
Cold Warrior Dec 2 #25
Trevor Dec 2 #20
oflguy Dec 3 #30
Trevor Dec 3 #32
oflguy Dec 4 #36
Trevor Dec 4 #45
oflguy Dec 4 #46
SatansSon666 Dec 4 #39
oflguy Dec 4 #44
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #48
oflguy Dec 5 #49
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #50
oflguy Dec 5 #51
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #52
oflguy Dec 5 #53
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #54
oflguy Dec 5 #55
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #56
oflguy Dec 5 #57
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #58
oflguy Dec 5 #59
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #60
oflguy Dec 5 #61
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #62
oflguy Dec 3 #29
Cold Warrior Dec 4 #33
oflguy Dec 4 #35
Iron Condor Dec 2 #17
Jack Burton Dec 2 #21
freedumb2003 Dec 2 #26
tikal Dec 3 #28
oflguy Dec 3 #31
freedumb2003 Dec 4 #38
SatansSon666 Dec 4 #40
oflguy Dec 4 #42
SatansSon666 Dec 5 #47
freedumb2003 Dec 4 #37
oflguy Dec 4 #43

Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 08:10 AM

1. Righty will buy ANYTHING

Fooling a Rush follower is apparently easier than stepping in dog poo inside a republicans poorly kept illegal dog breeding kennel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 08:39 AM

2. How many deadlines to save the Earth have come and gone?

There's no need to be scared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 08:54 AM

5. I feel for you

It must suck to know that every serious brain on the planet with any knowledge on the subject thinks you are a fool. And the knowledge that most of the rest of the planet are laughing at you must be salt rubbed in that wound. No wonder deniers are so bitter and scared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 09:07 AM

10. lol @ the zombie NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 09:42 AM

11. If they were serious brains they wouldn't be spewing out bullshit prognostications.

According to you, I'm being laughed at by people who have made numerous predictions of global doom only to see those predictions come and go without the promised doom.

OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 10:16 AM

41. Liberal dictionary definition

serious brain

NOUN
a left-wing extremist who self-identifies as a progressive, socialist, or communist who promotes the global warming hoax
synonyms:
doomertist · federal or NGO grant recipient · Democrat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 08:42 AM

3. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 08:52 AM

4. I'd hate to be in that head hearing that with you. But

I do appreciate your display of the racist traitor flag. Self identifying so that real Americans can avoid you is a very helpful trait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 08:57 AM

6. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 09:00 AM

7. I love when righty admits defeat

Yall have nothing to say, thus.. Witness your post. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 09:04 AM

8. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 09:06 AM

9. lol @ the NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 11:29 AM

16. Yeah right. I wasnt duped with the first go round, nor the second.

I’m sure as hell that you did. Mouth breathers fall for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 12:17 PM

19. Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 02:31 PM

27. Ooo... well ok, PLENTY OF OTHERS DID IN FACT PREDICT IT

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/


Menu

Real Science
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Advertisements
1970s Global Cooling Scare


NCAR  newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

National Academy Of Sciences  Science News



The Milwaukee Sentinel – Google News Archive Search





TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com

Every major climate organization endorsed  the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.



Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate



The Windsor Star – Google News Archive Search







International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – View Article – NYTimes.com

 

Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output  NYTimes.com



31 May 1975 

http://news.google.com/newspapers/



Lakeland Ledger – Google News Archive Search



16 May 1974 – LIFE STYLE TAKING POINT Disappearance revives lo…



 

Climatologists Forecast Stormy Economic Future – Climatologists Forecasting Dire Effects of Weather on World Economy and Social Order – View Article – NYTimes.com







The Bryan Times



The Spokesman-Review – Google News Archive Search



Problems From Climate Changes Foreseen in a 1974 C.I.A Report – View Article – NYTimes.com





http://select.nytimes.com





The Genesis Strategy – A chilling prospect – View Article – NYTimes.com



FORECAST FOR – FORECASTING – CLOUDY In the long term, climate is cooling off-or is it warming up? As for tomorrow’s weather, even the world’s biggest computer can’t sayfor sure what it will be. Forecasting ‘ A really accurate three-day weather forecast would result in savings of $86-million a year just for growersof wheat in the state of Wisconsin.’ – View Article – NYTimes.com





…That’s the News. And Now for San Juan’s Weather… – View Article – NYTimes.com



ICE AGES ATTRIBUTED TO EARTH ORBIT SHIFT – Scientists Find Periodic Changes in Path Around Sun ‘Positive Test’ of Climatic Theory – View Article – NYTimes.com





documents.theblackvault.com/documents/environment/potentialtrends.pdf







Middlesboro Daily News – Google News Archive Search



The Milwaukee Journal – Google News Archive Search





Science – Worrying About a New Ice Age – View Article – NYTimes.com



The Deseret News – Google News Archive Search

In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.

Chicago Tribune Mar 2, 1975



CIA Report 1974



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/



PQ Archiver – ChicagoTribune.com



Climatologists Forecast Stormy Economic Future – Climatologists Forecasting Dire Effects of Weather on World Economy and Social Order – View Article – NYTimes.com



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/



http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/





http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf



http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf







Lawrence Journal-World – Google News Archive Search



http://www.amazon.com/Cooling-Has-Next-Already-Begun/dp/013172312X

Monday, Jan. 31, 1977
WEATHER: The Big Freeze
Why had the rain turned white? Startled millionaires wintering in their baronial mansions in West Palm Beach, Fla., peered closer last week at the miracle that was falling from the skies and discovered—could it be?—yes, the substance was snow, the first ever reported there. Since mid-November, pedestrians in Dallas, unaccustomed to such hazards, have been slipping on sleet-slicked sidewalks. Meanwhile, a series of blizzards has smothered Buffalo this winter with an astonishing 126.6 in. of snow.

From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down…

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,918620,00.html





Science News







http://news.google.com/newspapers



Climate Change and its Effect on  World Food

by Walter Orr Roberts  Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, andNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations. Some scientists believe that this may have presaged the onset of the dramatic climate anomalies of 1972 that brought far-reaching adversities to the world’s peoples. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the bad climate of 1972 may be the forerunner of a long series of less favorable agricultural crop years that lie ahead for most world societies. Thus widespread food shortages threaten just at the same time that world populations are growing to new highs. Indeed, less favorable climate may be the new global norm. The Earth may have entered a new “little ice age”

There are strong signs that these recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signals of the emergence of a new normal for world climates.

If we are, indeed, experiencing a worsening  of world climates it is, perhaps, equal in  severity to any within the last millenium.  The arguments for this view were developed  by several of the climatologists who attended  an international workshop on climate and  its effects on human life convened in  May 1974 in Bonn, Germany.

At this meeting Profs. H. Flohn of Germany,  H.H. Lamb of the United Kingdom and  Reid Bryson of the United States developed  a highly persuasive demonstration that there  has been a steady cooling of northern  hemisphere temperatures during the last  30 years, with the strongest cooling at the  higher latitudes.

www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf



The Canberra Times   Thursday 16 May 1974

NEW YORK, Wednesday (AAP). — Weather satellites sweeping across the northern hemisphere have come up with a surprise: the permanent snow and ice  cap has increased sharply, Associated Press reported. The finding is cited as one more indication of what some climatologists believe to be a basic change in the world’s climate, a cooling



16 May 1974 – LIFE STYLE TAKING POINT Disappearance revives lo…



SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – – NYTimes.com



Mountain Mail – Google News Archive Search



22 Nov 1974 – SCIENCE DOCUMENTARY New ice age ‘could be in our…


Advertisements
Share this:
EmailPrintTwitterFacebook2K+Reddit

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.
Kyle Towers on June 12, 2013 at 12:03 am
Cooling was never even close to a majority position. It got some play in popular press, but the concensus for warming was already building. This is just one of MANY Big Lies that deniers will never cease telling, no matter how many times it is refuted.

Reply
stevengoddard on June 12, 2013 at 12:05 am
ROFLMAO

Here is the NAS temperature graph from 1975



Reply
Will Nitschke on June 12, 2013 at 12:17 am
Well he is correct in the sense there was no IPCC back then, nor huge financial conflicts of interest relating to electric cars, wind farms, solar panels, etc. So there wasn’t the same level of hysteria.

