Posted on 01/28/2007 7:10:03 PM PST by Dallas59
College 1971, text book told us we had 10 years of oil left.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
The Cooling World
"There 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
There ought to be, as it is typical of what we see today. Yet, it is from a magazine article of 1975 hyping the then well-known threat of global cooling. It has all the features that we have come to know and love about the modern version – deductions from a recent random fluctuation in the temperature trend, accounts of increases in tornadoes, economic and social disasters including crop failures and much more.
Such apocalyptic warnings continued until 1983, when the scaremongers did an about turn, allegedly as a result of the prompting of the green civil servant Sir Crispin Tickel, who persuaded his boss, Margaret Thatcher, that she could use her political uniqueness in holding a science qualification to promote a new scenario, which was attractive to her as she was at war with the coal miners and the oil sheiks.
Although global warming via carbon dioxide had been mooted, it was then fashionable to believe that it was more than countered by the negative effects of pollution. The fantastic engineering solutions being promoted at the time were remarkable, only to be superseded by the economic suicide pact that was Kyoto.
This is a new tactic. You see, in the past, they would have predicted the actual temps would increase in 10 years. But they know full well that no measurable difference will occur by then so that, even though there is no measurable change, they can claim their predictions were true.
Like last year's hurricane forecast.
Sooooo, I guess we are both waiting....Chicken Little always irritated me anyway.
What's next? Do they expect us to cap every volcano?
BEFORE GLOBAL WARMING THERE WAS GLOBAL COOLING
Before today's scientists started predicting catastrophe due to global warming, there were scientists who were predicting catastrophe due to global cooling. And that was just thirty years ago.
George Will has a column titled "Cooler Heads Needed on Warming" in which he discusses scientists' and journalists' predilection for environmental doomsaying. Take a look at the predictions of distaster due to global cooling from scientists and "their journalistic conduits" back in the seventies:
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
Will ends his column with this:
About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.
Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
So, a few decades from now we can expect predictions of doom about more global cooling.
________________________________________
Warnings of warming 'refined'
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | January 16, 2007 | Editorial
Posted on 01/16/2007 11:48:34 AM EST by Graybeard58
When warmists wax on catastrophic climate change, one agency they quote a lot is the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body comprised mostly of warmists bent on proving their man-made global-warming theory, the facts and their limited understanding of how climate works be damned.
The IPCC's last report in 2001 predicted planetary warming of up to 10 F and a sea-level rise of nearly 3 feet by 2100. Since then, it has been "refining" its numbers, weighing new data and supposedly developing a better understanding of climate science. Its "fourth assessment report," due out in February, will conclude civilization's threat has been overstated, so it will lower its warming projection to 2.7 F to 7.5 F, and adjust its guess on sea-level rise to 17 inches.
Still, the IPCC is worried because carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by 3 percent in the past five years. Relying on past IPCC work, The Earth Institute at Columbia University concluded this year that atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now 0.00038 percent, could reach 0.00055 percent "well before the end of the century, with potentially disastrous implications for human well-being and the Earth's natural systems." At the present rate, it would be more than 9,000 years before CO2 reached 1 percent.
Those numbers are meaningless without context, so here's some: CO2 is abundant on Venus, a hellishly hot planet that warmists say portends earth's fate unless mankind curbs its greenhouse-gas emissions now. But Venus' atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide, giving it 255,000 times more CO2 by volume than earth's and making warmists' fears laughably overheated.
But even if fossil fuels were banned tomorrow, the effect on the climate would be at best immeasurably small. "So whether the climate changes we are observing are reversible is a nonissue," said Steve Milloy of junkscience.com. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., put the IPCC's revisions in perspective: "Climate science is always going through these 'refinements.' The media (have) alternated between four separate global cooling and warming scares since 1895, (including) the erroneous prediction of a coming ice age in the 1970s." Still, the IPCC and other warmists should be encouraged to keep refining their data until this latest warming scare disappears.
Chicken Little, Al Gore And Globaloney
Nancy Morgan
RightBias
January 18, 2007
________________________________________
The good news is: The sky is not falling and the earth isn't melting.
The bad news is: A majority of Americans believe it is.
From headlines around the world, there seems to be but one consensus. The ice caps are melting, the earth is warming and it's all Bush's, er our fault. It's settled science and you're an ignorant, un-progressive conservative if you think otherwise.
