Ed Anecdote to liberal reverse racism

[Dancing David]

"...leading climate scientists were “almost unanimous” (sound familiar?) in their predictions of global cooling. Time Magazine had “The Coming Ice Age” on its cover,"

Check Time Magazine, 1975

Except for the majority who said it wasn't.

No there was not alomst unanimity that global cooling was happening at the time. That is a lie.

So what is the source of your data?

 

[Dancing David]

Here is the newsweek article
:
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

and here is the quote
"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."

No data no research just a *********** press release by Newsweek that glaobal warming deniers seem to think was published reality.

So really Richard Prey, you don't do anything other than quote other bloggers, that is weak.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay. First, tens of millions of dollars over what time period? Scientists have been studying global climate change since the 50's. Second, tens of millions of dollars isn't that much to hush up the large number of people involved in those two institutions. Third, what about the other four institutions?

"...leading climate scientists were “almost unanimous” (sound familiar?) in their predictions of global cooling. Time Magazine had “The Coming Ice Age” on its cover,"

Check Time Magazine, 1975

That, in no way, addresses what I said. Are you now shifting your claim from the six institutions that reviewed the controversy were bought off to a claim that the scientific community is incompetent?

What exactly are you trying to say here?

Educate thyself:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

Better yet, start here.

 

[sarge]

I just got that the OP thought the thread title was supposed to mean "Antidote to...." rather than "Anecdote to.....".

Still nonsense, but the nonsense makes more sense now.

 

[Travis]

"...leading climate scientists were “almost unanimous” (sound familiar?) in their predictions of global cooling. Time Magazine had “The Coming Ice Age” on its cover,"

Check Time Magazine, 1975

If "almost unanimous" now means just 10%.

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming. WP
​

 

[Robert Prey]

If "almost unanimous" now means just 10%.

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming. WP
​

As it happens in much of Chicken Little Brainwash, there doesn't seem to be any source given for this 10 percent of what? of those "scientific papers" . An what papers would those be? Interesting that Paul Ehrlich is mentioned throughout -- the author of "The Population Bomb." Among his predictions:

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . [AND] hundreds of millions of people [including Americans] are going to starve to death." (1968)
"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

Some "scientist."

 

[Robert Prey]

That, in no way, addresses what I said. Are you now shifting your claim from the six institutions that reviewed the controversy were bought off to a claim that the scientific community is incompetent?

What exactly are you trying to say here?

Educate thyself:



Better yet, start here.

From all of that, would a thinking person conclude that:

A) Recent science trumps older science?

or

B) If yesterday's scientific "truths" are heresy, then it may well be that today's scientific "truths" may one day also prove to be heresy.

I choose B.

And there is no such a thing in science as truth via "consensus". Science always questions dogma. A pretty smart man once said," If we really knew what we were doing, we wouldn't be engaging in research." -- Albert Einstein

 

[Upchurch]

That would be "attacking the messenger", wouldn't it?


Robert, do you plan on addressing any of the criticisms to your claims? Or, for that matter, clarifying what your claims are, since they seem to change from post to post.

 

[Upchurch]

From all of that, would a thinking person conclude that:

A) Recent science trumps older science?

or

B) If yesterday's scientific "truths" are heresy, then it may well be that today's scientific "truths" may one day also prove to be heresy.

I choose B.

You didn't read either thing I posted, did you?

And there is no such a thing in science as truth via "consensus".

And there was no agreement, let alone consensus, on "global cooling". There is, however, no credible evidence that contradicts AGW. Just because ideas have been improved on or thrown aside over time does not mean that no scientific idea is trustworthy. Science is self-correcting.

Science always questions dogma. A pretty smart man once said," If we really knew what we were doing, we wouldn't be engaging in research." -- Albert Einstein

The idea that scientists would prop up an untrue hypothesis and that other scientists would cover for them is completely out of touch with how scientists think.

 

[Dancing David]

As it happens in much of Chicken Little Brainwash, there doesn't seem to be any source given for this 10 percent of what? of those "scientific papers" . An what papers would those be? Interesting that Paul Ehrlich is mentioned throughout -- the author of "The Population Bomb." Among his predictions:

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . [AND] hundreds of millions of people [including Americans] are going to starve to death." (1968)
"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

Some "scientist."

Funny how you haven't shown that there was an overwhelming scientific opinion supporting global cooling, so are you retracting your claim or did you get you degree from newsweek?

Paul Ehrlich is not a scientific consensus.