Reply
Dan Peterson on June 19, 2013 at 10:30 pm
There was also no archive of internets back then. Funny how anytime something like this is brought up is always us deniers repeating a “Big lie” as in unless it supports their side it’s a “Big lie”

William Connolley on December 5, 2013 at 7:53 am
You need to read the words, not just look at the pretty pictures.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

Reply
Kevin (@TheIkonoklast) on January 7, 2014 at 10:30 pm
Months after most of the comments have been left, in steals The Stoat to get the last word, with his usual condescending contempt.for contrary opinions. For those who don’t know, WC is a rather infamous and shameless climate-scare propagandist who led a group of ham-handed, would-be Winston Smiths at Wikipedia until the controversy got too hot for Jimmy Wales to ignore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-18/Arbitration_report

More on RealClimate.org co-founder, WC:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all-pages
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2009/12/19/leftist-green-party-member-exposed-using-wikipedia-preach-enviro-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/for_agw_religionists_when_in_d.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-william-connelley-purged-from-wikipedia-pages
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-cult-took-control-of-wikipedia

Isn’t it nice to know some of us still remember you and speak of your fame? Say hi to Stephan and Kim, Will, and how are the bees?

Stan B on January 13, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Yes – predictions that can’t be tested for decades (and have proven mostly unreliable on those that can be tested) are much better than “weasel word” arguments. So at what point are the predictions so “bad” that they are “wrong?” Just asking – because some rogue said “15 years of no warming” a few years back…..

The Changing Climate of Global Warming on January 12, 2014 at 11:42 pm
I just took that graphic, made it transparent and overlayed the current chart. You have to rotate the graphic by about 10 degrees to make them align. Clearly, past data has been shifted downward to exaggerate recent warming. Looks like the recorders failed to rewrite that nice piece of history.The 1940 peak wasn’t reached until 1998.

Reply
Ron on June 27, 2014 at 1:07 am
You overlaid a graph for what? The Northern Hemisphere? Atmosphere? Surface? Ocean? The graph above doesn’t even say what it is.

Cal on October 22, 2015 at 1:00 am
No, Steven Frauddard, that is not from the NAS.

Reply
Chewage on July 5, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Refuted?
Consensus?
Political science relies on consensus, scientific theory does not.
You have been witnessing a well funded “working hypothesis” in regard to AGW for the past 25 years… The majority of funding coming from tax payers, worldwide!

Reply
capoprimo on January 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm
One thing is certain, facts never get in the way of Liberal thought!

Reply
catherine on January 12, 2014 at 10:05 pm
Are you kidding? I lived through that time and was one of the dumb bunnies ranting and yelling about the end of the world. Nope, you are so much a denier of history!

Reply
Ron on June 27, 2014 at 1:10 am
Yep. Cooling got a lot of press in the 70’s. But as I recall, that is before pollution control was proven effective in reducing atmospheric particulates and acid rain and such. Could be wrong, but that’s how I remember it. I think we have better data now. No proof, but certainly cause for concern.

Reply
Publius on January 25, 2014 at 3:18 am
Laughable. Where were YOU in 72? By then we had been fed 15 years of stories, from the media to the schools, that the Ice Age was coming! There were NO reputable scientists or scientific organizations espousing a warming trend. I don’t know who you are, but clearly were not even BORN yet!

Reply
William Connolley on January 25, 2014 at 7:36 am
You’re wrong, obviously. See for example http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/03/01/1970s-cooling-again/

Reply
stevengoddard on January 25, 2014 at 4:51 pm
NCAR, NSF NAS, NASA, CRU, CIA, Time, NYT , CSM ,,

Every major science and news organization

Cal on February 17, 2014 at 10:17 pm
Goddard. Every major science organization…was already predicting global warming.


stevengoddard on February 17, 2014 at 11:08 pm
IT appears that you didn’t read the article before posting a comment.

Cal on October 22, 2015 at 1:01 am
It’s not that I didn’t read the article, it’s that the claims you made in the article are false.

Mister on January 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm
I was in high school in ’72. My science teachers were competent. They showed us the Ice Age nonsense that was running in TIME and the National Enquirer, and then they showed us how to find better-researched accounts of what science was saying. (I was lucky enough to live within walking distance of the National Library of Medicine. Back then you could walk in and use the library.) It’s too bad all you had was supermarket magazines and inadequate science teachers. You can catch up if you want. We have libraries on line for free these days.

Reply
James Dunn on November 24, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Why didn’t you provide examples of those well researched 1970s scientific studies. If you look up the names of the scientist in the articles presented during the seventies, many became warmist. IPCC report was dedicated to on of them.

Barry on January 24, 2016 at 12:49 am
RIP Leonard Nimoy
In Search Of:


Reply
Mister on January 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Refereed science was, in the early ’70s, running four or five to one in favor of manmade warming over cooling. The famous Ice Age Scare of the ’70s was in the magazines at the supermarket checkout line, and in poorly researched newspaper articles, not the science journals. But the majority position in the field was we don’t have enough data to predict anything yet. It’s a mistake to say “consensus was already building” though.

Reply
Dave G on June 2, 2015 at 5:46 pm
The larger point is…. what happened to the cooling that was reported…. It has disappeared from the temperature record.

Reply
TiredofThe BS on July 27, 2014 at 11:39 am
Kyle, your statement is absolutely not true. On average during the 1970’s and into the early 1980’s, there were approximately 4 published papers PER YEAR on global warming. The 1974 CIA report used the best climatologists at the time and they all agreed, global COOLING.

“A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertain to Intelligence Problems” August 1974, Central Intelligence Agency, it is filed with the Library of Congress – CLIMATE SCIENTISTS PREDICT GLOBAL COOLING! (LC control no.: 76603473 you can order it) It is well written and even includes simple charts so you can understand.

It was only when the possibility of new government & UN taxes to solve a non-existent problem were introduced, funded by taxpayers, that global warming papers began to be produce, en masse.

I am accepted by the IPCC as to review draft papers and submit comments. Reviewed draft and submitted comments on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. Accepted by the “National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee” (NCADAC) to review draft papers and submit comments. Reviewed draft and submitted comments on their Third National Climate Assessment Report.

I reviewed and analyzed hundreds of papers on global warming; examined data used; calculated margins of error; and assessed findings and conclusions. If you every read just a few, you would know the margin of error in the papers can run over 200%. Yes, over 200% margin of error! And you call people who challenge conclusions based upon such huge errors deniers?

Dude, seek professional therapy.

Reply
William Connolley on May 4, 2015 at 9:09 pm
You misrepresent the CIA report. It wasn’t written, or reviewed, by climatologists; its farily easy to tell that. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/07/11/a-study-of-climatological-rese/

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

“The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

Reply
Poptech on September 26, 2015 at 2:14 am
That so called “survey” was done by notorious Wikipedia spammer William Connolley and is thus unreliable.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/

Christopher Paul Watts on April 27, 2015 at 11:15 pm
Read the links, they are citing places like the “University of East Anglia” and the “National Academy of Sciences” hardly non mainstream organizations.

Reply
cottereaux on May 3, 2015 at 10:59 pm
Kyle, your statement is absolutely not true. On average during the 1970’s and into the early 1980’s, there were approximately 4 published papers PER YEAR on global warming. The 1974 CIA report used the best climatologists at the time and they all agreed, global COOLING.

“A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertain to Intelligence Problems” August 1974, Central Intelligence Agency, it is filed with the Library of Congress – CLIMATE SCIENTISTS PREDICT GLOBAL COOLING! (LC control no.: 76603473 you can order it) It is well written and even includes simple charts so you can understand.

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 6:09 pm
Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

“The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

Reply
Poptech on September 26, 2015 at 2:15 am
How many times are you going to Spam this?

That so called “survey” was done by notorious Wikipedia spammer William Connolley and is thus unreliable.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/

Lesley on September 2, 2015 at 12:22 pm
What does “majority position” have to do with science? It was once the “majority position” that the earth is flat.

Reply
Advertisements
Bill Cox on June 18, 2013 at 3:30 pm
What a bunch of hooey! The “new ice age” was just media hype?!?! I’m 48 years old and a coming “man made ice age” was in my SCIENCE BOOK and taught to school children in the late 70s. This wasn’t just a couple of whacko news articles. There was enough consensus to b̶r̶a̶i̶n̶w̶a̶s̶h̶ educate school children.

It described the necessity of the green house effect to maintain the warmth of our planet and how man made pollutants were interfering with that process, eventually ending in an ice age if changes were not made. Basically, the same man made climate change arguments, just with a minus sign instead of a plus sign.

