|
Posted on 02/28/2008 12:19:17 PM PST by Mike Darancette
It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
|
We need to cover antarctic with coal dust or by 1999 New York will be covered with glaciers and 17 billion people will be dead from famine and the bird flu.
Antarctica*
“Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” ....”
That scenario worries me far more than disasterous global warming. Based on precedents, it’s the more likely scenario.
Don’t worry rising sea levels would be easy to fix, just open canals to some of the lower places on the earth which are now below sea level.
Vancouver Island would look neat with a continental glacier advancing down the center.
An inch of snow brings Victoria to a standstill — I’d hate to see what a glacier would do.
I can see Victoria from my house. I’m looking at it right now. I live in the USA at an altitude of 1000’. With my boat, I can be there in about 45 minutes or less, it’s only 19 miles.
Fire 3 rounds into the air when you’re ready to make your escape...bring Canadian beer to the dock! ;>)
I’m sure cogitator has already digested this and passed it through as mere drama.
It is two years old or more.
And the writer was paid to write it.
I seriously hope you don't think I should.
It is a distillation of a very rigorous compilation of previously published headlines and accompanying remarks from the very sources that today are merrily riding the latest of these boringly repetitive bandwagons to nowhere.
I don’t dismiss what you contribute because you have no scientific background qualifying you to contribute here; why should you so cavalierly refuse to acknowledge that this goes beyond a search for the truth and facts but to the political leverage that urgency lends to the subject?
It's not a scientific statement but does show the vacillating thinking through the years on what the climate is doing. It does show that "climate change" has been around for a long time. And considering the recent downward changes in the climate should give us pause to think before ruining our economy over the slow, and probably natural warming of our planet.
If we get an ice age, I might just walk across the strait and say hi.
Thanks, I’ve been bugging old cog about his reliance on “experts” and his insistence on credentials where neither he nor I have any, nice to know there are others here who read and read at the same time.
There’s a lot at stake here, we’ve already printed enough money, any more and we’ll be begging for ink.
What is "it"?
why should you so cavalierly refuse to acknowledge that this goes beyond a search for the truth and facts but to the political leverage that urgency lends to the subject?
Because there's a difference between scientific information and propaganda with a purpose.
According to the media! Svante Arrhenius figured increasing CO2 added to the atmosphere would cause warming more than a century ago. The scientific community has generally agreed with his conclusions since then. (The cooling scare of the 70's was about aerosols, not CO2.)
And considering the recent downward changes in the climate should give us pause to think before ruining our economy over the slow, and probably natural warming of our planet.
The recent slight cooling is too short to be important -- yet. As I've said, wait until the La Nina dissipates before jumping to conclusions about cooling.
And feel free to think that the warming is natural if you need to think that to feel better about it.
It is not a crisis; it is the media and the publicity-hungry researchers who are pushing the urgency of action even while there is no plan and little chance of seeing positive results within a decade.
Just conserve, don’t waste and quit being a gloomy gus.
What makes you think that I either feel good or bad about climate? The climate/weather changes in in just about any time frame you choose to examine. By the way La Nina and Los Ninos are natural events not excuses for the observed data not agreeing to the models. It may be that the models are missing some variables.
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.