I’m sure they know, but also perhaps intentionally, perhaps unintentionally, by this, point out that such research on global warming is unreliable and suspect due to its political nature and you may as well come to your own conclusion.
My 1.5 degree mistake, I was doing it off the top of my head. But glad to see you agree it is at least 2 degrees.
Well I don’t want there to be global warming any more than the next guy, but what skin is it off my nose (other than in providing a solution to the problem) whether it’s caused by humans or by natural climate cycles? Even if it’s a natural occurrence, we’d still have to make changes.
I’m not an AGW denier. Like I said, I is ignorant, and generally I go with whatever the experts in the field think.
-XT
I didn’t say you were.
I didn’t think you were, just wanted to clarify.
-XT
Hmm…1976. Wasn’t it around 1976 that the left was issuing dire warnings about the coming ice age?
(IIRC, liberal claims that the world was about to run out of trees and oil had gone out of vogue by then.)
The left?
Like Jimmy Carter and his ilk?
Or are you making a mishmash of the Club of Rome modelling with other crap and blaming it all on us Black Panther wannabes?
I`m merely admitting my own biases, which anyone who is a skeptic should always be willing to do.
In this case, Im biased because so many other scares pushed by government interventionists have been wrong in the past that my skeptical radar went up as soon as they latched onto global warming. I think the movement`around AGW is primarily statist, with many of the people in it pushing global warming as a tool to increase regulation, tax the rich, and implement a whole host of programs and regulations that they would still have advocated for had they never heard of global warming.
In other words, I tend to distrust any theory whose strongest advocates happen to be people who have a vested interest in the types of policies the theory would lead to if true. In the same way, Im sure many of you would be skeptical if scientists from a right-wing think tank discovered a causal link between big government policies and some horrible worldwide environmental problem, and the proposed cure was elimination of big government and a return to completely free markets - and youd be especially leery if Rush Limbaugh wrote a book about it went on the lecture circuit, and Sarah Palin hosted a movie describing the danger. Youd think, Well, isnt that *convenient* for them that this problem exists, and happens to have exactly the solution theyve been calling for since long before this problem was known…
I also think that many of the policy prescriptions are wrong-headed and will either do no good or create even more damage, and that there`s an attitude that if you accept that global warming is happening and man is contributing to it, then you must necessarily buy into all the other claims of the AGW crowd and accept whatever draconian policies they suggest.
In more detail: Acceptance that AGW is true does not in any way suggest that the proper responses are policies like cap and trade taxes or heavy subsidies for the alternative energy source du jure. And once you get past the basics of atmospheric chemistry and energy balance and start trying to predict the economic cost of global warming on people 100 years from now, you get on much shakier ground.
It would be nicer to discover that the whole thesis behind AGW is wrong, and that the evidence is false or misinterpreted. But I make an honest attempt to go where the science leads, and it leads to the AGW hypothesis. Therefore, I have to accept that as the correct working hypothesis and admit that man is probably helping to warm up the planet.
Because if it’s caused by us, then obviously we’ve fucked things up.
HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha… ha. heh. Whew. Damn, that was funny.
Man, I didn’t think anybody would trot out that old chestnut again. What a funny guy.
Unless, of course, you are being serious. ff that is the case, cite it moron. Show me that “the left”, tired of scaring people about running out of trees and oil, decided to warn of the coming ice age.
Ah yes, the old reliable Starving for good citations Artist.
The fact is that in the 70’s the majority of the scientific papers published dealing with climate change did predict global warming, not cooling. This is a perfect example of people starving from good information even when one gets full with a constant diet of BS from the right wing echo chamber.
The other fact on the stupid bit of the “left issuing dire warnings about the coming ice age” is that it came from popular press articles that misinterpreted what the scientists were saying. The worst thing was that the original article that started the “we predict an ice are coming” myth from the 70’s could not find a scientist that could say directly that an ice age was coming. They had to rely on unnamed sources to “spice the report up”.
Of course I consider that what the reporters did was to make bullshit and sadly even Penn and Teller got bullshitted.
Aside: I vaguely recall reading somewhere that they (Penn and Teller) apologized for that particular portion, but I can’t find a source. Anyone else remember that?
Assuming this is even true (how could you possibly know what the “majority of scientific papers puplished in the seventies” said), then as you said, you can blame the media. As usual, in their proper role as left-wing propagandists, it was the mainstream media that was promoting the leftist fiction that the world was running out of trees, then oil, then headed into a coming ice-age that threatened to doom us all.
People didn’t have the internet in those days and they had little access to information other than what the media were feeding them. The media has always been quick to give positive or at least sympathetic coverage to moonbats chaining themselves to trees to keep them from being cut down, alarmists with statistics showing that the world was running out of oil, and claims that an impending ice-age was threatening to doom us all. So the message was coming from the left, regardless of what this or that obscure scientist had to say.
And a question: If the media were misinterpreting what the scientists were saying, why didn’t the scientists straighten them out and get it reported correctly? And why was the media misinterpreting it in the first place if the science was so persuasive? I submit that the answer is that the media was much more interested in promoting leftist doom and gloom than it was in reporting the science accurately, both for the sake of readership/viewership and to promote the leftist agenda with which they’ve always been sympatico.
I don’t believe it was a conscious decision to switch from one to the other. It’s more like trees and oil had become old news by then, and when the ice-age meme got picked up by the media and started bubbing to the surface, the left, as usual, was ripe for the picking.
Rather than SA’s tales told round a campfire, here’s a bit of a look at the state of the science in the early and mid 70’s:
Global cooling
SA’s been so bitter for so many years, he sees the past through bloody glasses.
I guess this means that you don’t have a cite.
Even assuming your statements about the wide spread belief of a new ice age being promoted are correct (and, frankly, I only remember it being said in passing and not being promoted all that rigorously), my answer to your question is: The media were promoting whatever sold papers or got advertising, just like today. While I admit that, to me, the MSM has a slight left leaning tendency, the real answer is that sensationalism sells, whatever that sensationalism is. Thoughts of a new ice age, or the end of the world are the equivalent of today’s fixation on Nostradamus or the freaking Mayan calendar and the end of the world in 2012. That sort of bullshit sells. It gets folks watching the show, and gets advertisers interested.
-XT
Not bitter. I just have a good memory for how lefties behave so I’m very wary when a new sky-is-falling meme starts coming from that direction.
No, I do not have a cite for what you mistakenly thought I said.
These things answer themselves no?
Actually just by following the link and checking the video one could see that researchers decided to take a look at the published scientific papers and reported that from 1965 to 1980 that 7 papers predicted global cooling… the problem was that 44 papers predicted global warming. (the ratio today is even worse for the denier side, today a super-majority of scientific papers agrees with AGW)
They did, but when has the media come back and admitted being wrong about the uncertainty back then?
The science is persuasive that evolution is real, but you still see most people following the media that tells them that that is “just a theory”.
In any case, it was in the 70’s when scientists began to agree that AGW was a problem, it was not invented by Al Gore, back then you could still see respectful scientists disagreeing with the growing consensus so outfits like TIME got their ass covered back then.
Nah, the answer just like today was that eyeballs follow conflict and controversy, there are very few spectators for boring reports and many for train wrecks, there is nothing political or scientific about that.