So, Kyle Towers, who are the real deniers of science? That would be the ones who use ad hominem attacks instead of science facts.

Reply
michael on July 5, 2013 at 8:47 pm
Good comment. In fact back in the 1970s the emissions that most concerned scientists were industrial in nature: airborne soot and oxides like sulfates and nitrates. And those emissions had mostly a cooling effect on climate, reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space. So it was an obvious concern.

Reply
DaveGinOly on December 12, 2013 at 11:04 pm
So if there has been real warming in the last few decades, maybe it was due not to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but the success of anti-pollution measures to remove particulates and chemicals that were making the climate cooler. Sort of an isostatic rebound effect, that has since leveled out (the ongoing flat-lining of the former temperature increase).

Reply
lucia39 on March 2, 2014 at 4:10 pm
Well stated

Peter Bjørn on October 30, 2015 at 10:42 am
That would require that the particulate air pollution was constantly being lessened from 1960 onward, and at a pace well above to the balooning use of gasoline and coal for motive and electrical power; iirc this wasn’t really in works until the 1970s that efforts were under way to reduce air pollution in the US re. the Clean Air Act.

Global aerosol emissions are still considerable, but at least to a degree where it doesn’t claim tens of thousands of lives in major urban areas as it was some cases in both the US and UK. Though in China as of late, their mad pace of industrialization they have gone the other way.

Publius on January 25, 2014 at 3:21 am
Faulty Towers.

Reply
William Connolley on January 25, 2014 at 7:34 am
> was in my SCIENCE BOOK

Name the book.

Reply
Cal on February 17, 2014 at 10:18 pm
No, liar, it was NOT in your science book. It was NEVER in ANYONE’S science textbooks.

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 6:09 pm
Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

“The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

Reply
Poptech on September 26, 2015 at 2:17 am
How many times are you going to Spam this?

That so called “survey” was done by notorious Wikipedia spammer William Connolley and is thus unreliable.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/

Reply
Advertisements
TD on June 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Awesome collection. I wonder what’s the over-under time on global warming/climate change/global weirding/Chicken Little going back to cooling?

Reply
TLMango on June 25, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Its amazing that those who are too young to remember the cold of the 50’s-70’s are the most susceptible to the new carbon religion. How evil is it, to deliberately lie to children about normal climate cycles just for political gain. What does this say about our future as a nation.

Reply
Phil G on July 5, 2013 at 3:48 am
If you look at what actually occurred, there is no smoking gun. Several scientists produced articles predicting a cooling trend in peer reviewed journals. News organizations picked up on the few articles and that is where all of the headlines came from. Other scientists read the scientific articles, did their own research, and as a result the cooling hypothesis was never generally accepted. Of course, that never made it into the papers. Notice how little of posted articles are from peer reviewed journals. Think of all of the new “health advice” we see in the main stream media that is never accepted by the medical community because follow up studies refute it.

Reply
Kyle on July 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Oh Phil, don’t bother these anti-science ideologues with the obvious facts. They’re only interested in conspiracy theories and science bashing that support their ideology.

Reply
stevengoddard on July 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Another group which attempts to rewrite history are commonly known as “Holocaust Deniers”

The Directors of NCAR and CRU as well as the CIA are all quoted above, not to mention the NCAR and National Academy of Sciences graphs.

Are you two mentally deficient, or just evil?

Reply
michael on July 5, 2013 at 8:52 pm
“Are you two mentally deficient, or just evil?”

Now Steve… just this morning I was reading an article called “Can we tone down the rhetoric?” Maybe we could agree to lighten up on the ad hominem attacks?

Just a thought. I know, I know. “He started it first.”

Rathnakumar on January 14, 2014 at 10:41 am
I would bet that the climate lunatics are mentally deficient!

vonzorch on January 19, 2014 at 10:01 pm
You do know that the two are not mutually exclusive?

Menicholas on December 29, 2014 at 2:25 am
Hoax Deniers!

Ron Lambert (@ironzo) on October 19, 2013 at 12:52 pm
It’s not about being “Anti-Science”. It’s about looking at who is pushing an agenda, and figuring out why. The current Global Warming/Climate Change debate, well it’s not really even a debate is it? Supporters of it refuse to debate anyone with a differing opinion. Anyone that questions it is called a “denier” and anti-science. But look at who is promoting this. Al Gore has become a BILLIONAIRE selling “Carbon Credits”, a product that doesn’t even exist! Climate Change isn’t about the weather. Climate Change is about control! They want to control what you drive. They want to control how you live. They want to control what you eat. The fact is, climate on this planet has been “changing” for the last 4 billion years or so. It has never been static. There is no set standard of what the Earth’s temperature is supposed to be. So, until science can difinitively prove (and it hasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination) that man is having any noticable effect on the climate, I’m not buying.

Reply
DaveGinOly on December 12, 2013 at 11:12 pm
The “no set standard” comment is interesting. Why have we determined that our climate is “just right” now, when during some periods of history the climate has been more suitable for agriculture (specifically, I’m thinking of the Medieval Warming Period)? At any climate set point, there will be “winners” and “losers.” Some will experience more hardship at some set points (drought, powerful storm events, etc.) while others will benefit (longer growing seasons, moderate rainfall, reduction in the severity or frequency of major storm events, etc.). And who is authorized to determine for the world what the “best” climate set point is? If one group of countries takes action to fix a set point, and that set point injures the interests of other countries, is an monetary offset owed by the former group to the latter? Obviously so, because that’s the concept behind carbon credits – the people who are (allegedly) making the climate worse owe money to the people who are being affected.

Menicholas on December 29, 2014 at 2:31 am
Now we seem to have the Hoax Deniers implying that if the current interglacial is scheduled to end, or is in fact ending, it would be wrong to prevent it!

Kevin on June 29, 2015 at 8:12 pm
Exactly…. when you look at the graphs, how do we know where “the standard” or “Average” is. 134 yrs of collection isn’t going to create the “Average”… Who knows, Average might be “hotter” than what we are experiencing. I’m sure there’s technology that can calculate what we “believe” is average but the data you feed those equations can be manipulated to either direction…. I’m optimistic that Mother Nature will adapt and overcome to anything we throw at her and mankind will adapt and overcome to any changes mother nature throws our way. If I remember correctly from science, all ecosystem change over time, they are not “constant”. Something in the ecosystem will create change… it just doesn’t go on an on in a perfect circle, it cycles randomly.

Thomas Nighthawk on January 13, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Phil – It was widely accepted even in the early 80’s that the climate was cooling. As widely accepted as global warming is today. Not only was it in all the science magazines, but in the text books. I’d like to see if we can better nail down exactly when it flipped.

Reply
Menicholas on December 29, 2014 at 2:33 am
I was in college studying Chemistry and Physical Geography at the time. It was sometime around 1986 as I recall, and it seemed to happen overnight and come out of nowhere.

Reply
Advertisements
Arnold on July 29, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Michael, I think Steve’s question is legitimate. Unfortunately, those who are evil or mentally deficient usually don’t possess the capacity for critical self-observation, so their issues are usually projected onto others. Judge people much?

Reply
gregole on August 3, 2013 at 10:12 pm
I was born in 1955 and know all about the failed predictions of Man Made Global Cooling Climate Catastrophe – it was allegedly caused by Man-Made air pollution; particulate would block out the sun, cooling earth and destroying agriculture; pesticides would destroy habitat (oh and the birds; the pesticide was killing all the birds ala Silent Spring). We. Were. Doomed.

