Climate Change and Conservatism

[The Barbarian]

Science. 1981 Mar 6;211(4486):1036.

Research into Effects of a CO2-Climate Change Suggested.

Science. 1980 Aug 15;209(4458):763-8.

Detecting Climate Change due to Increasing Carbon Dioxide.

Madden RA, Ramanathan V.

 

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1970 Oct;67(2):898-9.

Carbon dioxide and its role in climate change.

Benton GS.

 

There's more, if anyone needs more.

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

29 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Just out of curiousity, How old are You?

I'm 72.    I've been in universities since the 1960s, so I remember.

Well that explains it, University in the 60's. Here let me fill you in on the 70's, Perhaps you knew this man as he was a superstar in the scientific community and inspired those covers that you and the disinformation bots of the left are trying to scrub, But here are the facts. 

Kukla also saw evidence that earth was now moving rapidly toward another ice age. Shortly after coming to Lamont, he organized a conference with Brown University geologist Robert Matthews on this idea. They summarized their findings in a 1972 paper in the journal Science, “When Will the Present Interglacial End?”  They also wrote to President Richard Nixon of the potential for floods, snowstorms and deadly frosts, as well as “substantially lowered” food production; they warned that the Soviet Union was probably already considering a response.

The White House reacted quickly. By 1973, the State Department formed a Panel on the Present Interglacial, and Congress held a series of hearings on the state of climate research and U.S. preparedness. A series of bills to create a national climate program were introduced; in 1979, President Carter signed the National Climate Program Act into law.

The global cooling story captured the public imagination, propelling Kukla into cover stories in Time and Newsweek, a BBC special, “The Weather Machine,” and other popular media. Average temperatures had in fact been dipping in previous decades, possibly due to a short-term natural cycle and the effects of industrial smog.  

Global warming would soon replace fears about global cooling, but Kukla stuck to his contention that an ice age was due soon, at least in geological terms. At a symposium he organized at Columbia in 2000, he lengthened the time frame and put the coming ice age at 5,000 years from now. This view is not widely shared by scientists today, even without considering the warming expected from industrial carbon emissions. Because of his stance, Kukla became popular among groups that do not accept the theory of human-influenced climate change. In 2010, Kukla spoke at a meeting organized by the Heartland Institute, a political group opposed to the theory that humans are warming the climate. (Kukla did say he believed some of the current warming was coming from human—just not all of it.)

In his earlier work, Kukla showed that ice ages came and went relatively frequently over the last 2.6 million years. His evidence came from riverbanks in Czechoslovakia and Austria, where winds had deposited glacier-ground dust, or loess, during cold intervals. In a 1977 study, Kukla linked the ice ages found in loess deposits with those in deep-sea sediments, to document many more ice ages than previously recognized. Later, he and a colleague extended this work to China’s Loess Plateau.

https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3175

I recommend you read the whole article, since they will likely wipe that one soon as well? Perhaps you were Busy protesting something back then? Or maybe you were focused on the music of Woodstock and the experiences you had there?  

Do you want proof they are scrubbing news sites of global cooling stuff from the past?

Open this link and click on the MSN link given by the commenter. I wonder what happened to it?

https://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?38821-Global-Cooling

On this link dealing with the topic, first look at the graph and you will see that Global cooling and warming were neck and neck theories until 1975, but the Author instead uses the Total for the decade to prove his point, and while your at that link go to comment #2 and try clicking that link posted, as it has also disappeared. I wonder what happened to it?

https://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

Also, Do a search on 1970's global cooling, and you will find all kinds of articles stating the media hyped cooling but not the scientists, or how the articles were faked, or a myth.... This is known as the Search AI being used to bias search results. You would have to dig pages deep to find the actual proof articles that show that Global cooling was called settled science and that the Whitehouse was making policies to avert this "disaster". Be a detective young man, and think for yourself instead of searching Wikipedia and Google, which are being scrubbed as well, because it is easy to do so, Go instead to a Library and search for those actual periodicals, and Government studies from that era. Just like the Guardian article link I posted here as well as NY Times/ Wa. Post pieces. If you really want the truth then be the detective, Not the mimic and pawn of the history rewriters. 

I Had to dig to find those links above. 

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Cletus said:

be sure to check out the date in that article.  one quick google search provided two or three results down a link to this article that pretty much shows certain data is false. 

But you can't show them to us?    I think I know why.

2 hours ago, Cletus said:

there are not to many universities that are worth mentioning.  lots of filth and ungodliness coming from those places.  a good many of them are a big part of the problem.  wake up. 

