Yet still you are a dumb fuck that denies the facts and science. Despite being shown them you ignore them. You and jerm are the very definition of ignorant deranged rigthies. Mainstream Media What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production." "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture: "When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Peer-Reviewed Literature However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008). Scientific Consensus In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom. In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Protection Agency NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics National Center for Atmospheric Research American Meteorological Society The Royal Society of the UK Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society American Association for the Advancement of Science Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971): "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K." Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s: Figure 2: Global sulfur dioxide emissions by source (PNNL) Similarly, if we now limit CO2 emissions, we can also eventually get global warming under control. Summary So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced theSO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming. Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook Update July 2015:
Cook's paper was torn to shreds in a peer reviewed article. it turns out when you look at the papers... only.3 percent endorsed the consensus. Its not surpristing cook misrepresents reality.. he is the author of a website paid for by al gore. skeptical science. you are the one producing dogshit science. If we are lying... why don't you present 100 papers from that avalanche of papers... stating man made co2 causes warming. or even 5 or 2? I will tell you why... in reality there are very few and the only ones that exist are old and based on outdated models. There is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming. if there were you would produce them.
Another cut and paste of fabricated Skeptical Science talking points devoid of facts and counter to the experience of everyone who lived through the 70s. In other words this is fantasy fiction - not much different from your daily living experience which appears to be an incurable continuous break from reality. Let's look at the facts. The prediction of global cooling in the 1970s was wide-spread... https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/ http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html?m=1 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10...s-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
What the fuck are you babbling about now lunatic? We are talking about what the science said in the seventies, which was the earth was going to warm up. And no, the Cook paper has certainly NOT been "torn to shreds" LOL. Maybe by your bullshit no crediblity websites.
And not a single reputable authoritative source was seen. You enjoy being deluded and ignorant don't you? Why you can't understand that what was written in Times was NOT the dominate science at the time is a mystery. Oh wait, no it's not. You're a fucking moron.
The Number Of Companies Weaning Off Carbon Is Surging Internal carbon pricing has tripled since last year. Alexander C. Kaufman Business Editor, The Huffington Post Posted: 09/21/2015 12:27 AM EDT | Edited: 2 hours ago "Corporations are finally starting to quit carbon. "The number of companies putting a price on their own carbon emissions has tripled since last year, according to a report released Sunday by the environmental data nonprofit CDP. "By assigning a cost to the production of greenhouse gases, companies hope to establish a financial incentive to wean themselves off fossil fuels. In-house carbon pricing also helps mitigate the effects of current or potential regulation. Carbon prices range from $1 per metric ton of carbon dioxide to $357. “Contrary to conventional belief, companies would welcome regulatory certainty and are planning for mandatory emissions limits in the future,” Paula DiPerna, special adviser to CDP and a carbon-pricing expert, said in a statement. “CDP’s ongoing tracking of carbon pricing by companies is indispensable to illuminating how companies act.” "The 435 companies named in the report represent a range of industries, and include such corporate behemoths as the Campbell Soup Company, Black & Decker, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Nissan. "The world's biggest corporations anticipate a future in which their carbon emissions carry a price," Lance Pierce, president of CDP North America, said in a statement. "The disclosures to CDP detail how and why companies are pricing their own carbon pollution now to help build competitive advantage for the future." "Below is an infographic, designed by The Huffington Post's Alissa Scheller, that shows how much companies are internally charging themselves for carbon emissions, and how those rates compare to CDP's ideal range: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carbon-pricing-report_55fc8026e4b08820d918b6f9
All the linked sources with lists of articles and papers from the 1970s predicting a cooling earth... Yet in your sick and twisted world you are incapable of reading or acknowledging any of them.
Do you understand the difference between the popular press and science? Yes the popular press and a few science papers talked about cooling, but the majority of climate science papers were talking about warming. There was however no real consensus at that time, which is far different than today where the consensus is overwhelming. Of course you refuse to admit this fact also.
why do you lie about something so easily proven to be a lie. “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%” Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.