4 ms·

NASA predicted human caused 'ice age' in 1971...

6 points by gibsonf1 19y ago

viergroupie 19y ago
Let me preface this by saying that the 1971 doom-prophecies do cast a bad light on global warming and the change of opinion needs to be publicly addressed by Hansen. Now, having said that...this article appears to have been written in an Exxon boardroom by a committee of chuckling robber-barrons in top hats...being served a puree made from the hearts of orphans.
- lupin_sansei 19y ago
  Logic 101: just because Exxon might have written a report against AGW it doesn't automatically mean that it's false and can be dismissed without further consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - aswanson 19y ago
    It doesn't mean that it can immediately be dismissed, but you can certainly take into account prior or perceived behaviour of a party when making a claim, especially if they have strong economic motive to deceive you. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691641 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691641
henning 19y ago
You see? You see? Sometimes scientists are wrong! Since experts are unable to predict the possibly dramatic results of climate change, it means we, who know nothing about meteorology or climate modelling, have carte blanche to ignore everything they say and pollute as much as possible! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drive my 1.5 children to Little League in a Hummer.
aswanson 19y ago
What is it with this crusade against people who have a problem with large amounts of C02 emissions? Why believe people who, for the most part, have every reason to lie (Hannity, Glenn Beck, Exxon executives) over the majority of credentialed scientists? Experiment for you: Take 2 thermometers. Take 2 bottles. Put a thermometer in 1. Close it. Set a match on fire. Put it in the second bottle, enclosed with the thermometer (this will cause CO2 to be created). Read both thermometers after a few hours, to negate any temperature difference that may be caused by the fire. One will read a higher temperature. Guess which one? Guess why? Mail results to Fox News for extra credit. [/Flame off]
- lupin_sansei 19y ago
  Why would that simple experiment with bottles be analogous to our atmosphere?
  - aswanson 19y ago
    The first bottle contains the ratio of elements as contained in our atmosphere. The second has an increased ratio of C02 in proportion to the remaining nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements. The CO2 bottle would have a greater thermal retention coefficient than the bottle with the normal proportion and would exhibit a greater increase in temperature if exposed to sunlight. Greater ratio of Co2, greater ratio of IR energy retention.
    - lupin_sansei 19y ago
      Our atmosphere has clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays and solar forcing effects too. Plus the bottle experiment assumes that there will be no scaling problems.
      - aswanson 19y ago
        You are correct; that simple experiment does not take into account all of the external effects. With regard to scaling, I am guessing that you refer to feedback effects produced by plant production of oxygen from the CO2. My assumption is that the rate plant growth on the planet will stay constant, or, at the rate we are going, vastly decrease (rainforests, etc) which will worsen the effect. Also, economic growth planet wide can only increase energy consumption, and therefore, CO2 production. I don't think there are any off-base assumptions there, but I am open to the evidence of some.
deleted 19y ago
[deleted]

6 points by gibsonf1 19y ago

Let me preface this by saying that the 1971 doom-prophecies do cast a bad light on global warming and the change of opinion needs to be publicly addressed by Hansen. Now, having said that...this article appears to have been written in an Exxon boardroom by a committee of chuckling robber-barrons in top hats...being served a puree made from the hearts of orphans.

lupin_sansei 19y ago
Logic 101: just because Exxon might have written a report against AGW it doesn't automatically mean that it's false and can be dismissed without further consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- aswanson 19y ago
  It doesn't mean that it can immediately be dismissed, but you can certainly take into account prior or perceived behaviour of a party when making a claim, especially if they have strong economic motive to deceive you. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691641 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691641

henning 19y ago

You see? You see? Sometimes scientists are wrong! Since experts are unable to predict the possibly dramatic results of climate change, it means we, who know nothing about meteorology or climate modelling, have carte blanche to ignore everything they say and pollute as much as possible! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drive my 1.5 children to Little League in a Hummer.

aswanson 19y ago

What is it with this crusade against people who have a problem with large amounts of C02 emissions? Why believe people who, for the most part, have every reason to lie (Hannity, Glenn Beck, Exxon executives) over the majority of credentialed scientists? Experiment for you: Take 2 thermometers. Take 2 bottles. Put a thermometer in 1. Close it. Set a match on fire. Put it in the second bottle, enclosed with the thermometer (this will cause CO2 to be created). Read both thermometers after a few hours, to negate any temperature difference that may be caused by the fire. One will read a higher temperature. Guess which one? Guess why? Mail results to Fox News for extra credit. [/Flame off]

lupin_sansei 19y ago
Why would that simple experiment with bottles be analogous to our atmosphere?
- aswanson 19y ago
  The first bottle contains the ratio of elements as contained in our atmosphere. The second has an increased ratio of C02 in proportion to the remaining nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements. The CO2 bottle would have a greater thermal retention coefficient than the bottle with the normal proportion and would exhibit a greater increase in temperature if exposed to sunlight. Greater ratio of Co2, greater ratio of IR energy retention.
  - lupin_sansei 19y ago
    Our atmosphere has clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays and solar forcing effects too. Plus the bottle experiment assumes that there will be no scaling problems.
    - aswanson 19y ago
      You are correct; that simple experiment does not take into account all of the external effects. With regard to scaling, I am guessing that you refer to feedback effects produced by plant production of oxygen from the CO2. My assumption is that the rate plant growth on the planet will stay constant, or, at the rate we are going, vastly decrease (rainforests, etc) which will worsen the effect. Also, economic growth planet wide can only increase energy consumption, and therefore, CO2 production. I don't think there are any off-base assumptions there, but I am open to the evidence of some.

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]