Arctic Warming Causing Cold Weather

[Cannonball]

Sometimes we have to change our thinking as we learn....

 

[Puck it]

Sometimes we have to change our thinking as we learn....

View attachment 11306

True. But it was the irony of the two side by side.

 

[Cannonball]

You do realize that this is a hoax right? That cover is from 2007 and actually says this.....



Feeling like you've been played? That's the game of the deniers.

 

[Puck it]

You do realize that this is a hoax right? That cover is from 2007 and actually says this.....

View attachment 11307

Feeling like you've been played? That's the game of the deniers.

Did not know that I have not read Time in about 30 years. Should have known irony is never that good.

 

[Cannonball]

Did not know that I have read Time in about 30 years. Should have known irony is never that good.

Oh, it's still plenty ironic.

 

[Abubob]

 

[Rowsdower]

I can't speak to climate change, but I can speak to "controversies" within my own field. The past several years have seen lots of "Was Darwin Wrong?" attention grabber headlines in the media. Does this lend any credence to such a "controversy"? No. There is none to speak of within the actual field, but if you only got your info from popular news outlets you might not get the same impression.

 

[steamboat1]

It's like a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[snoseek]

I still for the life of me have no idea why the topic of climate change ever had to become a political issue, with both sides firmly taking their stance. It doesn't make for good rational discussions and decisions.

 

[fbrissette]

The 1977 cover is a FAKE.

Repeat after me: Global cooling was NEVER mainstream science. Not in the 60s and not in the 70s.

Edit: sorry cannonball should have kept on reading instead of jumping on this.

 

[Nick]

I still for the life of me have no idea why the topic of climate change ever had to become a political issue, with both sides firmly taking their stance. It doesn't make for good rational discussions and decisions.

^This

 

[Tin]

Oil, tax breaks, etc...

 

[WJenness]

Oil, tax breaks, etc...

Wu-Tang said it best...

 

[Abubob]

What interested me about this article is the effect that climate change or whatever you want to call it has on our weather.

I'm not interested in proving whether man is responsible for climate change. Mankind is ruining the planet in more ways than merely poisoning the air.

But this is pretty cool (found in Youtube Gems thread):

 

[fbrissette]

^This

All environmental issues are political. All of them. Everyone wants a clean environment but a clean environment is really expensive and ultimately, very few are willing to pay for it. I'll give you a very simple example:

Quebec water drinking standards are below that of EPA for several contaminants. Because of concerns from various family and environmental groups, the provincial government decided to match EPA standards. You might think that this is a very simple issue, but the union of municipalities immediately lobbied against this. They were not against it per se, but they wanted the provincial government to pay for the updating of treatment plants. If forced to pay for it, they would have to cut services and jobs. The provincial government does not want to pay for the upgrading and did not want to cut services or jobs or raise income taxes. 10 years later, we are still stuck with our sub-standard drinking water regulations. There are lots of examples like this one.

Reducing our dependence to greenhouse gases will demand important and extremely costly measures. A shitload of money in the short term. Although this is not a settled issue, consensus is that we'll save money in the long run, and mostly it is the right thing to do, if only in fairness to the most vulnerable nations that played no role in this situation. However, there are very large companies and a large sector of the economy that have a strong economic interest in the status quo. Very large profitable companies must keep shareholders happy and are not interesting in changing their business model, or would like to do so as slowly as possible. Hence the intense lobbying and disinformation (there is also some disinformation at the other end, but on a much smaller and less organized scale). They denied warming for as long as they could. Now that everybody agrees on the warming trend, they argue that humans play little to no role in it. Eventually, they'll move to their last stand - that reducing greenhouse gases will be more costly than adapting to a warmer planet.

In the end it is all about money. The more money, the more political it gets. Read about the tobacco lobbying against cancer to understand the extent to which companies are willing to go to keep their lucrative business model intact. The chemical industry lobbying effort against the ban of CFCs and the science behind it is another good example.

 

[BenedictGomez]

You do realize that this is a hoax right? That cover is from 2007 and actually says this.....

Feeling like you've been played? That's the game of the deniers.

The 1977 cover is a FAKE.

Repeat after me: Global cooling was NEVER mainstream science. Not in the 60s and not in the 70s.

You're both right, that cover IS a fake.

TIME never had that "Another Ice Age" cover in the 1970s............

It was just a big feature article from TIME in the 1970s.....

Another Ice Age?

TIME Magazine
Monday, June 24, 1974


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


Though fbrissette is still wrong about "Global Cooling" not being a mainstream scientific climate theory in the 1960s/1970s.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Or perhaps you favor Newsweek?

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]here are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. 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. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Feeling like you've been played?

Even employs the same "Unanimous" and "there is no doubt" bull**** tactics today's warming fearmongerers use.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Here's a cool one (no pun intended). Internet wayback searches are fun! There's plenty more 1970s examples if you're into this genre.

Trends Arouse Fear That A New Ice Age Is Coming
March 2, 1975

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R7ITAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mNkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6865,188682

One statistic stands out: A study of temperatures around the world shows the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for 30 years. The total drop is less than one degree, but in terms of meteorology, that is significant........

 

[fbrissette]

Or perhaps you favor Newsweek?

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975



Feeling like you've been played?

Even employs the same "Unanimous" and "there is no doubt" bull**** tactics today's warming fearmongerers use.

I have been pretty clear in other threads that my opinions are based on science. Newsweek ??? Come on. Climate scientists were never warm on global cooling. It was mentioned and discussed in some papers but there was NEVER a consensus about global cooling,not even close. The papers about global cooling were debated and quickly dismissed. Go read the scientific papers !!! Science is NOT debated on the internet.

And while it may be hard to comprehend, meteorologists are NOT climate scientists. The opinion of meterologists is of little interest. If you ever have a heart problem, I suggest you trust the cardiologist and not the proctologist, even though they both shared a few classrooms together. Educate yourself properly.

 

[fbrissette]

One statistic stands out: A study of temperatures around the world shows the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for 30 years. The total drop is less than one degree, but in terms of meteorology, that is significant........

There are so many things wrong with this quote that I don't know where to begin... Newsweek....