Ah, so it's the evil universities.   Pretty much like society in general.   But truth isn't limited to the perfect.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Well that explains it, University in the 60's. Here let me fill you in on the 70's, Perhaps you knew this man as he was a superstar in the scientific community and inspired those covers that you and the disinformation bots of the left are trying to scrub, But here are the facts. 

I was in graduate school in the 70s.   But you've been very badly misled on this.   You see, the papers written by climate scientists are retained in many thousands of copies of journals.   So we can merely go back and read them.   As I mentioned, even in the 70s, most climatologists were anticipating warming.   That's not a bald assertion; a quick look at the journals shows that even then, scientists were expecting warming:

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck

Abstract

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

 

Contrary to what Crichton, Dobbs, and others might assert, climate scientists never agreed that the Earth was destined for long-term cooling back in the 1970s. Yes, the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1970, but it was exceedingly slight. Scientists now agree that the cooling resulted from excessive use of sulfur-based aerosols. Aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a short period of time compared to other greenhouse gases, so the aerosol cooling effect faded away as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Knowing this, the majority of climate scientists at the time still anticipated warming. A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.

Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time. A popular choice is a 1975 Newsweek article ominously titled "The Cooling World." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." It also portended a "drastic decline for food production." The passing of time revealed both statements to be spectacularly incorrect. TIME magazine also ran a story in 1974 about another possible ice age.

"Globally averaged temperatures were cooling, but this was largely due to changes in the Northern Hemisphere," writes Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center. "A closer examination of Southern Hemisphere data revealed thermometers heading in the opposite direction." They have continued to do so.

There was never scientific consensus that the Earth was cooling. That is a myth. That's not to say that there weren't alarmists forecasting doom. Some did; they just weren't scientists. Those people also weren't helping anything. Climate change deserves honest discourse from both sides of the political spectrum. The Left's alarmism may be as equally counterproductive as the Right's denialism. Climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. To find a solution we need to strip away biases, do away with petty point-scoring, and recognize what we agree upon: a less polluted planet benefits everyone.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html

 

 

[ChessPlayer]

On 10/23/2019 at 9:37 PM, dhchristian said:

CP,

growing up in the 70's the cry was global cooling and a coming ice age, then in the 90's it became global warming and carbon emissions. Now it is "man made" climate change. And that is where my problem lies with this. As You can see the scientists do not have a clue what to call it so they are now in the "climate change camp" which is like saying, the climate is changing but we have no idea which way it will change. 

What in fact is the case if you extend all those graphs back to the mini ice age, you will find that earth in general is in a warming trend which began long before the industrial revolution and has little or nothing to do with being "man made". Within that warming cycle there are ebbs and flows in the warming and cooling direction. Before the mini ice age, this general direction was heading in the global cooling direction. 

Here is the kicker for me, why I as a Christian cannot support the legislation proposed to alter the warming, Because ultimately the cause of the Warming is not man made. By blaming man for the warming, they are in fact saying that human life is to blame and that in order to control this warming Human life must be snuffed out via population control, Euthanasia, Abortion, and in the end genocide of people's based on their value to society. That is the end result of all of this legislation, because when restrictions on carbon emissions have no effect (because global warming is not man made), then eventually this will be used to justify genocide and population control. I as a Christian see this outcome, in this false agenda driven narrative, and if you do not believe this to be the case then go look up the facts on these global ventures such as the Gates foundation, and others who are even now promoting population controls to augment the reduction of CO2 emissions. 

What this Global governance also does is take incentive and sovereignty out of the nations and individuals, and grants it to unelected bureaucrats thus making an unaccountable and dictatorial hierarchy in charge of the lives of the People. What is the next step in that process, when tyrants rule and people have no power? Sad to say, but History is repeating itself, Only now instead of Hitler we have unelected Global oligarchs who rule, and give all of our sovereignty as people to the "beast" system. Instead of racial genocide, we will have merit based genocide, and courts that will determine your worth to the world, and if they deem you unessential, Then they will be justified in killing you, and you know that if anyone disagrees with these oligarchs, they will be among the first to Go. 

The Word of God does speak of "climate chaos", But this is the doing of God to bring plagues upon mankind to bring repentance. It will also serve as evidence that false messiah is not who claims to be (declaring himself to be god), and this climate chaos will be used by the two witnesses to prophesy against the Antichrist. But when Christ Jesus he will restore His creation to the created order and rule and reign for  a thousand years on earth doing so.

