You think pretty highly of yourself. Like this is some big honor that I have to earn from you.
And yet you took the time to write this giant nonsensical post going on about Orson Welles and creationism.
Then stop doing it?
ETA, since I’ve interacted with you before I’ll just preemptively post ‘fine, whatever, you win’ and we can all move on.
Well, some sources are still going on about this misrepresentation that has never been corrected by the contrarian media. (IIRC on NPR there were reports where the authors of the articles about global cooling in popular media, reported decades later where they erred and Time and Newsweek have indeed moved on, not so the usually right wing and contrarian media)
In fact, among climate papers published between 1965 and 1979, the number predicting global warming was accelerating. The scientific community was becoming more convinced that global warming was just around the corner. And what happened next?
Global temperatures did start to increase, just as climate scientists expected. However, a small number of papers in the 1970s speculated that under certain conditions, global cooling might happen.
This is the basis for one persistent myth about climate change: that in the 1970s, the scientific community was predicting global cooling, maybe even a new ice age in the next few decades. This myth is a misrepresentation.
In 1974 and 1975, Time and Newsweek magazines published articles warning about a possible oncoming ice age. This was partly based on NASA’s research. But Time and Newsweek are news magazines, not scientific journals. No one is surprised when a news magazine publishes a sensationalized headline.
But in scientific papers, which take a more reasoned, evidence-based approach, the research indicated oncoming global warming. Moreover, those NASA scientists weren’t predicting global cooling or an ice age. Their paper projected that if sulfate aerosol pollution quadrupled, then we might trigger an ice age. But the opposite happened. In the 1970s, a number of countries enacted regulations to reduce sulfate aerosol pollution. One example of this legislation is the passing of the Clean Air Act in the United States. As a result, sulfate pollution began declining in the late 1970s.
The scenario where sulfate aerosol emissions quadrupled just didn’t happen.
This example of sulfate pollution is instructive for today. Scientists published research explaining the effects of sulfate pollution. In response, governments enacted regulation to reduce the pollution. In the same way, we can avoid the worst impacts of global warming if we act to reduce carbon dioxide pollution today.
No, I just don’t want to put in the work of answering a gish gallop. I can put in work debunking, if you actually put in the work of making a claim.
You seem to have not understood it, that doesn’t make it nonsensical.
You didn’t even seem to understand that your own Wikipedia “cite” contradicted your claims.
This is supposedly a site devoted to fighting ignorance, when someone posts climate change denialism, it should be addressed.
Then you jumped in to defend the climate change denialism. That merited a somewhat more robust response.
You could have actually done that had you bothered to read your own “cite”.