You consider one article in Time massive headline coverage and a scientific consensus? Umm. Ok.
-
Comment -
KLC you come down to this part of the world where the hole in the ozone is at its biggest and tell me climate change isnt happening when after 10mins in the sun you come back into the shade looking like a well done lobster...
Can go to any other part of the world during summer, not wear sunscreen and get away with it without being burnt but not here pal.
That giant ozone hole above us has made sure of that...Comment -
Turns out the Newsweek story from April 1975 was merely the tip of a vast icesheet of reportage extending from start to end of the '70s. Here's a sampling from 1970 alone --
"Scientists See Ice Age in the Future," Washington Post, January 11
"Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself?", Los Angeles Times, January 15
"Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports," St. Petersburg Times, March 4
"Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century," Boston Globe, April 16
"Pollution called Ice Age Threat," St. Petersburg Times, June 26
"U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic," New York Times, July 18
"Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age," Sydney Morning Herald, October 19
And these are just from major newspapers that year, not counting smaller publications, as compiled in an extensive listing at PopularTechnology.net that includes scores of other articles throughout the decade.
The Popular Technology post also includes this video, titled "The Coming Ice Age," excerpted from a 1978 episode of the popular television series In Search Of ..., narrated by the late Leonard Nimoy. A scientist who appeared in the segment, Stanford University's Stephen Schneider, later became a global warming alarmist and adviser to Al Gore. (Pay no attention to my previous predictions of imminent frostbite!).
Any account of media warnings in the 1970s about global cooling would be incomplete without CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, the oft-touted most trusted man in America (and proposed VP candidate for Democrats in 1972) weighing in with trademark voice-of-God gravitas --
- See more at: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jac....v5MDn8Kv.dpufComment -
Comment -
Yes its all the same google result...
We get it you can copy and paste, this can't really be your argument against the possibility of climate change?Comment -
They could find seven whole articles across the entire United States over a year. And that's a scientific consensus or headline noise? LOL.
You're arguing that the Earth is flat since a small group of scientists was wrong before. Congratulations. You've been brainwashed completely.Comment -
You said, and I quote, "It never made headline noise.". I merely found several articles, and a video narrated by Leonard Nimoy to show you that statement was incorrect. By the way, "In Search Of" was one of the bigger shows on PBS educational programming at the time. Don't buy into all this hoopla. They've been selling it to us for decades. That's the point I'm trying to get you to see.Comment -
are you saying that scientist can't be persuaded to come up with certain conclusions for the right price? Are you also saying that other scientist who dispute the global warming are lying? Are you 100% certain?
I have heard both sides. I can't see how anyone can be 100% certain. Despite what Bill Maher says. Maher claims there is no God either. I am not sure about that also.
Government has told us many things over the years that have been proven incorrect. Some cases, outright lies. From cigarettes to asperatime to asbestos to the fat free diet to WMD's to GMO's to ......Comment -
Are you implying that the VAST MAJORITY of scientists is corrupt - across the globe? For what end? They're the ones that get something out of it? Not the polluters who are trying to discredit them? Kind of strange logic there. So, the scientists are the ones benefiting from "lying" while the poor little, innocent fossil fuel industry is being wrongfully attacked.
Is that what you're trying to imply here?
How do you know cigarettes and all those other things are lies now? Science maybe?Comment -
My point was that it isn't even close to the same "hoopla" nor scientific consensus. If you can't see that with your previous posts (seven whole articles over a year is not headline news), then it's not worth continuing to discuss with you.
You've officially been brainwashed. Congrats.Comment -
So, because some people in the United States are getting some funding to research the problem, all scientists (even those privately funded or outside of the United States) must be corrupt and/or drawing the wrong conclusion based on their evidence?
You think they're the ones that are benefiting most from this controversy and not the trillions of dollars being made in the fossil fuel industry? And you don't pay any mind to the fact that Exxon's own scientists warned its executives of global warming back in the 70's?Comment -
a little doubt in government? 19 trillion in debt, iraq for a decade, afghanistan for 15 years and I read today it might be decades more???!!! There's more than enough to severely doubt government's integrity and their agenda. Wouldn't you agree that was is huge money? Domestically, prisons are huge money? Why wouldn't a man made global warming be a hoax either? That's a clusterfukk of doubt. Nothing little.
I am not saying the fossil fuel industry isn't causing any harm and certainly ain't saying where shouldn't be better tenants on this Earth.Comment -
Then what exactly is the pushback over? Why would climate change even be a controversy if it is known that fossil fuels are damaging to our ecosystem? If we innovate and solve the problem of fossil fuels, we build an entirely new industry that will create a massive amount of jobs. But people would rather try to discredit an entire subset of scientists because they get funding for their research from a dysfunctional government. You're not doubting the United States government's integrity, you're doubting the integrity and assigning an agenda to a vast number of scientists throughout the world - all while protecting and preserving a known toxic industry.Last edited by MonkeyF0cker; 01-27-16, 09:00 PM.Comment -
What if (like many scientists agree) its just the solar activity of the Sun that causes climate change? Why can't we do clean energy anyways? Shouldn't we just for the fact that the planet will be a cleaner place to live in? Why does it have to be either or? Or is it because government can't say no to all the money from oil companies? Are you saying power doesn't corrupt?Comment -
Brainwash - make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.