This rubbish started some years before – actually just after WWII with a school of thought sometimes referred to as the neo-Malthusians:

“There was a general “neo-Malthusian” revival in the 1950s, 60s and 70s after the publication of two influential books in 1948 (Fairfield Osborn’s “Our Plundered Planet” and William Vogt’s “Road to Survival”). During that time the population of the world rose dramatically. Many in environmental movements began to sound the alarm regarding the potential dangers of population growth. The Club of Rome published a famous book entitled “The Limits to Growth” in 1972. The report and the organisation soon became central to the neo-Malthusian revival. Paul R. Ehrlich has been one of the most prominent neo-Malthusians since the publication of “The Population Bomb” in 1968. Other prominent Malthusians include the Paddock brothers, authors of “Famine 1975! America’s Decision: Who Will Survive?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

William Vogt was an ornithologist
Paddock Brothers were agronomists
Fairfield Osborn “Born into the wealthy and influential Osborn family, he was the son of Henry Fairfield Osborn, a prominent paleontologist, eugenicist and “distinguished Aryan enthusiast”. After obtaining his Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University, he went on to study biology at Cambridge University
Paul Erlich Biologist

All of them trained in sciences of one sort or another. All yapping incessantly to an adoring media. And there were others – and all of this blabbering nonsense dove-tailed directly into the Man-Made-Global-Cooling scare in the 1970s. According to these esteemed experts, our only salvation would be through massive social engineering directed by equally massive invasion of human rights and freedoms by government. (And yes, John Holdren, Obama’s personal science “czar” did, in writing, suggest poisoning drinking water with human reproductive sterility drugs.)

I was there; I read the books; I watched all the horrors of their predictions fail to unfold.

And now it’s Man-Made-Global-Warming. Same bozos spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense. Same “solutions”.

Reply
Ivan on August 19, 2013 at 5:30 am
Check out Popular Science, October 1977, an article under the heading “Our Changing Weather – Colder Winters Ahead?” (pg. 100-) Also, a preliminary article in the issue of the previous month.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bQEAAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reply
Advertisements
Ivan on August 19, 2013 at 5:56 am
National Geographic – November 1976:
“What’s Happening to Our Cliimate?
Cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, thawing in the Antarctic…shifting rain, snow, and storm patterns…ice caps, volcanic dust, air pollution, sunspots-the myriad forces that change earth’s basic environment are still far from understood.”
http://revolution2.us/content/docs/global_cooling/contents.html

Reply
Ivan on August 19, 2013 at 6:02 am
The “Compleat 1970s Global Cooling Rollcall”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_02_01_archive.html

Reply
JMitch on August 20, 2013 at 8:10 pm
The man-made-global warming crowd continues to make us believe that humans and their activities are the only cause of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere when in reality less than 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of people.

Reply
Menicholas on December 29, 2014 at 2:51 am
Hoax Deniers!

Reply
suyts on August 21, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Kyle, you have no idea what the atmospheric CO2 levels were in the past. Ground levels do no equate to atmospheric levels. It is utter sophistry to believe so. And, yes, in that sense, I’m smarter than any Phd who thought of that bit of idiocy.

Reply
Quannabe on August 25, 2013 at 4:22 am
Just another comment to those that are too young to have first-hand knowledge of “The Next Ice Age” scare: ignore the few fools lying to you here (either through ignorance or malice, not sure which). This was being taught in science classes in the 70’s in the same way that AGW is being taught today. It was far more than a couple of articles blown out of proportion by the media.

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 6:11 pm
Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

“The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

Reply
Poptech on September 26, 2015 at 2:16 am
How many times are you going to Spam this?

That so called “survey” was done by notorious Wikipedia spammer William Connolley and is thus unreliable.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/

Reply
Gene H on September 1, 2013 at 4:55 am
It’s obvious Kyle Towers has no background in science what-so-ever! Better for him to have said nothing than to have “removed all doubt” regarding his ignorance.

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 6:11 pm
Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

“The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

Reply
Dream Girls Daily on September 25, 2015 at 9:08 pm
What the fuck troll? Posting the same stupid comment 10 times to everyone here? You’re obviously a government compensated commenter. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere with your global warming cult.

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 9:24 pm
You’re obviously unable to refute the content of my conment.

Every place I posted it, it was applicable. And, of course, it’s accurate.

As your name-calling, ad hominem, conspiracist, yet argument-free and evidence-free response illustrates.

Poptech on September 26, 2015 at 2:17 am
How many times are you going to Spam this?

That so called “survey” was done by notorious Wikipedia spammer William Connolley and is thus unreliable.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/

Reply
Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Wrong. Very educated in the sciences. I’m an engineer and a thermodynamicist.

Reply
Crock Hunter on September 7, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Here is an excellent piece that utterly destroys ANY claim that scientists of the 60s and 70s as a group were predicting an imminent “Ice Age”..

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

This “Coming Ice Age” myth has been so often and so completely debunked that it’s completely laughable for anyone to still stand by it…. so is it with this site’s disinformation campaign…

Reply
stevengoddard on September 7, 2013 at 2:04 pm
It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could be as stupid as you are.

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 9:26 pm
Your purely ad hominem response is very telling.

Reply
Warren College on November 18, 2013 at 6:50 pm
That article, which is 8 years old now, does not utterly destroy the claims, especially for someone like me who is old enough to remember being alarmed by the “imminent ice age” articles in the press. Also, there is no simple “scientists of the 60s and 70s as a group” – since when do scientists unify as a group?

Reply
Kalle Last (@Hohounk) on January 8, 2014 at 2:46 pm
according to you they unify as group in the eyes of press. Why else would you believe the press and not scientists who got grossly misinterpreted?

Reply
stevengoddard on January 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm


Dream Girls Daily on September 22, 2015 at 10:23 am
When they’re all getting paid by the government to reach the same conclusion.

Reply
Menicholas on December 29, 2014 at 2:56 am
Why do you persist in denying the hoax?
Have you not a shred of self-respect?

Reply
Morgan Wright on September 11, 2013 at 2:05 am
I was around in the 70’s and remember all the hype about global cooling, but I thought all that talk about cooling meant kids in my high school were getting cooler.

Reply
Rathnakumar on January 14, 2014 at 10:43 am
Ha ha, good one!

Reply
misanthrope on September 14, 2013 at 5:48 pm
The really interesting thing about the 70’s Ice Age scare (it was taught as a fact to me in high school, Kyle, you clown) is that all the measures necessary to stop the glaciers from crushing us back then were exactly the same as those we’re now told are necessary to stop global warming: Government “investment” in alternative energy sources; reducing fossil fuel use; developed world transferring enormous amounts of money to the third world as “compensation;” more government-funded “research;” reduced economic output and living standards, etc. etc.

Global warming’s the same old scam with a different name.

Reply
Dream Girls Daily on September 22, 2015 at 10:47 am
Yes sir! Now they redubbed “global warming” as “climate change” so they can even control the people further. Instead of having to prove warming or cooling, which they can’t, now everything can be attributed to the fairy tale of climate change. Too much rain, climate change. Too much sun, climate change. Too much snow, climate change. Earthquakes, climate change. Ocean temperature rise of .4 degrees celsius, climate change. Water leves rising, climate change etc. and the ONLY way to ever save us is by taking more money from us in taxes to fight imaginary demons, or the government spending more of OUR money to fight imaginary demons.

Reply
TLMango on September 26, 2013 at 9:27 pm
Thank you Steven for posting this video. I never get tired of watching it, though they could have done a little better with the music. I won’t be looking for this sound track at the music store.
Maybe you could post some video from “The Day After Tomorrow”. Some of the lines from this movie are classic.
“If you go outside you aren’t going to make it.”
“It’s going to get bad…..really really bad.”
“My father is a climatologist….he works for the government.”

Reply
M Peters on October 1, 2013 at 12:10 am
My dear Kyle, I taught high school science in Florida in the late 70’s, and yes, it was being taught and in the text. I was forced to teach that global cooling was coming. You are not dealing with reality, only your religion of false science you have willingly absorbed.

Reply
Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 2:13 am
Evidence or it didn’t happen.

Reply
Gene H on November 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Warren’s article does however, give great credence to the scientific point of view… the earth has been warming as it comes out of the Little Ice Age.

Reply
tomwys on November 21, 2013 at 7:51 am
C’mon, Steve, lighten up on these dimmer bulbs! The “RealClimate” piece that “utterly destroys ANY claim…” is drivel spinning out of control, and those parroting it must have been unable to read the articles you adroitly posted. “Crock Hunter” obviously found himself. Leave him looking into his mirror and wallowing in foolishness.

Reply
Brian on April 2, 2014 at 3:34 pm
I’m astonished that Billy Cannoli and his ilk believe that they can rewrite history – in the face of Steven’s nearly photographic reproduction of actual articles. I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked, but I am. Billy isn’t arguing that those who wrote the articles were wrong, or ignorant, he’s actually advocating the idea that those articles were never written! … wait, his writing isn’t ‘advocacy’ – it is intimidation. Billy Cannoli is a bully. His wreckord in wikipedia illustrates his oppressive tactics.