Everything from Katrina to pimples is now blamed on global warming. If everyone believes it, it must be so. Using this logic, since over 90% of Americans believe in God, this must mean God exists.
Quick...tell me the first thing that pops into your mind when you read this recent headline:
"Japan Hit By 16" Tidal Surge"
Wow. On first glance, this is NEWS. My mind automatically linked it to other sensational stories dealing with supposed 'global warming.'
Hold on... 16 Inches? Being a former surfer, I easily imagined a 16" surge..wave, whatever. It's comparable to the effect of burping in the bath tub. Even taking into consideration that men and women measure by different rulers. This is news???
The point being, anything, everything, having to do with climate is now linked to global warming. One forms an immediate assumption that a 16" tidal surge is somehow a unique and dangerous phenomenon. A daily, weekly, monthly, yearly drip, drip, drip of misleading links between ordinary events and calamitous climate change is bound to affect all but the brain dead. Oops, I take that back. It also affects many brain dead people I know.
It's not as if one needs a doctorate in science to question this supposed 'crisis.' There is ample evidence that a giant hoax is being perpetrated. I'll get to the 'why' later. The larger question is: If 'global warming' is indeed a hoax, why do so many Americans believe it is a looming, dangerous crisis? Why are Americans willing to go along with an estimated $7,000 tax bite per family to fight this 'crisis'? (You're starting to get warm.)
To answer that question, lets go back to 1994. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a formal (app. 25 pound) report. This UN committee is the self-anointed leading arbiter in matters of 'climate change.' (Despite its' vested interest...) In any case, at the very bottom of this report, tucked away on the last page, was this paragraph: "There is no scientific data conclusively proving man is responsible for this warming."
A summary of the report was then generated for the media. After all, one can't expect journalists to slug through hundreds of pages of dry....whatever. In what I'm sure was an oversight, the crucial paragraph was not included in the media synopsis. What WAS included were 'probable' scenarios wherein man is now the culprit when the weather changes. Scuse me, white American men are the culprits. The 16 billion people who lack access to electricity and burn our precious forests for food and heat are magically given a pass.
Pretty soon, the media has a vested interest in global warming. Who wants to print a retraction of this magnitude? Besides, a good crisis is red meat for the media. Real or imagined.
This mentality started justifying the non-reporting of dissenting views. Prime example: Who among you is aware of a petition signed by 15,000 scientists refuting the IPCC report? For that matter, how many of you have heard any dissenting views on this issue that weren't roundly ridiculed by the so-called experts? I rest my case.
Keep in mind, all the predictions you hear are based on the worst case scenario. A scenario that is defined by punching a set of variables into a computer and seeing what comes out. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Just last month, the U.N. said "Ooops. We were off in our predictions by 50%. Sorry."
This is the 'science' on which we are being asked to radically alter our way of life. From ditching our SUV's to coughing up hefty tax increases to imposing onerous costly regulations on businesses. All under the guise of environmental stewardship.
Let's jump to the 'Why' of this issue. What's in it for who? As in 'who benefits?' if we all believe global warming is indeed a crisis. Well, when a 'crisis' is announced, just like a state of emergency, all sorts of extra money becomes available. Gobs and gobs of it.
If the crisis can be sustained, why, then we need to study it. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the flow of money is dependent on the perceived problem getting worse. Heck, Jesse Jackson figured that out years ago.
A whole industry has now been spawned that is totally dependent on creating and sustaining this wholly natural phenomenon. Grants flow to those who conform. Those who question the prevailing mantra are cut off. 'Follow the money' has never been so apt.
Millions of dollars are being made in the trading of 'carbon emissions' . The politically connected traders have got the best of both worlds. They can make a huge profit on air while at the same time, patting themselves on the back and gaining moral brownie points for being 'environmentally conscious'. Some deal.
It would be a mistake, however, to believe this whole non-crisis is fueled by money and greed. Nope. Money is merely the carrot used to keep the donkey trudging along. The carrot is being offered by the ideologues. The secular progressives who are using global warming as a way to further their agenda. Consider:
In a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease, the proposed solutions for this non-problem eerily echo the stated goals of socialists and Marxists i.e.; population control, redistribution of wealth and more government control. Coincidence? Maybe, unless one remembers way back to 1970. Then, the crisis du jour was Global Cooling. Oddly enough, the proposed solutions for both cooling and warming are the same.
