Only those who re-write history believe that most of the scientists and media outlets in the 70s predicted warming. To any rational, reasonable person who lived through the 70s knows they predicted cooling.
I was alive during the 70s. I read the papers on the weekend and as a kid and was completely fascinated by the predicted cooling. It was far and away the info reported in the New York times and every other major news outlet. Any argument to the contrary can only be made due to time and selective record keeping. you might be able to rewrite the temperature record... but you can't rewrite the history we lived. By the way... we really don't have an skin in this game... we are just looking for the truth. If man is causing warming... we should have some science. if there is a risk man is causing warming... than that is the way you should be framing it and we would agree there is a risk. its your team that is lying its ass off all the time. otherwise... you would produce peer reviewed articles showing man made co2 is causing warming. (you can't because you have no science showing that.)
And still the dumb denier righties deny the facts. They interfere with their cherished delusions. The majority of science in the seventies predicted warming. But please, don't let the facts get in the way of your deranged narrative.
Your previous posts on ET are ample evidence that you are sick and twisted... as well ignorant, uncomprehending, and narrow-minded. You come across a fanatical zealot who constantly lashes out at those more knowledgeable and educated. Your unceasing drivel demonstrates a severe break from reality. Your daily life must be like a continuous "Thanks Smokey" video. However the bottom line is only you can arrive at a conclusion of why you are sick and twisted.
read this agw troll. and if you wish to refute it go do the research and read the paper... don't do the typical leftist thing and try and blame newbustersor the blogger... address whether the point is factual. did hansen do the research... NASA Scientists Predicted a New Ice Age in 1971 By Noel Sheppard | September 19, 2007 | 5:45 PM EDT This seems destined to be ignored by today's climate change obsessed media: Scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies - the very organization now presaging gloom and doom at the hands of global warming - predicted a new ice age back in 1971. Think this will be a focus of tonight's evening news broadcasts? Regardless of the answer, the Washington Times wonderfully reported Wednesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano): NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years. The Post archives do indeed identify the existence of such a piece, with the following preview: The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that... The Times piece continued: The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus. The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." It turns out the Post was referring specifically to an article published at the journal Science that day, which was written by Rasool and S. H. Schneider. Science archives identified the following abstract of the piece entitled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," and indicated the authors were from "Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (emphasis added): Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbondioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth havebeen computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbondioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature,the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasingcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, thenet effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperatureof Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering,the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasingaerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in globalaerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reducethe surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustainedover a period of several years, such a temperature decreaseover the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to triggeran ice age. How marvelous. Yet, 36 years later, this same organization is predicting a planetary cataclysm at the hands of global warming. Which one of this agency's warnings should we heed? - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...edicted-new-ice-age-1971#sthash.JdHi1OGJ.dpuf
or this... http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry Global Cooling? Americans who lived through the 1960s and ’70s may remember the dire global-cooling predictions that were hyped and given great credibility by Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and numerous other mainstream media outlets. According to the man-made global-cooling theories of the time, billions of people should be dead by now owing to cooling-linked crop failures and starvation. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and the world did not get 11 degrees colder. No ice age arrived, either. In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 bookThe Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism. To combat the alleged man-made cooling, “experts” suggested all sorts of grandiose schemes, including some that in retrospect appear almost too comical to be real. “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects,” reported Newsweek in its 1975 article “The Cooling World,” which claimed that Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities. Some of the “more spectacular solutions” proposed by the cooling theorists at the time included “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” Newsweek reported. Of course, the big alleged threat hyped in recent decades has been global warming, not global cooling. But the accuracy of the climate-change predictions since the cooling fears melted away has hardly improved.
ha ha ha.........Newsbusters!!!!!! LOL Ignorance supported by bullshit is no way to be. No. the majority of science predicted warming. In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970. At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects. By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember. The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Ha ha ha New American!!!! Why the fuck can't you EVER use a reputable source for your deranged bullshit? Why?