Reply
William Connolley on December 5, 2013 at 7:55 am
All the obvious stuff is available easily from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Reply
Andy Oz on January 10, 2014 at 11:42 pm
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-cult-took-control-of-wikipedia

Reply
Other_Andy on January 12, 2014 at 8:48 pm
en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = Global_cooling
274 (174/100) William M. Connolley
With 274 edits you have essentially rewritten this article.
So as proof you cite your own BS.
Nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore Connolly.
You are an utter fraud!

Reply
daveburton on January 13, 2014 at 4:11 am
Nobody should trust Wikipedia for anything controversial, but, unfortunately, many foolish people do make the mistake of trusting it.

Reply
William Connolley on January 13, 2014 at 9:03 am
> Nobody should trust Wikipedia for anything controversial

I at least partly agree with that. There are some easy tests you can apply that help – you can check the edit history to make sure it isn’t in the middle of a massive edit war, for example. If you do that, you’ll find that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling isn’t controversial: its stable.

Better is to check that the article is adequately referenced (tick) and that those references support what the article says (also tick).

If it failed either of those tests, you could go in and edit it to fix it. Since it isn’t really broken you can’t do that. And you’re too cowardly to even try, anyway.

Morgan Wright on January 13, 2014 at 12:00 am
What’s the matter Connolley? Still throwing toys from the pram?

Here’s some reading material for you.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_02_01_archive.html

Reply
Dave N on February 13, 2015 at 4:12 am
(from the direction of WC)

Reply
Gene H on January 10, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Has anyone mentioned that warming has never been the so-called consensus throughout the AGW debate attempts? I say attempts because, although Al Gore claimed the “consensus” supported his claims, he refuses to debate anyone with an IQ over 30. His initial “consensus” was 77 of 79 climate scientists out of 10,257 polled. On the “denier’s” side is something much closer to a scientific consensus… if there truly is such a thing… 31,400 plus U.S. scientists that have signed the Oregon Petition Project. So, to claim there was no consensus global cooling was on the way, is a fools argument.

Reply
daveburton on January 13, 2014 at 12:43 am
Actually, it wasn’t even 77 of 79. It turns out that Doran & Zimmerman didn’t count half of the skeptics they identified in their select group of 79 most-specialized top climate experts.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/

Reply
Gene H on January 11, 2014 at 2:42 am
Andy Oz, or is this the “obvious stuff”? (Quite a list of articles and media coverage)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Reply
TK on January 12, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Perhaps I missed them but is there a link to the peer reviewed scientific studies that all of the newspaper articles were based on?

Reply
Tyke on June 27, 2014 at 2:49 pm
No. Why should there be?

Reply
Bob Armstrong on January 12, 2014 at 9:25 pm
Great to have a resource like this in place when the watermelons try yet another attack on reality .

Reply
The Changing Climate of Global Warming on January 12, 2014 at 11:00 pm
What I love about this climn ate “science” is how it appears they rushed to judgment without even considering the very basics. In their rush burn the CO2 witch, and collect all the cash that comes with it, they forgot to ask the most basic of questions. They tied CO2 to the green house gas effect, claiming that it is the major GGH contributing to global warming, climate change and now I guess cooling though its formation of polar vortexes. Problem is, the mechanism they defined that CAUSES the AGW effect is CO2 absorbing IR radiation. The only mechanism they defined for CO2 to do anything is through its absorption of heat. If it isn’t absorbing heat, by what mechanism is it causing climate change? The GHG effect or AGW is the result of trapping heat, ie warming is needed if you are going to blame CO2. Problem is, CO2 absorbs at 15 microns. 15 microns is consistent with a black body of temp -80 degree C, that isn’t a typo, -80 degree C. The average earth temp is around 18 degree C, and the earth emits at 10 microns, far away from the 15 CO2 absorbs. The only area of the earth CO2 would impact the temp would be over the polar regions, and they certainly aren’t going to be warmed 80 degrees due to the CO2. To make matters worse, as the earth warms it moves further away from 15 microns, reducing the impact of CO2. One has to marvel at how the ecosystem has built in mechanisms to prevent what the climate experts fail to grasp. CO2 is 400 PPM, man is only responsible for maybe 20 of those PPMs. Do these people really think 20 PPM of a very weak GGH can cause climate change? Anyway, watch the documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming and you will see why climate experts don’t want to debate this topic.

Reply
Brian on April 2, 2014 at 3:22 pm
While I agree with the general direction of your comments, may I point out that blackbody radiation is not at one single wavelength, but a continuous, broad swath of wavelengths with a peculiar, peaked, strongly skewed curve of amplitude vs wavelength. Using your wavelength and temperature numbers: 15 microns does not equal -80C, in the sense that a blackbody at warmer temperatures, such as 18C, still emits strongly at 15 microns…. and at 20 microns, and, with diminishing amplitude, at all longer wavelengths. You are correct, though, that CO2’s absorption spectra is not as significant in reality as it may seem to be in laboratory isolation. Water vapor dominates CO2, in the real world, in terms of radiation absorption and re-emission, both in quantity, and in overlapping absorption spectra… and as you point out, mankind’s 20 PPM of a global 400 PPM is truly insignificant. If all of mankind’s 20 PPM were instantly removed, we’d have 380 PPM (your numbers, not mine) and the world would be the same.

Reply
The Changing Climate of Global Warming on January 12, 2014 at 11:10 pm
BTW, did anyone catch the comment in the Climate Change Chilling Possibilities graphic above?


It is highlighting how the recent warming was “unusually beneficial,” and they feared the cooling. That BTW is what society should be doing. Things grow and thrive in warm periods, they die in cold periods. How in the world have we allowed a group of climate “experts” convince us that warming is a bad thing? We should cherish every day of warmth we have left. Interglacial periods are relatively short, and the current one is getting long in the tooth.

Reply
julie on January 13, 2014 at 12:06 am
Let us not forget these creepy liars and frauds are now advocating and spraying aluminum oxide and dangerous Barium as chemtrails poisoning all of us . This is the agenda 21 treaty and the iron mountain report which describes how they intend to con the public . enjoy

Reply
Christopher Pringle on January 14, 2014 at 8:27 pm
Jesus – hide the cyanide – here we go – chem-trails – crop circles , Big foot – someone call J. Kay and report ‘julie’ and his thoughts.

Reply
daveburton on January 13, 2014 at 12:34 am
Andrew over at PopularTechnology.net has accumulated a large collection of these articles from the 1970s about the threat of a renewed ice age:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Reply
William Connolley on January 13, 2014 at 9:07 am
Oh yeah, and also http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/08/cooling-one-we-missed-petersen-and-larsen-1978/

I put that here, instead of the more obvious http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html, cos they won’t let me comment there.

Reply
Poptech on March 9, 2014 at 12:28 am
My website is not Wikipedia where you can rewrite history. You are permanently banned for your crimes and Goddard should ban you as well. You are a disgrace to the Internet.

Wikipedia’s climate doctor

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

Reply
Christopher Pringle on January 14, 2014 at 8:24 pm
So many romantics – all of us want to live in a time of ‘special change’ given our immense individual worth – for that nano-time we exist – there are actual man-made concerns – do not be deflected by the carbonazis chasing tax revenues or our wooly-headed academics who also want recognition.
Focus on the Fuku Flu – we got lots of guilty parties – engineering companies – governments – multinationals – and there is a wee bit of harm agoing down in the Pacific. Wake the F up people – don’t fall for this AGW – – think!!! Follow the money!!

Reply
Larry Fields on January 15, 2014 at 9:42 am
Hi Steven,
You may want to add one more name to the list: the late Stephen Schneider. Here’s some revealing info about the patron saint of scientific dishonesty.

“Just as with Global Warming, we find Schneider in the vanguard of the Global Cooling doomsayers during the 1970s.

“It was only when global temperatures took an upward turn around 1980 that Schneider and others quickly made a career change and became passionate advocates of impending catastrophe, only this time from warming, not cooling. But then, opportunism is a trait of politicians rather than scientists.

“During the Ice Age Scare of the 1970s, Schneider was one of it’s foremost advocates. He published a book titled “The Genesis Strategy” at this time, warning of the coming glaciation, and wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age’ book of the time – (Ponte, Lowell. “The Cooling”, Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event – the coming Ice Age.

“Schneider was one of the first in the scientific community to warn of the impending Ice Age with this paper –

“Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141″

The source is http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm.