Distrust - doubt the honesty or reliability of; regard with suspicion.
Look at both of those terms, and think deeply about which one is more truthful in my case. Not one time have I said that I'm not for cleaner energy. If there is a way to make it work where it is more affordable for Johnny Regular Guy, then I'm more for it. The two problems I have with your arguments are this.
#1 - There is nothing for me to be brainwashed about. A matter of fact, if I were brainwashed, I would just simply accept what these guys are saying by face value because they and the government all claim them to be reliable scientists. I have seen too many instances in my 47 years of existence that these guys might be able to come up with "facts", but their long term predictions are totally off base. The 47 years I have been here are a small window of the thousands, or even millions, of years the Earth has been in existence depending on what your belief system thinks. In that small window, I have seen scientific opinions change multiple times about what we are doing to the Earth, and what will happen. It's like Dick Morris. That guy couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat when it comes to predicting what will happen in elections. That's why you don't see the guy on TV hardly any more because his conclusions suck. These climate scientists conclusions have ranked with his over the decades. Why would I want to just blindly believe them when they have to change their theories approximately every 10 years because the last one crashed and burned?
#2 - I'm assuming that you weren't even alive, or not around too long in the 70's. If you were, I apologize in advance. Nonetheless, I know what the hell I saw when I was growing up. If I had plenty of time, I could probably find hundreds of more articles from the 70's to add to that list I provided from just 1 or 2 websites. Not saying you are, but it makes you look like the brainwashed one. You said there were no articles. I provided one. That wasn't enough. I provided several more plus an episode from a respected TV show that revealed the hysteria that was promoted for that time period. You then said that doesn't prove anything. If I provided hundreds of more articles, I guarantee you that wouldn't be enough, or you would probably try to find a way to dispute the legitimacy of that proof. Heck, last night after talking to Mrs. KLC, I remember how we would have pollution assemblies in grade school, and they would talk about the future cooling as factual. This happened, my friend. Don't be so emotional about this subject that you can just throw away any proof through rebuttal that shows differential from your core beliefs. I used to vote Republican right down the line when I was younger. I always believed that the R's were the good guys, and the D's were evil. I never researched the candidates. I thought that just because Bush 41 was Reagan's VP that he HAD to be a good president. I voted for him twice. I voted for Dole. I voted for Bush 43 twice. If I had known then what I know now, I would have voted for someone else in the Republican primary, or probably just not shown up at all for the general elections. I'd been warned for years that all the R's were not as pure as my guy, Ronald Reagan, but I kept blindly voting R. The facts were presented, but I foolishly turned the other way. After getting burned several times, I finally figured out that corruption does not discriminate just because of the letter by the name.
I'm not saying we should not look into cleaner energy. I'd be an idiot if I wasn't for something that could improve the health of not only our planet, but of us who are stewards of the Earth. My problems are these. I do not buy in to these scare tactics that these "experts" love to throw out there. If you can't be consistent in your theories, stop making Dick Morris predictions. Part of the reason that people do not believe this info is for that very reason alone. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Fool me 4-5 times, an I'm just a complete dumbass.
The government should be out of this. $19 trillion in debt shows how well they handle these things. Before they spend money on research like this, they need to take care of the debt we have already. The bigger problem I have though is anything they touch can be tarnished. How many politicians do we send to Congress with the hopes that they will be the one that changes things, no matter what side you are on, but yet we continue to see approval ratings in the teens, or less than that? If people we see in commercials, and town hall meetings can be corrupted once they get to Washington, then yes, scientists we HAVE NEVER SEEN can be turned by the allure of a financial kickback.
Again, I'm all for cleaner energy. It makes sense, whether you believe the future predictions or not. My main thing is that it has to be affordable for Johnny Regular Guy. There has to be a balance of belief and affordability if this transition is going to take place. The majority of people are going to care less where their electricity is coming from if they don't see a difference in their monthly bills.Last edited by Mr KLC; 01-28-16, 09:32 AM.Comment -
Wow, nice editorial piece KLC.
So many factors go into our weather/ climate. Sun's 11 year cycle, the amount of ice at the poles, volcanic activity
and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We play a small part.
In the late 60' -70's smog was real bad in LA. You could hardly make out the skyscrapers. Nixon came along and
created the EPA. Calif created lower emission standards on cars and factories. About 10 years later the smog was
gone.
It's our god given right to clean air and water and should be provided at any cost. When that goes away, thank your
politicians for doing away with the EPA, which they are contemplating now.
All I ask for you to do is when your local weather comes on, is pay attention to the records for the day in the past.
You will see some records, hot and cold were set in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's well before the EPA.
Each and every one of us needs to do our part. Stop throwing your fukking trash out the windows, dumping old oil
and gas on the ground and being pigs in general. You know who you are. Recycle when you can reduces pollution
on all levels.Comment