 

[Dancing David]

From all of that, would a thinking person conclude that:

A) Recent science trumps older science?

or

B) If yesterday's scientific "truths" are heresy, then it may well be that today's scientific "truths" may one day also prove to be heresy.

I choose B.

And there is no such a thing in science as truth via "consensus". Science always questions dogma. A pretty smart man once said," If we really knew what we were doing, we wouldn't be engaging in research." -- Albert Einstein

You have not shown your first premise that there was a scientific consensus of global cooling now have you?

Seriously, this is the JREF and even here in Politics you are supposed to be a critical thinker.

 

[Travis]

As it happens in much of Chicken Little Brainwash, there doesn't seem to be any source given for this 10 percent of what? of those "scientific papers" . An what papers would those be? Interesting that Paul Ehrlich is mentioned throughout -- the author of "The Population Bomb." Among his predictions:

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . [AND] hundreds of millions of people [including Americans] are going to starve to death." (1968)
"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

Some "scientist."

Yeah, one guy was wrong.

So you just don't trust science itself? The world must be pretty scary then. I mean who knows if that thunder is really just the sonic shock wave of air particles energized by lightning or the clash of angry Gods!

Now you are the one that made the claim that the majority of science thought global cooling was going to continue beyond the 1970's. It is your job to back up that claim.

And you never answered my question about whether you believe in the greenhouse effect.

 

[MaGZ]

If a white Republican wins the Whitehouse, there is bound to be claims of racism and a rigged election. And the Left may well incite riots the burning of cities. Now, even Morgan Freeman claims the "Tea Party" is racist (with zero evidence). And Janeane Garofalo is convinced the only reason Herman Cain is a candidate is because he's been paid off so that the Tea Party doesn't look racist. The best answer to Lefty reverse racism is to nominate and elect Herman Cain. A Cain/Rubio ticket would compromise Obama's principle demographic support -- Blacks and Hispanics. And besides, Cain is, after all, a pretty smart fellow.

So, we White people have to elect Cain so our cities won’t burn?

 

[Upchurch]

So, we White people have to elect Cain so our cities won’t burn?

No. Real life isn't the caricature presented in the OP. That's pretty much pure fantasy.

 

[logger]

Robert, even if it was true those particular scientists manipulated data, do you believe science when it says that CO2 will produce a greenhouse effect?

Where does most of the CO2 come from?

 

[logger]

And just because it hasn't been addressed yet:

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but he believes some really stupid things. Namely:

• He is against legalizing same-sex marriage.
• He believes Muslims are trying to implement sharia law in the United States.
• He believes that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

Yeah, no thanks.

Next you will want to legalize adam, steve, and bruce tying the knot.
Don't muslims believe in sharia?
It is a hoax, when is the warming actually going to start?

 

[MaGZ]

I'm starting to doubt that the Republican front runner will be a white person anyhow. Unless of course it is Mitt Romney. If Mitt gets the nomination I'm almost certain he's going to choose Herman Cain to balance the ticket. The republicans will not make the same mistake twice. I can guarantee this.

I think Romney will pick a Senator from the Deep South. Perhaps Judge Sessions from Alabama.

 

[Robert Prey]

You didn't read either thing I posted, did you?



And there was no agreement, let alone consensus, on "global cooling". There is, however, no credible evidence that contradicts AGW. Just because ideas have been improved on or thrown aside over time does not mean that no scientific idea is trustworthy. Science is self-correcting.



The idea that scientists would prop up an untrue hypothesis and that other scientists would cover for them is completely out of touch with how scientists think.

Whew! Talk about naivete!!

 

[sarge]

So, we White people have to elect Cain so our cities won’t burn?

Public Service announcement:

This person does not speak for White people. Most of us dislike Cain because he is an idiot, and would not vote for him even if we believed there would be riots otherwise - a patently idiotic notion.

 

[Travis]

Where does most of the CO2 come from?

Extant CO2 is part of the carbon cycle. Excursions come when sequestered CO2 is brought out of a storage reservoir. Natural ways this happens include volcanism or impact events. Anthropogenic ways this happen are primarily tied to the burning of fossil fuels.

Next you will want to legalize adam, steve, and bruce tying the knot.

Are they all consenting adults? If so then I don't see why not.

Don't muslims believe in sharia?

Don't Christians believe in The Bible? The book that tells them to murder their children.

It is a hoax, when is the warming actually going to start?

Climate change is already here. And in order for it to be a hoax we'd have to suspend the laws of physics.