Interestingly, Schneider’s role as a leading ‘Coolist’ in the 1970s is severely downplayed in the Wikipedia article about him. Perhaps we should ask Connolley about that.

Reply
The Changing Climate of Global Warming on January 15, 2014 at 9:06 pm
“Schneider clearly intended the public to get the impression that the carbon dioxide was the villain, but closer examination of this graph shows that changes in temperature occurred before the associated change in carbon dioxide. In other words, it was the changes in temperature which caused the changes in carbon dioxide, not the other way round as hinted at by Schneider. ”

Once again I want to highlight the rush to judgement. If they are claiming that CO2 leads the increase in temperatures, what is causing the increase in CO2? Goes CO2 suddenly just bubble up from the frozen oceans? Where does all this CO2 come from? It makes absolutely no sense what so ever that CO2 should lead temperature. It also leads to the question than, why does temperature fall into an ice age when CO2 is so high? By what mechanism does nature have to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to start the cooling? There are none. It is shocking that these very basic questions are never asked.

Reply
G Horner on January 16, 2014 at 4:13 am
Response to “The Changing Climate of Global Warming”

There has never been any evidence that CO2 leads temperature… in spite of Al Gore’s insinuations in “An Inconvenient Truth.” The best “evidence” climate science has, comes from the Vostok ic core samples. All the studies of these samples indicate a 400 to as much as a 5,000 year lag time (depending on the study) before CO2 begins to rise. Oh how inconvenient for those who kneel at the alter of AGW!

Reply
William Connolley on January 25, 2014 at 5:04 pm
> Every major science and news organization

I’m not quite sure what that’s supposed to be an answer to. If you’re interested in what the balance of the scientific opinion was at that point, then http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/03/01/1970s-cooling-again/ provides a helpful graph. If you prefer to look at the peer-reviewed science directly, then you want http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Which is “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley and John Fleck. That paper is so solid that no “skeptic” has even attempted to touch it. You certainly haven’t.

Reply
stevengoddard on January 25, 2014 at 5:08 pm
This blog post has original documents showing that all of those organizations endorsed global cooling. The exact same argument that is now used in support of global warming.

Reply
William Connolley on January 25, 2014 at 5:13 pm
I don’t think so.

You first post is a temperature graph from NCAR. Which is fine, but it doesn’t “endorse” anything. Your second is from the 1975 NAS report, but you’ve misunderstood the report: see http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html for all the details you’ve missed.

So I think your claims to have the “endorsement” of NCAR, NAS etc are spurious.

More, all your stuff is anecdotal: you don’t know the balance between warming and cooling, because you’re only looking at things that support you viewpoint. So what you need is a properly done, peer-reviewed survey of the scientific literature. Happily, that’s already been done for you. All you need to do now is read it.

Reply
stevengoddard on January 25, 2014 at 5:16 pm
So apparently you didn’t actually read any of the news articles I posted above,quoting Schneider, Firor, Lamb, CIA, NSF, NAS, NASA. etc ..

Jack thompson on July 28, 2014 at 2:17 pm
“because you’re only looking at things that support you viewpoint. ” That is exactly what the IPCC does.
“So what you need is a properly done, peer-reviewed survey of the scientific literature. Happily, that’s already been done for you. All you need to do now is read it.” I like how those that believe in warming suggest that others don’t need to do any investigation for themselves. I wish I could have gotten away with that with some of my professors in college. “Don’t worry prof, I got an A so you don’t even need to grade my test at all. Just put the grade down in the book.”
I allow very few people to make any of my decisions for me.

Poptech on March 9, 2014 at 12:30 am
Don’t waste you time arguing with this idiot Steve, just ban him. The damage he did on Wikipedia is more than enough to earn him a life long ban.

Reply
Gene Horner on January 25, 2014 at 7:54 pm
In response to William Connolley.

As is often the case, here is a scientific rebuttal to your attempt, to deny there is a valid “other side” to this debate.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/

Reply
William Connolley on May 4, 2015 at 9:08 pm
WUWT was late to the party, as usual: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/07/11/a-study-of-climatological-rese/

Reply
Gene H on February 18, 2014 at 12:09 am
In response to Cal”s calling Bill Cox a “liar”;
I looked for references to school text books teaching global cooling in the 1970’s… so far haven’t found any. A number of science articles, yes … but! I do remember how the magazine articles espousing gloom and doom were everywhere, and were used by both the media, and those of us who wanted to show how much we knew about the “coming ice age”. Could be Mr Cox is remembering, not a text book per-say, but the Life Magazine article presented by one of his teachers?

Reply
Donna K. Becker on June 3, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Per se,

Reply
Don Morris on March 25, 2014 at 10:49 pm
Thanks for posting this page. I pulled the graph from 1975, and did a little data processing – inspired by this page and some of the comments. I learned a lot. .

Reply
Brian on April 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm
I recommend that y’all watch the video that Don Morris put up. The way he analyzes the temperature graph is quite revealing, and the slick video presentation shows it in a way that just doesn’t come across as well in non-video graphics or writings.

Reply
Brian on April 2, 2014 at 2:33 pm
I just noticed, in that 1975 Science News article, that the author directly stated that melting the arctic ice cap would raise sea levels. (The author was discussing the possible effects of the Soviets’ diversion of rivers for irrigation of Siberia, which, supposedly, would result in increased salinity of the Arctic Ocean, and hence, melting of the ice cap). I subscribed to the weekly Science News publication for decades… I finally let it lapse; the persistent, shrill cries of “wolf”, and “the sky is falling” wore me out. Wait a moment… are any of you warmistas old enough to remember the story of Chicken Little? Or, “the boy who cried wolf”? … I suppose I should not assume that all y’all greenies will even recognize the fallacy that melting the arctic ice cap will raise sea levels… If I reminded y’all that the arctic ice is FLOATING, would that register as an important distinction, say, compared to the ice sitting on top of Greenland, melting? …wait, I’m drifting into Ad Hominems…

Reply
Mary Brown on May 2, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Love the Dr. Lamb comment on blocking. He was forecasting a coming ice age but they had a record warm summer. He blamed it on blocking. Sound familiar? These days, cold weather is blamed on “blocking” or “polar vortex” and just part of the extremes expected with a warmer world.

Thanks for the comprehensive collection here. When people bring up the global cooling scare of the 70s, I generally discount this as a very small, non-scientific phenomena. Your research shows me that it was much more widespread and science-based than I thought.

Reply
talldave2 on June 3, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Here are some text extracts, as I’ve noticed Panickers are increasingly unable to read the articles posted here, and are tending to claim they don’t say what they say.

Hubert Lamb, Director of CRU: “We are past the best of the inter-glacial period which happened between 7,000 and 3,000 ears ago… we are on a definite downhill course for the next 200 years.”

Joh Firor, Excecutive Director of NCAR: “Temperatures have been high and steady, and steady has been more than high. Now it appears we’re going into a period where temperature will be low and variable, and variable will be more important than low.”

The 46 scientists who gathered at Brown Univeristy, Providence R.I., for a symposium on “The End of the Present Interglacial” agreed that there is evidence of an ominous world-wide cooling of temperatures in the past two decades.

CIA — “Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused economic problems throughout the world.”

Reply
Wally Lind on July 3, 2014 at 2:29 am
The “science” and “scientists”. if there were ever any it the warming or cooling scares, have lost their ability to scare anyone. No one believes any of them anymore. They are the barack Obama’s of science. Their “consensus” is the “you can keep your doctor or plan” of the whole discussion.

Reply
Nickels on July 9, 2014 at 3:08 am
Nice collection. History really is a great way to put this climate BS in perspective.

Reply
Sam on July 28, 2014 at 3:31 am
I know for an absolute fact that kids were taught global cooling because of industrial particles blocking out the Sun. I was there. I was taught this in elementary school in the 60’s. I remember it vividly. They showed a poster of New York city covered by a mile thick sheet of ice. It frightened me. I remember thinking,”how can we possibly live on ice?” Any one who says they didn’t teach this lying or uninformed.

Reply
Dbohm on August 16, 2014 at 3:35 am
Case closed. AGW is fraud. Show me ONE simple physical experiment that indicates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It should be easy. Why would an absorber of a specific infrared frequency preferentially re-emit radiation back to where it came from? Gasses aren’t mirrors, they tend to re-emit radiation along the same vector they received it from, minus some braking radiation lost to the acceleration of the molecules, which results in redshift. AGW belies a very blatant lack of understanding of simple physics.