Whitaker Chambers once said: "The most important choice a man will ever make is when he chooses God or man." The secular progressives, having been quite successful at banning God from the public square, can now count on an army of 'relative, post modernists' (translation: liberals) to further their 'global warming' cause with something akin to religious fervor. Belief in 'Mother Earth' has replaced belief in God.
Human nature being what it is, it's only natural for man to yearn to believe in something higher than himself. It's one of our most powerful urges and also the one most open to manipulation.
Hence the ease of recruiting millions of Americans into fighting this bogus environmental jihad.
The global warming issue does not lend itself to easily digested sound bytes. The science is complicated and the outcomes are a matter of interpretation. In this era of spin over substance, many well meaning Americans are persuaded by whoever packages the issue in the most understandable form. Even if it is misleading and untrue. Like Al Gore. Heck, Scotland just made his film mandatory. Such is the desire to validate and perpetuate this supposed 'crisis'.
The earth is indeed warming. Last century, temperatures increased an average of one degree. (This warming all happened before 1940, by the way.) There has been absolutely no evidence to suggest this warming is anything other than the normal climate fluctuations we've had for thousands of years. And there, for sure, is no science proving man is responsible.
The more perplexing issue is why so many Americans will now fire off a heated rebuttal to this article instead of going to Snopes.com and checking the veracity of Gore's film. At worst, this proves they are what Stalin termed 'useful idiots'. At best, it proves they are intellectually lazy. Either way, they will continue to fight to the death for an agenda they have been spoon fed, which they never question. Sound familiar?
Daily Policy Digest: MARS IS WARMING
National Center for Policy Analysis ^ | January 10, 2006 | National Center for Policy Analysis
Posted on 01/25/2007 4:11:17 PM EST by Moseley
The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming which supports many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due to a recent upsurge in solar energy, says James M. Taylor, of the Heartland Institute.
For three Mars summers, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near the planet's south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress, says Taylor. Furthermore, documented changes from 1999 to 2005 show that Mars' climate is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago.
But there are not a lot of anthropogenic gas emissions on Mars, so what internal dynamic is warming the planet and what does it mean for Earth? According to researchers:
At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities. The problem is that Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun; the longer the time period that the Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, the stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere. Therefore, greenhouse gases would still contribute to warming, but not as strongly as once thought. Furthermore, the warming of Mars adds another level of uncertainty to claims that the Earth's modest recent warming is a result of human activity, says Taylor.
Source: James M. Taylor, "Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report," Environment and Climate News: Heartland Institute, November 2005.
For text:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&CFID=5195862&CFTOKEN=90852445
I have seen other reports from these same groups that we are already past the point of no-return, no matter what we do now, and therefore the "greenhouse" damage has already been done and the resulted "warming" is going to occur no matter how much C02 emmissions are reduced in the next ten years.
Which, technologically means that we should do the same thing we are doing on the basis that its not human-caused - use technology to adapt to the "warming" and to offset or account for its ill affects.
Amazing what libs will do for money!!
we had only 10 years in the 1970's
the new ice age was going to hit in 2000
the ecconomy was going to collapse in 1999
we were going to have an unmanagble population explosion in 2000
gasoline runs out in 2000
What this is REALLY saying is these scientists believe it will take 10 years to eliminate personal property rights. They think they can impose socialism in 10 years.
I've still got my Y2K supplies at the ready. Bring it on.
these so called scientists are advocating regulation and TAXES.
They are not adovocating actual science to solve the problem.
What kind of scientists advocate abandoning science?
answer, communists.
We are all going to die! In less than 150 years, every man, woman and child now living on Earth will be dead!!!
I'm beginning to think we need to start demanding these "scientists" put something on the line before we accept their claims at face value. How many of them would be willing to sign contracts that say they would each have to forfeit, say, $500,000 of their own money if ten years come and go and their predictions turn out to be totally fraudulent?
They are sure asking us to put our money on the line. Or make our govenments tax us and put that money on the line. Or issue more onerous regulations on our businesses and power genrating companies that will suck additional money out of our pockets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.