Any Suspicious Observers members here?

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unheard
Unheard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 01/16/2019 - 11:38
Posts: 1276
Location: Germany

pennzy wrote:
My guess is the fossil fuel industries has the most money to throw at studies like the video back a few posts.

Those industries are behind people like Willie Soon et al. Fortunately, money alone doesn’t make results from any research look plausible where it’s plain wrong. Tobacco industry tried and failed, too.

Smile, you cannot kill them all.

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2400
Location: United States , Pa.

Universities are the recipients of the research money. But who is supplying the money worldwide to study man made climate change? I don’t see any incentive for the government to fund these studies. I do see incentive for disinformation by the fossil fuel industry though. That is my take anyway. The greenhouse effect was 9th grade science back in the 70s before lobbyist dollars turned it political.

Couchmaster
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 05/04/2016 - 17:11
Posts: 339
Location: USA
pennzy wrote:
Universities are the recipients of the research money. But who is supplying the money worldwide to study man made climate change? I don’t see any incentive for the government to fund these studies. I do see incentive for disinformation by the fossil fuel industry though. That is my take anyway. The greenhouse effect was 9th grade science back in the 70s before lobbyist dollars turned it political.

Yet if you look at the post I made on the first page, the “science” as shown in headlines of the 1970’s clearly said we were in the grips of the next ice age. Yet interestingly enough, I agree 100% with what you say here until you get to your last (I bolded that part) sentence which as my earlier post shows, isn’t accurate.

Couchmaster
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 05/04/2016 - 17:11
Posts: 339
Location: USA

1970s headlines -2nd time as you missed it on p1:

Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)

Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)

New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)

Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)

Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)

Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)

Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)

Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)

Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)

Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)

Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)

Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)

Pollution May Bring Ice Age – Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)

U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)

Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

Danger: Ice age may lurk in dusty skies (The Christian Science Monitor, July 12, 1971)

New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)

Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)

Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)

Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)

Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)

Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)

Ice Age Coming (Deseret News, September 8, 1972)

There’s a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)

Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)

British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)

Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (The portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎)

New Ice Age Slipping Over North (The Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)

Beginning of new ice age (The Canberra Times, September 12, 1972)

Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)

Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972‎)

British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)

Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)

Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)

Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters – Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)

Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)

Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)

New Ice Age coming? (Popular Science, January 1973)

The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)

Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1973)

‘Man made Ice Age’ Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)

Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (The Spartanburg Herald, June 28, 1973)

Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)

Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)

Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather (PDF) (Fortune Magazine, February 1974)

Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming?‎ (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)

Support for theory of a cooling world (The Canberra Times, May 16, 1974)

New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)

Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)

2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)

Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)

Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974)

Making a BBC Science Special [The Weather Machine] (New Scientist, November 14, 1974)

The Weather Machine (BBC, November 20, 1974)

New ice age ‘could be in our lifetime’ (The Canberra Times, November 22, 1974)

Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974‎)

Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974‎)

More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, ‎December 5, 1974‎)

Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 5, 1974)

Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)

Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)

B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)

Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)

New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975‎)

Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975‎)

The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)

The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)

Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Change May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)

Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975)

In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)

Experts ponder another ice age (The Spokesman-Review, September 8, 1975)

Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal entinel, December 11, 1975)

Deadly Harvest [Film] (Starring: Kim Cattrall, Clint Walker, 1976)

The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)

Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976) Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976) I

It’s Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)

Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)

Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)

The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)

The Ice Age Cometh… (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)

The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)

Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)

Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)

Sunspot lull may bring on new ice age (The Christian Science Monitor, March 30, 1977)

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2400
Location: United States , Pa.

As I said before I don’t research this subject much. Correct me if I am wrong but global warming and a new ice age are not exclusive of each other. If the Atlantic currents are changed Europe’s temperature will drop. A whole slew of contradictory results. Deserts will form. Extreme storms. Extreme droughts. Here is an article from MIT with more info than I can remember.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/12/21/207026/global-warming-vs-the...

Edit: Spelling is not my high point.

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12508
Location: nyc
pennzy wrote:
Desserts will form.

Mmmmmmm, you say that like it’s a bad thing.

I could go for that…

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2400
Location: United States , Pa.
Lightbringer wrote:
pennzy wrote:
Desserts will form.

Mmmmmmm, you say that like it’s a bad thing.

I could go for that…


I spell poorly. Math was my high point Big Smile
Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12508
Location: nyc

I still could go for randomly-forming desserts.