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 6:24 pm
What an idiotic mistake. It doesn’t preferentially emit in any direction. That’s the whole point! It absorbs what’s on its way to space and reemits it randomly – ~1/2 of which is not towards space.

Pull your head out, Dunning-Kruger.

Reply
Bob Armstrong on September 25, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Show us your equations !
Show us you can calculate the temperature of the planet to within even 1% much less the 0.3% estimated since the steam engine , and THEN and ONLY THEN will you have any useful input .

You can’t do it because even your basic physics is WRONG .
For an introduction , explaining 97% , 279K of our mean temperature and giving the equations to determine the QUANTITATIVE effect of our Top of Atmosphere spectrum : http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/ . If you claim my computations are wrong , show us the correct ones . Otherwise , you are just continuing the decades of vague word-waving , ie , BS .

Reply
Kyle on September 25, 2015 at 9:19 pm
I consider your sputtering, barely comprehensible, Gish Gallop to be a clear concession regarding the claim of the fellow denier to whose rescue you came.

Right?

Bob Armstrong on September 25, 2015 at 11:18 pm
Kyle , I’m sure you do because you probably avoided every math or physics or engineering class you could in college . Yours is the gish gallop spouting nonscience you can’t back up with computations .

You just confirm you don’t have the education to to have an opinion worth listening to .

Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 2:18 am
Wrong! I’m am engineer and thermodynamicist. Years of physics, chemistry, calculus, etc.

And BTW, you madequate it clear that you parroted the term Gish Gallop without even bothering to find out what it means. You’re a buffoon.

dave_ice on February 9, 2015 at 4:33 am
If AWG proponents of the 70’s were correct about the devastation, and ozone was depleted over countries that didn’t regulate cfc’s, then China and a large part of Asia would be vaporized.

Reply
Shayn Roby on February 22, 2015 at 1:24 pm
#NOAA #NotTrustWorthy in #BPoilSpill , not on #GlobalWarming either.
http://shaynroby.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-spill-scandal-and-president-rolling.html … …

Reply
Shayn Roby on February 22, 2015 at 1:25 pm
@7im @jeremyschulman @RealScienceCom #NOAA #NotTrustWorthy in #BPoilSpill , not on #GlobalWarming either. http://t.co/BSqfNUpxq4

— Shayn Wallace Roby (@RobysRtCorner) February 22, 2015

Reply
Barbra & Jack Donachy on April 18, 2015 at 6:08 am
You lead with a well-known but badly-researched Newsweek article (the author cited meteorologists (weather forecasters), took a NOAA scientist’s comments out of context, and concluded with a vague, unsourced reference to “climate scientists” and you follow with a quote from “Science Digest,” a defunct publication that, in it’s day, was known for articles on spontaneous human combustion, UFOs and other pseudoscience. A very few scientists in the 1970s speculated the world was cooling. It made grist for newspaper articles, but very few in the scientific community bought into any of this. You guys (deniers) Never have anything valid to contribute to this discussion. A lone Newsweek article written by some journalist who clearly didn’t understand his subject, a science fiction rag, and newspaper articles with quotes from TV weather personalities. What do you have against actual science?

Reply
Pingback: A Libertarian Hippie Catholic’s Take on Laudato Si’ | JSB MORSE
Scott Yates (@syates72) on July 6, 2015 at 6:32 pm
A treasure trove of facts to counter the obsessive argument that we are at the cusp of climatic disaster…. Many thanks again as this helps reinforce what i already believe and provides some links to back up my observations and findings…

Reply
Bob Armstrong on September 28, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Kyle , If you have the background you claim , you should be able to easily follow my Heartland presentation of “How to Calculate the Temperature of a Radiantly Heated Colored Ball” , which correctly calculates the gray body temperature in our orbit and presents the calculation of the endlessly parroted 255K meme .

Either show us the errors in my computations and your correct equations or STFU and get out of here . You are just another criminally lying scum who has NO respect for reality .

Reply
Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 4:58 pm
I will gladly fillet that bit of horseshit as soon as you cease the Gish Gallop and respond inre that which you replied when first addressing me. My bet is that crank solidarity – which is nearly universal among science deniers and other conspiracy theorists – will not allow you to do so honestly.

Dbohm made an egregious error inre the GHE. That was the subject of my initial comment. Please address that issue.

Reply
Bob Armstrong on September 28, 2015 at 5:24 pm
So you’ve got nothing except your own “gish gallop” of verbiage beyond your determinedly limited comprehension which you hide behind to cover your ignorance of even the most basic non-optional physics .

Reply
Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 5:38 pm
No, dumbass, that is 100% wrong in every way.

Let me repeat for the hard of thinking:

1) I will deal with your BS.

2) You will respond – responsively – to my original comment first.

Your refusal to do so when directly asked is taken as evidence for exactly that which I anticipated – crank solidarity.

Respond regarding Dbohm’s claim or STFU.

Bob Armstrong on September 28, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Chicken .
I have said not one thing I do not fully understand .
You on the other hand have said nothing bu vacuous insults .
You have demonstrated nothing but your quantitative ignorance .

Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 5:40 pm
BTW, you either don’t know what a Gish Gallop is or do and are deliberately obfuscating. By demanding that one issue be resolved before others are engaged, I am in fact doing the exact opposite of a Gish Gallop.

Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 6:43 pm
I accept your concession. There is no other rational interpretation for your (absolutely typical) stonewalling and refusal to even acknowledge what I tell you.

Bob Armstrong on September 28, 2015 at 6:58 pm
You have told us nothing . You apparently can’t comprehend something I wrote so you accuse me of “gish galloping” . Please give me a specific sentence . I don’t even know what it is you find so incomprehensible .
At the same time you use every excuse you can to avoid evaluating the classical QUANTITATIVE physics I present and show us where the errors are

Determined , willful ignorance .


Kyle on September 28, 2015 at 8:04 pm
One last time for the hard of thinking;

Respond on topic or STFU.

Bob Armstrong on September 28, 2015 at 8:28 pm
But whether or not there was a climate scare in the ’70’s even half as absurd as the outright criminal fraud going on now , So What ?
My own records just show that by 1983 the incredibly stupider AlGoreWarming was catching my attention :


Reply
Margot Hodgson on February 10, 2016 at 4:24 pm
Interesting! When I posted this, I didn’t indicate that I believed it. I reject alarmists on either side of this argument as everything is so political and so skewed by the media that you can’t trust what any of them say. I was simply making that point to show why I reserve judgement and refuse to have our economy and lifestyle ruined to support the ideas of people I don’t trust whose agenda is unknown!

Reply
Kyle on February 25, 2016 at 12:51 am
Your false equivalence between the actions of the anti-science global warming denial industry and the science is beyond the pale.

Reply
View Full Site

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 02:43 AM

34. This Is The Longest Post I Have Ever Seen At Discussionist.

(No, I didn't read the entire thing.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 12:01 PM

18. I'll just leave these here









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 10:26 AM

12. Rush Limbaugh "busts open" the truth?



Rush Limbaugh exposes the scientists in the report as Obama cronies?


Rush Limbaugh is doing the work the media hides from us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 10:31 AM

13. Sigh! I know this won't do any good, but

Even Bubblebutt Rush doesn’t make the claim that the report was written by Andrew Light, a professor in George Mason’s Philosophy Department and not a scientist. What he says is that Light was the REVIEW EDITOR for the report’s final chapter on the social and economic impacts of climate change. No claim is ever made that the science detailed in the previous chapters is politically motivated or, more importantly, inaccurate.

But why anyone would pay any attention to Limbaugh on science is astounding. At one point he says:

“ I have established myself as a scientific expert primarily in the area of climate change.”

Then, he makes the most ignorant statement regarding science that has ever been uttered:

“If it’s science, then there cannot be any legitimate claim to climate change because not every scientist agrees! And science is not up for a vote. Scientific fact is scientific fact. It’s not scientific opinion. So a consensus of scientists believing anything does not make it science.”



Maybe the Draft Dodger should stick to Pharmacology. He seems much more familiar with OxyContin and Viagra than with the definition of ‘scientific consensus.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 10:45 AM

14. the funny part is...

