From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 22:16
In article <X_KdnVUrGeaSYODWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)nventure.com>,
Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote:
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote in
> > In article <cLWdnQFOpOa5SeDWnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)nventure.com>,
> > nospam(a)devnull.spam says...
> >> You are about as wrong as it is possible to be.
> >> Far from "Nobody" predicting warming, papers in the scientific
> >> literature predicting warming outweighed those predicting cooling by
> >> 7 to 1.
> >> Here's an reference to an outline of a paper examining the scientific
> >> literature of the '70s.
> >> http://www.noaaworld.noaa.gov/scitech/sep2008_scitech_4.html
> >> Look especially at item 4. Six times more articles discussing
> >> potential warming influences than cooling influences.
> >> Or maybe you'd rather go to the article itself, maybe not since it
> >> was published by the American Meteorological Society. Either way
> >> here it is.
> >> http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
> >> See also the conclusion:
> >> During the period 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7
> >> cooling papers, 19 neutral and 42 warming.
> >> If you want to hide behind "late 70's", it's doesn't look any better
> >> for your contention, because from '75-'79 there were only 2 papers
> >> for global cooling verus 29 for global warming.
> >> Finally, watch out. Claims that the '70s were a time of belief in
> >> globel cooling are often supported by quote mined sitations like the
> >> following used by both Inhofe and former energy secretary Schlesinger
> >> (from a 1972 National Science Board report)
> >> 1972 National Science Board report as saying:
> >> "Judging from the record of the past interglacial
> >> ages, the present time of high temperatures
> >> should be drawing to an end...leading into the next
> >> glacial age"
> >> What they don't mention is that the paper went on to say:
> >> However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has
> >> already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of
> >> the near future will follow a different path.
> >> Quite a different viewpoint than what Inohofe and Schlesinger would
> >> have you believe.
> >> In any case, your contention that "Nobody was predicting any warming
> >> at all." is shown to be completely wrong.
> >> As an honorable man, I'm sure that you'll publically retract it.
> > All of the news reports on air and in the newspaper were on the
> > subject of the coming ice age.
> > If anything is to blame it is the MSM.
> O gee! You accidentally deleted the earlier discussion, where I
> specifically said *climatologists* and you claimed "Nobody was predicting
> any warming at all."
> Strange that! If I didn't know better I'd claim you were being dishonest.
Stick around a while longer - you will see that this is their standard
tactic when they get caught in a discussion on the losing side. Which is
all the time on this issue, because they never even look at the data.
> Let me state again "As an honorable man, I'm sure that you'll publically
> retract it."
> Or maybe you don't think of yourself as honorable. Your choice.
You're learning :-)
From: Jack Hollis on 18 Feb 2010 22:38
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:01:09 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>> I've been looking for it but haven't seen it yet. =A0Where is it?
>You must not have been looking very hard. Either that or you have a
>unique definition of the word "evidence."
To me, evidence is scientific proof and that doesn't exist.
Science has proven that the planet is warming.
Science has proven that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the
Science has proven that CO is a greenhouse gas.
Although science cannot prove that the human related increase in CO2
is responsible for any of the warming, it seems logical that humans
are having some effect.
Now the rub is exactly how much is that "some.". Of course, no one
can accurately measure this. Some scientists say that it's so small
that it's not worth worrying about. Other scientists say that it will
lead to a catastrophe. Ultimately, no one really knows, so until such
time as there is proof that there is a problem, I won't worry about
Science has also proven that the earth has warmed and cooled many
times in the past and that what is happening now is well within
I have every confidence that the human race will adjust to whatever
the climate does.
From: assimilate on 19 Feb 2010 00:02
On 18-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote:
> > What were all of these "climatologists" promoting in the mid to late
> > 70's?
> If you mean what was the majority opinion of those climatologists, it was
> global warming.
* �The Earth�s Cooling Climate,� Science News, November 15, 1969.
* �Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,� Washington Post, January
* �Science: Another Ice Age?� Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.
* �The Ice Age Cometh!� Science News, March 1, 1975.
* �The Cooling World,� Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
* �Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be
Ahead,� New York Times, May 21, 1975.
* �In the Grip of a New Ice Age?� International Wildlife July-August,
* �A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,� New York Times,
September 14, 1975.
* �Variations in the Earth�s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,� Science
magazine, December 10, 1976.
From: BAR on 19 Feb 2010 07:15
In article <wclark2-9CEEF6.19364918022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> > > > > > > Does the Overton window mean anything to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have succeeded in creating superfund sites in each and every
> > > > > > building across the US.
> > > > >
> > > > > What in the name of the wee man are you talking about? Overton window?
> > > >
> > > > What's the matter Billy, you can't figure it out? I'll spell it out for
> > > > you.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
> > >
> > > What does it have to do with the Overton window?
> > Why don't you go read about the Overton window again.
> It would be good if you read about it just once
I did read about it. You just can't believe that I turned it back on
From: BAR on 19 Feb 2010 07:18
In article <wclark2-7FE069.19393518022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> In article <MPG.25e790c12b2f5efc989bee(a)news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <clark-DCE75A.08133518022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > > >
> > > > Please pass along this fact to the IPCC and the "climatologist" who
> > > > believe history started with the industrial revolution and that the
> > > > billions of years of Earth's existence and climatic cycles that preceded
> > > > 1850 should be studied too.
> > > >
> > > > Was CO2 and the Earths temperature ever greater than it is now and why?
> > >
> > > Which, of course, really hs nothing to do with anything. It is only the
> > > Sarah Palins of the world that believe the dinosaurs impacted man
> > > (because they walked on earth together), and the dinosaurs died out. The
> > > purpose of the contemporary concern with climate is to make sure that
> > > man doesn't suffer the same fate because of his own ignorance.
> > Talk about hubris.
> > What happens if 1997 XF11 changes its path slightly and impacts the
> > earth in 2028?
> > We are at the mercy of events completely and totally beyond our control.
> No, we are talking about events we can control. Do you drive your car
> blindfold just because there is a chance that some red neck in a truck
> will run a red light and broadside you, and you can do nothing about it?
> That is beyond your control, but you sure as hell don't resign control
> of your car just because it is.
We do not live on a planet where we control everything or much of
anything. If you want to return to an existence where you live in a cave
and you gather berries and hunt small animals for your daily sustenance
no one is stopping you.