Lemme go burn some coal to get started…

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2400
Location: United States , Pa.

Thats funny. You always are good for something. Wink

BurningPlayd0h
BurningPlayd0h's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 02:16
Posts: 1499
Location: MN

I really can’t wrap my head around the logic in thinking that human-caused climate change is being exaggerated/falsified for economic reasons, while the price of oil being absolutely essential to the US Dollar – and therefore a huge portion of the world’s economic activity – is completely ignored. That seems like a much larger incentive than the pittance of research grants, etc. that is spent on climate change.

Tally-ho
Tally-ho's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 07/23/2011 - 04:15
Posts: 1386
Location: France

Couchmaster wrote:
1970s headlines -2nd time as you missed it on p1:

We all know how newspapers like to make big titles even with biaised and flawed studies.

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70’s? No

Quote:
…To clarify a little: I am interested in “Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70’s by scientists, in scientific journals?”. That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information…

…The purpose of this page is to provide a counter to the mythology that “journals were stuffed full of articles predicting an imminent ice age in the ’70’s”…

NorthernHarrier
NorthernHarrier's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 11/30/2018 - 12:05
Posts: 341
Location: Eastern USA

I don’t believe there are any climate scientists who claim that 100% of climate change is due only to human causes.

I also think that people with money most often don’t want to waste it. I think it is more difficult to get funding for research testing a hypothesis with no data behind it, as opposed to getting funding for research for testing a hypothesis that has a grounding in existing evidence, because people would rather not spend their money on attempts to prove things not based on facts, or attempts to disprove what is already proven repeatedly, and with a lot of evidence.

For example, would you expect a proposed study attempting to prove that nicotine is not addictive to get funded easily? Or a study trying to prove that cancer can be caused by thoughts that one might get cancer?

It isn’t true that good research proposals based on facts cannot get funding if not proposed by people with connections. Certainly, as in any endeavor, getting funding is easier if one has connections to people with money. But I hear often of research proposals from children’s experiments at science fairs getting funding from people with money who know a good idea when they see one. Similarly, grant proposals are often evaluated in a formal way, with strict protocols intended to weed out bias. The evaluators are not allowed to know where the proposals come from.

I think there is some bias in some environmental/earth science research funding, with regard to which projects get funding and which do not, but the bias has to do with which experiments have a faster and easier payoff for the researchers and for the field scientists who would apply the research. Similarly, in medical research, the funding tends to go to research with a faster and easier payoff. The other diseases get left behind in funding. What follows is predictable, in environmental research and in medical research: if you can see the problem or disease in a microscope and see easily whether your proposed treatment works, it is more likely to get funded. In contrast, if we don’t yet have the technology to see the specific environmental problem or disease, and/or if seeing and quantifying the effects of the tested treatment is more difficult, it is less likely to get funded. In addition, it follows that it is easier to get funding for an experiment of a quick fix of a problem than to get funding for an experiment that is only one of a long, time-consuming series of experiments that would be needed to some day, in the distant future, lead to a fix or cure.

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12508
Location: nyc
BurningPlayd0h wrote:
I really can’t wrap my head around the logic in thinking that human-caused climate change is being exaggerated/falsified for economic reasons…

Control.

“Carbon credits”, “carbon-based taxes”, you name it. Whole industries will be put under a big bureaucratic thumb, which can selectively punish or reward even individual companies if they don’t bend over on demand.

People can store huge amounts of gasoline in 55gal drums if need be, but if everyone has electric cars, they can turn off the juice to whole areas just like they’re doing to California because of wildfire threats, and those cars will have limited miles of travel before they just sit dead.

And I just loooooooove genius ideas like “sequestering” CO2 to inject underground under high pressure. Like it won’t fizz up somewhere else, or aquifers won’t end up supplying seltzer instead of water. Ummm, how much energy will it take to do something like that? What’s going to power the pumps to collect and pressurise it?, the transportation from one site to another, making the containers (CO2 tanker-trucks??) and/or pipelines to move it, etc.? Facepalm

It’s lots and lots of makebusy work for one as-yet-uncreated sector while putting other sectors out of business, and the only ones to profit are the bureaucrats “administering” those schemes.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

BurningPlayd0h
BurningPlayd0h's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 02:16
Posts: 1499
Location: MN
Lightbringer wrote:
BurningPlayd0h wrote:
I really can’t wrap my head around the logic in thinking that human-caused climate change is being exaggerated/falsified for economic reasons…

Control.