So as you can see, My conviction and resolve against "man made climate change" is based on the MEANS by which global government is going to accomplish their ends.... The ends DO NOT justify the means. I Also have faith that God will restore the creation in his time, and all will be beneficiaries of this mercy. There is no need to tax the very air we breath (out), But The true solution comes from the quelling the desires of the wealthy and the powerful from acquiring more wealth and power. When Christ Jesus Rules this ambition will be gone. Or as Ronald Reagan used to say "In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem". Meaning the number one culprit in the climate chaos of our day is the centralization of the power in government. all one has to do is look at China, and Russia with their environmental catastrophes under communism to see what going in the direction of Globalist governance will do to the environment. it will only accelerate the problems, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

I Do not know if this will change your Opinion or not? But this is why I do not support globalist solutions to solve this problem such as the Green new deal, and the Paris climate accords. They are the wrong approach to solving a problem that is biblically unavoidable and unsolvable until the Lord Jesus Returns, and are being used to Justify tyranny.  

Ok so let's deal with these issues one by one. 

First let's talk about this issue of the "ice age" predictions of the 1970s and 1980s. I think I mentioned this in one of my previous posts but this was a relatively small movement in the 70s that was largely ignored by the scientific journals of the time. It was more of a "popular science" topic. Pedersen, 2008 did a study on scientific journal articles from 1965 to 1979 discussing climate change. From a random sample from scientific journal 7 could be construed as talking about cooling while 42 discussed warming and by the end of the time period mentioned no new articles were being produced that argued for cooling (most of which was based on our rate of SO2 production). Much more of the popularity of this hypothesis is due to "popular science" articles and books by non-peer reviewed sources. 

Next you discuss global governance and other social issues. Once again, I will reiterate that climate change does not need to be met by abortion, euthanasia or any other form of population control. Nor does it need to be met by global governance. It simply needs to be by met by action that reaches carbon-free energy production status. This can be done through voluntary treaties (like the Paris Climate Accords) or individual government plans (such as the Green New Deal). Neither of these ideas put forward involve one world governance. They are voluntary or individual country plans to combat anthropogenic climate change. The US has even (rather foolishly) withdrawn from the Paris Accords. If they were to pass (in the US and other social democracies) it would be by a party/coalition in power through democratic processes so I don't see where all the fear-mongering about tyranny is coming from. There are multiple paths forward that are technologically not particularly difficult (nuclear fission, space based solar, etc) in addition to more technologically complex options (geoengineering or nuclear fusion). 

There is a massive leap in logic between reasonable actions taken by the global community in voluntary treaties and some sort of tyrannical global governance. This idea continues to appear over and over again in this thread and yet there has been not one shred of evidence presented as to prove that scientists are somehow in conspiracy with some shadowy cabal to create some sort of dystopian tyranny.      

[dhchristian]

6 minutes ago, ChessPlayer said:

There is a massive leap in logic between reasonable actions taken by the global community in voluntary treaties and some sort of tyrannical global governance. This idea continues to appear over and over again in this thread and yet there has been not one shred of evidence presented as to prove that scientists are somehow in conspiracy with some shadowy cabal to create some sort of dystopian tyranny.   

Comments please on the following.

 

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, ChessPlayer said:

There is a massive leap in logic between reasonable actions taken by the global community in voluntary treaties and some sort of tyrannical global governance. This idea continues to appear over and over again in this thread and yet there has been not one shred of evidence presented as to prove that scientists are somehow in conspiracy with some shadowy cabal to create some sort of dystopian tyranny.     

Yes.   What, if anything, we choose to do about it, is entirely separate from the fact that it's happening.  Well said.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Cletus said:

the link was in the post.

universities are a venue for polluting the masses with ungodly teachings. 

Nothing there showing any data was wrong.    In fact, last winter was hotter than any winter before 2013.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

You've confused weather and climate.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, Cletus said:

universities are a venue for polluting the masses with ungodly teachings. 

Please explain how care for the planet, a mandate given by God in Genesis 3, is an ungodly teaching.

[The Barbarian]

Nothing there showing any data was wrong.    In fact, last winter was hotter than any winter before 2013.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

You've confused weather and climate.

 

5 hours ago, Cletus said:

no.  you have confused man being in control with Who is really in control... God. 

No.    Weather isn't climate.   And as you now realize last winter was one of the hottest on record.    And of course, God says that He gave man stewardship of the Earth, so yes, man does have control.

5 hours ago, Cletus said:

and by the way climate is the long term average of weather over a period of time.  normally a few decades.

Which was your error.   You assumed a brief cold spell was climate, rather than weather.   As you learned, last winter was warmer than any other winter prior to 2013.

5 hours ago, Cletus said:

all these weather extremes have happened in the past 100 or 200 years. 

No, that's wrong, too.   The Maunder Minimum was before that.    And there was unusual weather as far back as we have written records.   Would you like me to show you?

Your confusion was in assuming that a brief spell of weather was climate.

5 hours ago, Cletus said:

I mean, we do not even really need to delve into numbers and stats here do we? 

If you want to talk climate, you do.    That's how it works.