I could have written you response for you. yea, that's how easy and predictable you people are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 11:16 AM

15. Of course. The truth is obvious and anyone can see it

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2018, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Relying upon Mr. OxyContin for science is like relying on the Pope for family planning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 01:51 PM

22. "The truth is obvious and anyone can see it"

Right you are about that...
So is it Rush the idiot, or is the morons who renamed weather to "climate change", and the started running around screeching that humans cause it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 02:03 PM

23. You do realise that scientists have been using the term

“climate change” since the ‘70s at least? Hell the IPCC was established in 1988. And there is a difference between “weather” and “climate.”

As to the Druggie, anyone who makes the statement that I quoted regarding “scientific consensus” clearly knows nothing about science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 02:16 PM

24. you wouldn't imagine the laughs being produced over here by your NPC alarm response...

Please go on...
We want to hear more wisdom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 02:24 PM

25. I understand that, but there is nothing particularly "wise" in simply pointing out

1. What the good Dr. Rush actually said. That is, the Obama "scientist" that he so objects to did not "write" the report nor even the chapter in question. He was the Review Editor for that chapter that focused on the social and economic impacts of Climate Change, not the underlying science.

2. That the good Dr. Rush has no understanding of science as he laughably demonstrates in his statements regarding scientific consensus. He further amuses with his discussion of tsunamis (almost Bill O'Reilly gold). He is simply not a credible source for anything scientific and should not pretend to be.

3. There is no giant conspiracy to change the name to "Climate Change" as that's a term that's long been in use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 12:32 PM

20. Rush used to drive me crazy

He kept repeating "There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect." I'd think, you don't know what you are talking about, Rush. You mean to say there is no such thing as global warming. The greenhouse effect is very real and is settled science. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect the oceans would freeze.

Then one day Rush was interviewing former Washington Governor Dixie Lee Ray who doubled as an environmental guru. Rush asked her about the liberals who were lying about the greenhouse effect and told her there is no such thing as the green house effect. Dixie Lee Ray told him yes there was a greenhouse effect and if there wasn't the oceans would freeze.

After that Rush kept repeating "Look at all these crazy liberals complaining about the greenhouse effect. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect the oceans would freeze."

Its amazing that millions of people believe everything the liar / moron Limbaugh says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 10:47 PM

30. Possibly Rush was referring to the faulty term, "greenhouse effect"

The term "greenhouse effect" arose from a faulty analogy with the effect of sunlight passing through glass and warming a greenhouse. The way a greenhouse retains heat is fundamentally different, as a greenhouse works mostly by reducing airflow so that warm air is kept inside.

Technically, Rush is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 11:32 PM

32. Rush said there wasn't such a thing

He was totally wrong, including technically. Rush wasn't referring to anything about a greenhouse. He was simply so ignorant on the subject that he didn't know the difference between the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:13 AM

36. We can argue til the cows come home

but the "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:05 PM

45. I'm not arguing that to begin with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 08:10 PM

46. Good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:42 AM

39. Well,

The glass of a greenhouse allows in the shorter wave radiation from the sun and traps the longer wave radiation.
The same way the greenhouse effect in the atmoaphere allows the shorter wave radiation in and greenhouse gasses absorb or reflect the long wave radiation.

So calling it the "greenhouse effect" isn't a faulty analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:59 PM

44. Are you debating me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 04:03 AM

48. No. Explaining something.

That you may have been misinformed about.
Nobody debates here anyway. We discuss things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 06:46 AM

49. Well, I was right

No need to correct me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 07:05 AM

50. How is it a false analogy then?

Should be easy enough to explain.
The only difference is instead of gases causing the effect in a greenhouse, it's the glass/plastic.
How else could it work?
If the glass didn't block long wave radiation, the thermal radiation would escape a lot faster.
Same as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 08:57 AM

51. I truly love this forum

The term "greenhouse effect" arose from a faulty analogy with the effect of sunlight passing through glass and warming a greenhouse. The way a greenhouse retains heat is fundamentally different, as a greenhouse works mostly by reducing airflow so that warm air is kept inside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:16 AM

52. The glass traps also the thermal energy.

There is more than one mechanism that makes a greenhouse work.
That's why they coined the phrase greenhouse effect, even though every mechanism isn't the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 09:17 AM

53. Send your argument to them

I'm sure you can straighten them out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 10:27 AM

54. To who? Wikipedia?

Or the sources cited?
Lol..

Basically it's a combination of effects that make a greenhouse work. It's right in your link.
It's the effect of retaining thermal energy that is similar so that's why they coined the phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 10:43 AM

55. If I said the sky is blue

You would argue with me and say it is mauve

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 10:49 AM

56. Depends on the time of day.

I'd be right in this case. .



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 10:58 AM

57. Thanks for proving my point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:03 AM

58. You can try to deny

That pic of the mauve sky.

Now if we were both observing the sky in the same general area on a clear sunny afternoon I would agree the sky was blue.
It isn't always though.
Hahahh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:06 AM

59. You are a genius

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:10 AM

60. That's what they say.

Thanks for recognising it as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:13 AM

61. I knew you would finally agree with something I said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 11:21 AM

62. It happens.

Sometimes, you actually get something right.
Like that and your greenhouse point. Mostly right, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 10:43 PM

29. Who is the Draft Dodger?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 12:01 AM

33. Bubblebutt...

“Pilonidal disease is a type of skin infection which typically occurs between the cheeks of the buttocks and often at the upper end. Symptoms may include pain, swelling, and redness. There may also be drainage of fluid. It rarely results in a fever

Risk factors include obesity, family history, prolonged sitting, greater amounts of hair, and not enough exercise. The underlying mechanism is believed to involve a mechanical process. The lesions may contain hair and skin debris.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilonidal_disease

Why are turtles green?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 05:02 AM

35. Exactly the kind of response I expected

He never tried to evade the draft, and you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 11:57 AM

17. Advance this clip

Advance this clip to 1:32:37














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 01:09 PM

21. This report is the latest incarnation of the global warming hoax and fear mongering

from marxist doomers. Throughout human history there has been a strain of people who want to make themselves sound important and smarter than everyone else by claiming they know something that others do not. The more dramatic and existential the purported threat the more attention they garner. Hence the need for doomsday scenarios. Every 5 years the end of the world is 10 years out.

These false prophets play on collectivists' emotional fragility and desire to micromanage and control others. Of course the solution to avoid doom and destruction is always to give the prophets money and power and control over the masses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MumblyPeg (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 02:28 PM

26. If AGW was a real Scientific Theory there would be one model and it would be predictive

AGW does not even rise to a Scientific Hypothesis using scientific standards.

It doesn't matter what you loons think about Rush's accurate comments which are not stated in science terms.

AGW is the largest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. It is "draw your lines then plot your points" method of control and money generation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedumb2003 (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 07:00 PM

28. There is no single predictive model

for long-term changes in planetary systems for the natural sciences with the possible exceptions of physics and chemistry. They are all predicated upon observation and possible explanatory scenarios. Climate change science most certainly rises to the level of a hypothesis. As for theory, it is never posited as settled or absolute. Good Lord!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tikal (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 3, 2018, 11:00 PM

31. "As for theory, it is never posited as settled or absolute."

Now, THAT'S funny!

Thanks for the laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:25 AM

38. IIt is funny when they get on their back legs and dance

I keep waiting for the "consensus" "argument."

It is an oldie but a goodie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 09:44 AM

40. You can't prove a scientific theory.

So you don't even know what you are laughing about.

A scientific theory is an explanation for all the facts, data, hypotheses and laws contained within the theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:38 PM

42. You people do it all the time so don't say it can't be done

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 5, 2018, 04:00 AM

47. The facts and data etc

In the theory can be proven, but not rhe theory itself.
That's just the way it works.
I didn't make it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tikal (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:24 AM

37. Science doesn't flinch when it is "too hard."

The bottom line is that there is no H0 that is testable, AGW meets pretty much zero criteria for a Scientific Theory.

It is at best a bunch of guesses and as I said is useless as a Scientific Tool as it not only doesn't predict anything with any reasonable certainty, it has been WRONG in the predictions it has made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedumb2003 (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 4, 2018, 07:46 PM

43. Its like Socialism/Communism

Nobody has done it right so far

And neither have they come up with a computer model that works, so far.

(Mainly because they've never written one that results in no warming)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Cultureculturekekkekistanfrogpeperedpillayalolahwalkawayblexitschumershutdown