“Carbon credits”, “carbon-based taxes”, you name it. Whole industries will be put under a big bureaucratic thumb, which can selectively punish or reward even individual companies if they don’t bend over on demand.

People can store huge amounts of gasoline in 55gal drums if need be, but if everyone has electric cars, they can turn off the juice to whole areas just like they’re doing to California because of wildfire threats, and those cars will have limited miles of travel before they just sit dead.

And I just loooooooove genius ideas like “sequestering” CO2 to inject underground under high pressure. Like it won’t fizz up somewhere else, or aquifers won’t end up supplying seltzer instead of water. Ummm, how much energy will it take to do something like that? What’s going to power the pumps to collect and pressurise it?, the transportation from one site to another, making the containers (CO2 tanker-trucks??) and/or pipelines to move it, etc.? Facepalm

It’s lots and lots of makebusy work for one as-yet-uncreated sector while putting other sectors out of business, and the only ones to profit are the bureaucrats “administering” those schemes.

This is already accomplished through unequitable taxation and funding of different industries and power sources, denial/approval of new projects, etc. No fake “boogeyman” of climate change is needed for corporate and government bodies to exert their influence, they have been and are doing that right now.

Look at what has happened to one of the most practical energy sources – nuclear. Was the target of insanely well funded campaigns to limit its development and sway public opinion during the last few decades of the 20th century.

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2400
Location: United States , Pa.

[quote=Lightbringer][quote=BurningPlayd0h]

‘And I just loooooooove genius ideas like “sequestering” CO2 to inject underground under high pressure. Like it won’t fizz up somewhere else, or aquifers won’t end up supplying seltzer instead of water. Ummm, how much energy will it take to do something like that? What’s going to power the pumps to collect and pressurise it?, the transportation from one site to another’

Sequestering fracking mixture into the ground is already being done. I agree we should not be pumping crap into our aquifer.

As far as picking winners and losers, harnessing the sun and wind is not going to be condensed into a few mega companies such as our energy industry is now. Not when joe blow can mount an array on their roof or back yard.

Let’s disregard the climate change angle and look at the pollution generated by burning coal, which BTW is how I heat my home. I am suggesting there is no real downside to switching to sustainable energy sources and it might even create jobs so why not? Error on the side of caution. I’m sure ExxonMobil will spin off just fine.

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12508
Location: nyc
BurningPlayd0h wrote:
Look at what has happened to one of the most practical energy sources – nuclear. Was the target of insanely well funded campaigns to limit its development and sway public opinion during the last few decades of the 20th century.

Absolutely. I still remember the “No nukes!” chants waaaaaaaay back when. They™ whipped that up into a cultural phenomenon. But it was still a private effort.

What we’re talking about as far as schemes like “carbon credits” is to allow some industries keep “polluting” (even if it’s necessary, like having leftover eggshells after cracking some eggs) but having to be held hostage and paying up, as far as buying “credits” from industries that by their nature are low-pollution.

And those schemes are administered by government bureaucracies (or idiocracies) who have actual force of law behind them.

Funding? Just raise taxes on those who can’t refuse to “contribute”, vs businesses which have that taken out of gross profits.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

NorthernHarrier
NorthernHarrier's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 11/30/2018 - 12:05
Posts: 341
Location: Eastern USA

Just saw the above post while on my 30 minute lunch break, and as someone who has been a public servant for almost 30 years, I feel compelled to say the following. Nobody in government work for more than ten minutes is under the delusion that they can control industries or even individual companies.

And the assumption that a so-called bureaucrat (now a pejorative smear, like “fascist”) is motivated by a desire to control anything or anybody is laughable to those of us in government. We are controlled by many others, including the industries mentioned above; we control nothing. Our power is very limited, and everything we do is under constant scrutiny, as it should be. The accusation of government employees profiting off of regulations is 100% ridiculous. Political appointees can benefit from changes they impose when they go back into the private sector, but the career people in government can’t (it’s explicitly against the law), and I’ve never met any who would want to do that.

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12508
Location: nyc
pennzy wrote:
Sequestering fracking mixture into the ground is already being done. I agree we should not be pumping crap into our aquifer.

But it’s liquid. Leakage is constrained by “porousness” of the material that contains it, and capillary action.

CO2 is a gas, and can seep through plenty of materials that would hold fracking fluid like a steel tank.

pennzy wrote:
As far as picking winners and losers, harnessing the sun and wind is not going to be condensed into a few mega companies such as our energy industry is now. Not when joe blow can mount an array on their roof or back yard.

Unless it’s actually taxed, as it is in some jurisdictions to protect conventional powercos.

pennzy wrote:
Let’s disregard the climate change angle and look at the pollution generated by burning coal, which BTW is how I heat my home. I am suggesting there is no real downside to switching to sustainable energy sources and it might even create jobs so why not? Error on the side of caution. I’m sure ExxonMobil will spin off just fine.

Wellp, unless you happen to live in a coal-mining town…

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2400
Location: United States , Pa.

You are losing me. I don’t feel there is a cabal behind the curtain. Just plain old environmentalists.

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2400
Location: United States , Pa.

Coal is on the way out because of market pressure from natural gas. All the cheering for it won’t bring back mining. Solar is being taxed only if you want to hook to the grid and sell back to the power companies in states such as Florida to protect the power companies that pump lobby dollars to politicians. Agreed this is bad for solar in a sunny state but I can see the power companies side also. As more and more go solar their reign is fading.

There are no guarantees fracking solutions will not pollute the water table. Natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal but it should be considered a transition energy source.

In that MIT article I referenced, nuclear is mentioned as a fuel for the next ice age when fossil fuels are exhausted.

sochi111
sochi111's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 02/21/2017 - 14:59
Posts: 314

Does ocean absorb a lot of the CO2? I am sure not enough.

These crazy forest fires are dumping so much CO2 and other particles that will show up in permanent ice core records

Couchmaster
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 05/04/2016 - 17:11
Posts: 339
Location: USA
Tally-ho wrote:
We all know how newspapers like to make big titles even with biaised and flawed studies………….

Simply read the very first sentence of this CIA assessment of 1974. It was real, I don’t think we need to whitewash history and pretend it never happened or that all those reporters just were making things up. Reporters back then made up a lot less stuff than the common lies we see in CNN or the NY Times these days (I’m not saying that they didn’t or that they were perfect). http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

If you start looking into those links (a few for you below) you will see that reporters have quoted noted scientists extensively. I don’t disagree that Co2 is causing the planet to warm faster than if there was less co2. However, I will suggest that humans ability to predict what will occur in 50 years from now appears to be still evolving, and let’s keep an open mind. For myself, it’s obvious to me that there are large cycles at play which involve the sun and solar flares which do have a mini 11 year cycle that scientists have been tracking only since the 1800s. Given our position in the solar system and what is occurring out beyond in the far distance of space, it could be a lot of differing things at play none of which we know anything about currently. Regardless, while we study these phenomenons and crazy things like ocean acidifaction, it would certainly behoove us to be as careful with our emissions as possible.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ASRHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u_MMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1081,1308250&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QAFJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5oIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1282,407671&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SGYRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OeADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6529,7703615&dq=allintitle:+ice+age&hl=en

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9363
Location: Berkeley, California

https://www.google.com/search?q=causes+of+climate+change+attribution

Quote:


Quote:
climate experts were initially strongly skeptical of the theory of global warming; it took a variety of evidence to gradually convince them that warming due to human emissions was likely. The public, however, was guided away from this conclusion by a professional public relations effort, motivated by industrial and ideological concerns. Deniers of the scientific consensus avoided normal scientific discourse and resorted to ad hominem attacks that cast doubt on the entire scientific community—while disrupting the lives of some researchers….

… Noting that in the natural course of events the planet was due to settle over the course of the next few thousand years into an ice age, a few scientists speculated that pollution would block sunlight and accelerate the process. But nobody made a confident prediction, and most felt the whole matter was altogether uncertain.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0096340210392966
Majoroverkill
Majoroverkill's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 01/12/2017 - 17:13
Posts: 961
Location: Nevada

Doug S.

sb56637
sb56637's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 min 22 sec ago
Joined: 01/08/2010 - 09:29
Posts: 6840
Location: The Light

This topic isn’t doing anything to help the peace and enjoyment of BLF for users, and it also won’t change anything related to the overarching topic being discussed. Thread closed.

Budget Light Forum ...where Frugal meets with Flashlight!

Pages

Topic locked