3 ms·

I read it differently... People who say "Climates have always changed and they always will" are saying it to all the folks who REALLY DON'T KNOW IT. Seriously

I read it differently... People who say "Climates have always changed and they always will" are saying it to all the folks who REALLY DON'T KNOW IT. Seriously, if you asked 100 Americans to plot the average temperature in Iowa over then past 10,000 years, how many do you think would draw a flat line with a quick slope up starting around the twentieth century? As recently as about 30 years ago, scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling which, at the time, had been going on since the 40s. Before that, they were concerned about the warming trend that started in the 1880s. Here's a delightful article from Newsweek in the 70s: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

spoondan 18y ago
It is absolutely false that "scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling". In fact, thirty years ago, the scientific consensus was for warming, and there was grave and growing concern about the effect of greenhouse gases. Any review of the scientific literature from that period will prove this definitively. Fleck, Connolley, and Peterson have published on this point; you can probably find a summary of their findings online. Moreover, even if "Global Cooling" was not the lie it is, this argument is meaningless. History is littered with discarded scientific theories. This is not cause for concern. It is the way that science works. What matters is whether current theories are correct. It is interesting to note, then, that current climate models accurately describe--among many other things--the cooling period you mention. Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal.
- webwright 18y ago
  "Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal." <sigh> You're right. Good thing no one made that argument. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote about that, which was, approximately, that most people really don't that (sadly, most people also can't point at Mexico on a map). No one is arguing that because climate normally occurs that all climate change must be normal. They are just pointing out, "Hey guys-- this isn't the first time that climate HAS changed-- so let's not rush to conclusions". Scientific consensus 30 years ago was for warming? After Source? Here's a quote from that article (admittedly from Newsweek): Meteorologists disagree [!] about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous [!] in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
mattmaroon 18y ago
You really should read Wikipedia or Google around about Global Cooling. It was never a scientific consensus at all. It was something a few scientists discussed as a possibility and the media ran with.
- webwright 18y ago
  Yeah I have-- I wasn't saying there was consensus on cooling-- but there was certainly a meaningful number of scientists who thought that 30 years of cooling meant something more than it did. Certainly the cooling was significant enough that warming doomsayers weren't too noisy during that period, anyways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_warming#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_wa... Is a good read... Opinions seem more varied than a lot of people think. I don't really have an opinion. I don't have enough facts, but I have to say that the "torch and pitchforks" feeling I get from the scientific mob rub me the wrong way.

spoondan 18y ago

It is absolutely false that "scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling". In fact, thirty years ago, the scientific consensus was for warming, and there was grave and growing concern about the effect of greenhouse gases. Any review of the scientific literature from that period will prove this definitively. Fleck, Connolley, and Peterson have published on this point; you can probably find a summary of their findings online. Moreover, even if "Global Cooling" was not the lie it is, this argument is meaningless. History is littered with discarded scientific theories. This is not cause for concern. It is the way that science works. What matters is whether current theories are correct. It is interesting to note, then, that current climate models accurately describe--among many other things--the cooling period you mention. Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal.

webwright 18y ago
"Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal." <sigh> You're right. Good thing no one made that argument. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote about that, which was, approximately, that most people really don't that (sadly, most people also can't point at Mexico on a map). No one is arguing that because climate normally occurs that all climate change must be normal. They are just pointing out, "Hey guys-- this isn't the first time that climate HAS changed-- so let's not rush to conclusions". Scientific consensus 30 years ago was for warming? After Source? Here's a quote from that article (admittedly from Newsweek): Meteorologists disagree [!] about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous [!] in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

mattmaroon 18y ago

You really should read Wikipedia or Google around about Global Cooling. It was never a scientific consensus at all. It was something a few scientists discussed as a possibility and the media ran with.

webwright 18y ago
Yeah I have-- I wasn't saying there was consensus on cooling-- but there was certainly a meaningful number of scientists who thought that 30 years of cooling meant something more than it did. Certainly the cooling was significant enough that warming doomsayers weren't too noisy during that period, anyways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_warming#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_wa... Is a good read... Opinions seem more varied than a lot of people think. I don't really have an opinion. I don't have enough facts, but I have to say that the "torch and pitchforks" feeling I get from the scientific mob rub me the wrong way.