Who broke Global Warming?

[EternalOptimist]

Here´s another one that´ll make your eyes water.

Snowdon will be snow-free in 13 years, scientists warn - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Snowdon without snow is bad

but here is another one - from Life Magazine, January 1970

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, “but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions.”

[Cliphead]

First winter I haven't been snowed in, it's AGW innit?

Statistically very important and expecting press coverage anytime now.

[pjclarke]

Fish in a Barrel

Ah, the old 'scientists predicted cooling in the seventies so they must be wrong now' meme. Which journal are we quoting? Science? Nature? The Journal of Climatology? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Ah, no its Life magazine.

Even in the seventies, the majority of yer actual scientific studies predicted warming ...the most comprehensive literature review concluded

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.

That was in peer-reviewed the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, not The Sun.

Source

[BlasterBates]

I see so scientists weren´t warning of an ice age

...oh hang on what does this scientific paper from 1971 say?

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate

oh look at this sentence in the abstract...

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 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

nice try pj, but really if you want we could go on and on and find some more literature. You see as much as you try you can´t go and erase the predictions from the past.

[DodgyAgent]

Ah, the veiled reference to a piece of pisspoor journalism from the beginning of the last decade. Guess the answer to the question 'is that all you have?' must be 'Yes'.

And did you miss that the 'Mediterranean Britain' prediction was for 2050? It was hidden away in, erm, the lead paragraph.

The world will have ended another 100 times by then
And Al Gore will have have amassed untold millions

Al Gore could make $30m from Apple shares - Telegraph

[pjclarke]

I see so scientists weren´t warning of an ice age

Straw man. You cannot answer the actual argument, so you invent one I never made and attack that instead. Nobody claimed there were no scientists were predicting cooling, just that they were in a minority - and our understanding of the climate was of course less developed back then.

So a single citation does not disprove the point, you need a literature review - which was done and which you can read at the link above. Or you could refer to the 1979 National Research Council (Charney et al) report which made not a single mention of cooling but which that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threat of aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age shows up nowhere in the report. Warming from doubled CO2 of 1.5°-4.5°C was possible.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/d...ney_report.pdf

Not to mention

[pjclarke]

Ah, the logical fallacies are out in force today! From the Straw Man to the Ad Hominem. Al Gore's wealth is utterley irrelevant to the radiative properties of the atmosphere. And surely if Gore is fabulously weathly from his Apple (and Google) shareholdings, which he is, this is not fantastic support for the 'Gore is only interested in Green issues for the money' debating point is it?

[DodgyAgent]

Ah, the logical fallacies are out in force today! From the Straw Man to the Ad Hominem. Al Gore's wealth is utterley irrelevant to the radiative properties of the atmosphere. And surely if Gore is fabulously weathly from his Apple (and Google) shareholdings, which he is, this is not fantastic support for the 'Gore is only interested in Green issues for the money' debating point is it?

Al Gore's wealth is entirely relevant to this debate. The whole global warming issue has become a political matter involving huge sums of money. Corporations are falling over each other to be seeing to be "green". Vast swathes of jobs have grown out of global warming - there is not one corporate that does not employ a head of sustainability. Why? because they will be looked upon more favourably by customers who have been brainwashed by this whole debate.
Making Al Gore (that virtuous doyen of Global warming) a shareholder of your company will make you and I feel that we are buying from a "green" company as part of the con of buying their products.
Marks and Spencer have "Plan A" on sustainability (there is "no plan B" ) employing untold numbers and spending god knows what.

We all know that giving money to the left to redistribute in the name of the poor is a con that effectively makes more people poor and disincentivises wealth creation has been exposed for what it is. So instead of getting proper jobs (on a minimum wage) their new con is to extort their guilt money by building fear based on global warming.

It wont work

[BlasterBates]

You´re right pj there are always scientists who go against the consensus aren´t there, and Dr Plass was very much a lone voice at that time.

Here is another recent example of a controversial prediction

Google-Ergebnis für http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/EasterbrookProjection

However his prediction doesn´t look so ridiculous now does it?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eating-up.html


You see sometimes the "consensus" is wrong.