5 ms·

To be more accurate, swap "global warming" with "climate change" and see if your original argument about the double standard holds up.

sparkie 8y ago
In 1970 it was global cooling. In 1990 it was global warming. If it's climate change, then what are the eventual outcomes? Is the world going to warm up by 5 degrees or is it going to cool? Does it even matter? Surely we can just shift the goalposts if we turn out to be wrong. But in the mean time, we really need you to pay enormous amounts of money in carbon taxes.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > In 1970 it was global cooling. Citation very badly needed. 1970 was less global cooling than it was Erich von Däniken's Chariot of the Gods. Global cooling was a niche theory that got a brief spike of publicity. It was NOT the scientific consensus, or the majority of the news reporting on the topic, or even widely known. Chariot of the Gods was, on the other hand, quite well known at the time.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    Something tells me the mainstream scientific citation will never come from these hit and run climate skeptics.
  - fsagx 8y ago
    I think the genesis of a lot of the cooling arguments goes back to just one article in National Geographic: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1...
- cdelsolar 8y ago
  How can there be so many dumb people on this forum? Where am I?
  - kk58 8y ago
    Trolls man. All of them. Russia needs oil. They don't have a plan B
- EGreg 8y ago
  Do me a favor and Stop talking about temperature for a second. Do you agree that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are shooting up? 10 years ago they were 390, now they are 411. At a certain ppm, human cognition begins to suffer. Try staying in a stuffy room. Acidification of the oceans and other things - animals cannot evolve to adapt that quickly. When you talk about pollution on such a massive scale, why get stuck in an argument only about temperature? I can think of a reason: insane political partisanship.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    > Do me a favor and Stop talking about temperature for a second. At least something we can agree on! This was exactly what my original point was. The media won't shut up about temperature when they're using it to sell global warming. I was pointing out their bias: how they say one thing when it suits them and then say the opposite when it doesn't suit them. But if you're going to replace scaremongering about temperature with some other scaremongering, at least chose something sane. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are 0.04%, of which a fraction is human contributed. CO2 levels don't cause problems for humans even at 1%. I'm pretty sure we will exhaust the accessible supply of fossil fuel before CO2 levels become a problem for us breathing. And if you want to discuss political partisanship, gotta ask why all the scaremongering comes from the hard left. It's not like the political right don't care, they're just a bit more grounded in reality about what we can actually do about the alleged problem, even if the science is absolutely flawless. And about "hit and run," I can only selectively reply because I am throttled on HN for wrongthink. Shutting down debate with these kind of underhanded tactics are staple of the political left. A simple search of "1970s global cooling" will bring up a plethora of stories that were being pushed in the 1970s. If you want to argue that there was not a campaign to sell this narrative in the 70s, why don't you cite me some publications from the 70s which reject or even hold some scepticism the (mainstream) narrative at the time.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      A simple search of "1970s global cooling" will bring up a plethora of modern stories trying to make it into a far bigger deal than it ever was at the time. It's a worthless search now, as it's been plugged to death thanks to those pushing disinformation. You want papers from the 1970s? Well this study of climate studies from 1965 to 1979 finds just 7, with 12% of the citations, that predict global cooling. In the same period they find 42 that predict warming. They list all of them if you'd like to read any of them. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

sparkie 8y ago

In 1970 it was global cooling. In 1990 it was global warming. If it's climate change, then what are the eventual outcomes? Is the world going to warm up by 5 degrees or is it going to cool? Does it even matter? Surely we can just shift the goalposts if we turn out to be wrong. But in the mean time, we really need you to pay enormous amounts of money in carbon taxes.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> In 1970 it was global cooling. Citation very badly needed. 1970 was less global cooling than it was Erich von Däniken's Chariot of the Gods. Global cooling was a niche theory that got a brief spike of publicity. It was NOT the scientific consensus, or the majority of the news reporting on the topic, or even widely known. Chariot of the Gods was, on the other hand, quite well known at the time.
- EGreg 8y ago
  Something tells me the mainstream scientific citation will never come from these hit and run climate skeptics.
- fsagx 8y ago
  I think the genesis of a lot of the cooling arguments goes back to just one article in National Geographic: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1...
cdelsolar 8y ago
How can there be so many dumb people on this forum? Where am I?
- kk58 8y ago
  Trolls man. All of them. Russia needs oil. They don't have a plan B
EGreg 8y ago
Do me a favor and Stop talking about temperature for a second. Do you agree that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are shooting up? 10 years ago they were 390, now they are 411. At a certain ppm, human cognition begins to suffer. Try staying in a stuffy room. Acidification of the oceans and other things - animals cannot evolve to adapt that quickly. When you talk about pollution on such a massive scale, why get stuck in an argument only about temperature? I can think of a reason: insane political partisanship.
- sparkie 8y ago
  > Do me a favor and Stop talking about temperature for a second. At least something we can agree on! This was exactly what my original point was. The media won't shut up about temperature when they're using it to sell global warming. I was pointing out their bias: how they say one thing when it suits them and then say the opposite when it doesn't suit them. But if you're going to replace scaremongering about temperature with some other scaremongering, at least chose something sane. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are 0.04%, of which a fraction is human contributed. CO2 levels don't cause problems for humans even at 1%. I'm pretty sure we will exhaust the accessible supply of fossil fuel before CO2 levels become a problem for us breathing. And if you want to discuss political partisanship, gotta ask why all the scaremongering comes from the hard left. It's not like the political right don't care, they're just a bit more grounded in reality about what we can actually do about the alleged problem, even if the science is absolutely flawless. And about "hit and run," I can only selectively reply because I am throttled on HN for wrongthink. Shutting down debate with these kind of underhanded tactics are staple of the political left. A simple search of "1970s global cooling" will bring up a plethora of stories that were being pushed in the 1970s. If you want to argue that there was not a campaign to sell this narrative in the 70s, why don't you cite me some publications from the 70s which reject or even hold some scepticism the (mainstream) narrative at the time.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    A simple search of "1970s global cooling" will bring up a plethora of modern stories trying to make it into a far bigger deal than it ever was at the time. It's a worthless search now, as it's been plugged to death thanks to those pushing disinformation. You want papers from the 1970s? Well this study of climate studies from 1965 to 1979 finds just 7, with 12% of the citations, that predict global cooling. In the same period they find 42 that predict warming. They list all of them if you'd like to read any of them. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf