Miami used to be a wonderful city before the rising ocean covered it.
Did you spend your younger years stoned most of the time?
Why? Sort of a weird question. Just saying what has been being said by "save the planet" folks for 50+ years.
Always found it interesting when someone that has a different view/opinoin of others, is considered to be brainwashed. Especially when that opinion threatens yours.
The change was not inexpensive, particularly for certain industries. I was an engineer at a large oil refinery back then and the change cost a lot - we used a lot of Freon and it took time to switch. Meanwhile Freon prices soared. They delivered our Freon tanks by rail - one giant tank per train car.
Still, the cost does pale compared to what climate change is going to cost.
1970 – Top US Climatologist Predicted A New Ice Age
In 1970, the top government climatologist predicted a new ice age, and said Earth had been cooling for 6,000 years. 24 Jan 1970 – Trove NASA and Columbia University predicted the new ice age would…
realclimatescience.com
@TheOriginalHappyGoat1970 – Top US Climatologist Predicted A New Ice Age
In 1970, the top government climatologist predicted a new ice age, and said Earth had been cooling for 6,000 years. 24 Jan 1970 – Trove NASA and Columbia University predicted the new ice age would…realclimatescience.com
Hey dumbass, no smart-ass reply to this?
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
1970 – Top US Climatologist Predicted A New Ice Age
In 1970, the top government climatologist predicted a new ice age, and said Earth had been cooling for 6,000 years. 24 Jan 1970 – Trove NASA and Columbia University predicted the new ice age would…realclimatescience.com
J. Murray Mitchell - Wikipedia
In a 1971 paper he calculated that human caused aerosol emissions might result in global cooling after 2000 but depending on circumstances these emissions might cause a warming effect, indicating that humans had been "an innocent bystander" in the recent cooling. Calculations were too basic at this time to be trusted to give reliable results.[4][6] As research developed, he drew attention to increasing evidence that warming climate, particularly in polar regions, was due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions and could change weather patterns to the detriment of agriculture.
Seems like he figured it out rather quickly that the ice age prediction was wrong but then again bringing up the complete story wouldn't have served the point you were trying to make. And just because scientists have been wrong because of having incomplete data doesn't mean that they are always wrong or that they are stuck to an original opinion as more data is found. They can and should update their conclusions as they learn more.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which does nothing to refute my statement that scientists were predicting a new Ice Age in the 70sJ. Murray Mitchell - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In a 1971 paper he calculated that human caused aerosol emissions might result in global cooling after 2000 but depending on circumstances these emissions might cause a warming effect, indicating that humans had been "an innocent bystander" in the recent cooling. Calculations were too basic at this time to be trusted to give reliable results.[4][6] As research developed, he drew attention to increasing evidence that warming climate, particularly in polar regions, was due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions and could change weather patterns to the detriment of agriculture.
Seems like he figured it out rather quickly that the ice age prediction was wrong but then again bringing up the complete story wouldn't have served the point you were trying to make.
@mcmurtry66 this has been an impressive beat down by Dan. He put @TheOriginalHappyGoat to bed early without dinner and just woke him up to rub it in. I almost feel sorry for Goat.
All you do is make yourself look stupid by latching onto this idiocy.
I'm just an unbiased observer calling balls and strikes as I see them.
Can't we all agree on the following three things?
1. Man made climate change is real
2. Catastrophic predictions that never come to pass and fearmongering by many politicians and climate scientists have exploded their credibility on the subject
3. This is going to be a multi-century transition driven by innovation and efficiency gains; not governments.
1. Man made climate change is real
2. Catastrophic predictions that never come to pass and fearmongering by many politicians and climate scientists have exploded their credibility on the subject
3. This is going to be a multi-century transition driven by innovation and efficiency gains; not governments.
Look, just about anything in science you’ll find at least one outlier with an opposing view. Did some scientists predict global cooling in the early 70’s? Yes, and everyone knows this. If you meant some scientists believed this, good for you.
Agree with 2 and 3, but 1 is still open for debate on the extent. I believe things like air and water and land pollution are man-made, but I'm not sure the entire climate is changed much by man, if at all.
That was the Chief Climatologist and, if you read the Scientific American article I linked, it said a few scientists in 1975 were coming around to the idea of global warming.
"Did some scientists predict global cooling in the early 70’s? Yes," I'll take that as an apology, since that was all I was saying.
Last edited:
That would be truthful and reasonable. However, that wouldn’t allow Governments to steal 100s of billions of dollars from their citizens on pet projects and their buddies.
1) Yes......ish. The problem is that the climate is affected by literally hundreds of variables. There are strong data points to suggest that it is man-made. Strong enough that it is a probably a good assumption (like 95% likely), and there is also a good argument that even if there is still some different variable that is actually causing the majority of the climate change, fixing the things we humans are currently doing that we know are also bad for the environment isn't a bad idea. Unfortunately, burning coal is really bloody efficient at creating power. We've been perfecting it for 1000 years. That's not something that can be thrown out easily, especially if we aren't willing to change our lifestyles during the transition period to help fix the problem.
2) In some ways, we'd be better off with the catastrophic result. We are not going to get a "The Day After Tomorrow" kind of event. The planet will keep warming up a little every year for the next 50 years. It wont happen overnight. It will just be a gradual progression. Old timers will remember how the town used to be greener when they were kids and that the leaves used to fall off the trees in October instead of November. People will die, but it will be a few more per year, not 10's of thousands at a time. Sadly, if a "Day After Tomorrow" type of event happened, it would probably in the grand scheme of things be a net positive. Human beings can sometimes be their best during extreme emergencies. When there is a massive problem that threatens their well-being directly in front of them, they can focus hard and solve problems, knowing that some hard decisions might have to be made. It's when the problems are nebulous things that COULD go wrong, we don't tend to give them as much attention as it probably deserves.
3) The problem is that people are, more often than not, selfish. Unless they are suffering directly from this problem, they aren't going to make the sacrifices of time and effort to solve it (see item 2). With that said, humans are a fairly adaptable race. We will survive, but there could be significant losses along the way. Option 1, if you have the belief that those losses are acceptable, then yes, eventually the innovation / efficiency gains will work itself out. Option 2, if you have the belief that we have the responsibility to do our best to save as many as possible, then government intervention is probably the most likely way to solve it, because enough people believe in option 1 that spurring them into action is only going to happen if the government finds the way to motivate them to do so through either penalties or incentives.
Similar threads
