4 ms·

Not true. Global cooling was a fad not supported by most the effects of CO2 had been know for more than a century. The burden of proof is on you: fetch all publ

Not true. Global cooling was a fad not supported by most the effects of CO2 had been know for more than a century. The burden of proof is on you: fetch all publications since 1960 and post your meta-analysis to Nature.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Historically, Earth has been much hotter on average than it is now: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... The near past was the one of the coldest points in history in the last 500 million years. The idea that the Earth is going to explode if temperatures increase by 1.5C is amusing. Yes, it's definitely not going to be fun, and yes it looks like it's definitely going to happen. But the world has been that hot plenty of times before (100s of millions of years), and we haven't turned into Venus yet. I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions - definitely think they're causing a problem - but it's not going to be annihilation / world ending. I say this because I had existential dread for literally a decade until I looked into it more.
revelio 3y ago
They knew all about CO2 and its warming yes, but Schneider calculated that the effect was offset by other pollutants being put into the atmosphere. He had to because, as the NY Times article states clearly, at that time thermometer records showed that temperatures peaked in the 1940s and "have been cooling ever since". Nice try on defining proof as "the people accused of lying have to admit it or else it's not proven". That's not how it works. The NY Times story is high quality proof that Yale's claim about the past isn't true. People were told by the most trusted authorities that not only was the world getting colder but that this was well understood and the trend would continue. If you don't like that article you have to provide equally compelling counter-evidence, not insist on some stupid definition of proof selected only to avoid cognitive dissonance. But hey, seeing as you want more proof, here's NOAA - the US government agency - stating in 1974, two years before the NY times story that "Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently": https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NOAA-Magazine-October-1974.pdf https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NO... Global cooling wasn't in doubt, only its effects. Here's a meeting of the National Science Foundation in 1972: "The present cooling trend, which reversed the warm trend of the 1940s, is still underway" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.178.4057.190 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.178.4057.190 It goes on to list some pieces of easily understood evidence, like "pack ice around Iceland is once again becoming a serious hindrance to navigation" and "warmth loving animals like Armadillos are retreating southward". Today we're told the NY Times, NOAA and the NSF were all reporting on a made up "fad" no scientists believed, and there never was any cooling trend. In this article, Yale is lying to us about the past. Why is that?
- polotics 3y ago
  Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Pop-science is peddling expertise as newspaper copy. And by the way, someone having been wrong in 1970's is relevant for you to the droughts and floods of 2023, how?
  - revelio 3y ago
    The wrongness I'm pointing out is the Yale article, circa 2023. It makes false claims about the past, so what else are they saying that's false? Re: droughts and floods. Good example. These aren't getting worse. The media and academics like to claim they are, but they are wrong. Select the "Palmer Drought Severity Index" here from official US data and plot "All months" from 1895 to 2023 i.e. all data. Observe that there's no trend: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/pdsi/all/4/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-gla... Then select "Precipitation". Observe that there's only a very slight trend of 0.18 inches/decade. That's tiny and not enough of different in average rain to change the incidence of flooding. Remember that the actual climate claim is only about 0.1 degree of change per decade since ~1980, i.e. only about half a degree of warming since the end of the period of global cooling. Half a degree isn't enough to have any visible impact on weather patterns. The climate just isn't that sensitive.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Historically, Earth has been much hotter on average than it is now: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... The near past was the one of the coldest points in history in the last 500 million years. The idea that the Earth is going to explode if temperatures increase by 1.5C is amusing. Yes, it's definitely not going to be fun, and yes it looks like it's definitely going to happen. But the world has been that hot plenty of times before (100s of millions of years), and we haven't turned into Venus yet. I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions - definitely think they're causing a problem - but it's not going to be annihilation / world ending. I say this because I had existential dread for literally a decade until I looked into it more.

revelio 3y ago

They knew all about CO2 and its warming yes, but Schneider calculated that the effect was offset by other pollutants being put into the atmosphere. He had to because, as the NY Times article states clearly, at that time thermometer records showed that temperatures peaked in the 1940s and "have been cooling ever since". Nice try on defining proof as "the people accused of lying have to admit it or else it's not proven". That's not how it works. The NY Times story is high quality proof that Yale's claim about the past isn't true. People were told by the most trusted authorities that not only was the world getting colder but that this was well understood and the trend would continue. If you don't like that article you have to provide equally compelling counter-evidence, not insist on some stupid definition of proof selected only to avoid cognitive dissonance. But hey, seeing as you want more proof, here's NOAA - the US government agency - stating in 1974, two years before the NY times story that "Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently": https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NOAA-Magazine-October-1974.pdf https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NO... Global cooling wasn't in doubt, only its effects. Here's a meeting of the National Science Foundation in 1972: "The present cooling trend, which reversed the warm trend of the 1940s, is still underway" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.178.4057.190 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.178.4057.190 It goes on to list some pieces of easily understood evidence, like "pack ice around Iceland is once again becoming a serious hindrance to navigation" and "warmth loving animals like Armadillos are retreating southward". Today we're told the NY Times, NOAA and the NSF were all reporting on a made up "fad" no scientists believed, and there never was any cooling trend. In this article, Yale is lying to us about the past. Why is that?

polotics 3y ago
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Pop-science is peddling expertise as newspaper copy. And by the way, someone having been wrong in 1970's is relevant for you to the droughts and floods of 2023, how?
- revelio 3y ago
  The wrongness I'm pointing out is the Yale article, circa 2023. It makes false claims about the past, so what else are they saying that's false? Re: droughts and floods. Good example. These aren't getting worse. The media and academics like to claim they are, but they are wrong. Select the "Palmer Drought Severity Index" here from official US data and plot "All months" from 1895 to 2023 i.e. all data. Observe that there's no trend: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/pdsi/all/4/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-gla... Then select "Precipitation". Observe that there's only a very slight trend of 0.18 inches/decade. That's tiny and not enough of different in average rain to change the incidence of flooding. Remember that the actual climate claim is only about 0.1 degree of change per decade since ~1980, i.e. only about half a degree of warming since the end of the period of global cooling. Half a degree isn't enough to have any visible impact on weather patterns. The climate just isn't that sensitive.