Safe Speed Forums

I found this (very interesting) article from a 1975 edition of Newsweek (courtesy Numberwatch): http://federalistpatriot.us/news/EarthDay1975.pdf

In the Seventies, 'science' was saying that we were going headlong into another ice age.

Barely ten years later they started saying exactly the opposite.

Perhaps in another few years time we'll be back to global cooling.

Or maybe they'll have a reality check.

The last paragraph of the article is particularly telling.

Cheers
Peter

Interesting stuff, and who knows what the future will hold for us.

I suspect that climatology and other associated sciences have come a long way in the past 30 years, so I'm more willing to believe them these days.

What is the reality check you speak of?

Unfortunately, the more I read about the subject the more I despair over what's happening to science.



For example, if global temperatures start dropping sharply again (as they could very well do) perhaps someone, somewhere, will say, "Hang on a mo..."

Cheers
Peter

Some facts conveniently ignored by the doom mongers:

(1) During the turn of the Century the level of sun spots was at its highest for 8000 years, which significantly affects global temperatures. A comparison of sunspot charts and temperature are proportional yet the "scientists" (unbiased of course!) of the global warmers say it has no affect on our temperature. Right so what caused the mini ice-age in the 16th and 17th and 18th centuries when sunspot activity was almost nil?

See this link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6591

What is interesting is that no link is found between sunspots and the slight increase in temperatures over the last 100 years yet the amount of carbon found in ice cores etc seems to be proportional to the amount of sunspots therefore our very high increase in sunspots would herald an increase in surface carbon-wouldn't it?

(2) Effects of the mini ice-age: The mini-ice-age effect did not fully disappear until the mid to late 18th century with a gradual turnaround to warmer temperatures in the late 18th/early 19th century when most of the warming in the last 100 years took place, so in other words if its not getting colder it's getting warmer. Wouldn't this possibly be the small increase in temperatures seen over the last 100 years?

(3) Effects of urban heat island effect and blanket temperature readings: Since the passing of the clean air act in the 50's the skies over our towns and cities have become progressively cleaner and clearer letting more sunlight in, this effect is said to have increased average temperatures in inner city areas +2.5 celsius in the last 40-50 years.


Regards


Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

I think global warming is a good thing, as it will turn my house (i'm quite high up) into a lake side residence

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

Best start ordering your Soylent Green in advance.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Read this and weep.

Cheers
Peter

Don't forget what that era was like - the seventies were really quite wacky - have you have somehow picked up on an urban myth about cranky theoretical science in that era?

In my recollection, few scientists in the seventies were saying that, and the controversy was in no way, shape or form similar to the current fuss about global warming. Chemists, on the other hand, were concerned about CO2 levels even then, although there was less historical and direct evidence of the effects.

_________________
I stole this .sig

About the same as now though. The only change is that Politicians have learnt to manipulate the data to their advantage...far more dangerous.

Also Universities have leant that pending ecological disasters mean unlimited government funding. Not that this ever influences the results.

If you don't believe they make stuff up remember life on Mars from a microbe infested meteorite....Oops got it wrong again, after the funding came of course.....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

In short, yes.

And I find the alternative prospect, global dimming, even more plausible and worrying.

Remember the source that you're quoting (Federalist Patriot) is a far-right US website, currently engaged in trying to debunk sound scientific theory in the name of greater profits for the oil and energy industries.

Remember that a lot of these fruits think that it doesn't matter how much of our resources are squandered, 'cos Jesus is due back to Rapture them all up to Heaven any day now.

J.

No, the source is Newsweek - a page from which happens to be on that website.
Unless you're suggesting it's a fake - we can always check the Newsweek archives, if necessary.

Cheers
Peter

Did you read the Newsweek article?

Did you also read the other article? Here

cheers
Peter

It doesn't really mean that all Climatology et al is untrustworty and should be ignored though, it just suggests a couple of journals would rather print material that they think would sell rather than what they think is necessarily a balanced opinion.

Standard journalism in my book.

No, I'm suggesting that it's been taken out of context to further an agenda. Likewise the Torygraph.

The fact is that, yes it is possible to pay a thinktank to come up with a theory that fits your agenda if you pay them enough - but on the flipside of the coin the energy companies have far more money to throw at such things than the environmentalists.

Most independent studies have acknowledged that there is indeed a problem... maybe not as immediate as the naysayers fear, but existent nonetheless.

Tc.

Do you really think that global warming research is funded by environmentalists?
No, it's funded by the UN and governments - who have lots of our money to throw around.
And politicians don't read the IPCC reports, which are compiled by scientists, they read the summaries for policymakers - which are compiled by policymakers.
Within the IPCC, scientific corruption is rife - documents are altered after review, source data is gratuitously ignored as being 'unsuitable', researchers are put under pressure to produce the 'right' results, etc etc etc.
It's a real circus.

Cheers
Peter

Yes, but it looks original so find out how which other articles supporting this view were widely printed.

We need to know if this was supported (I think I know what you will find). Perhaps it is a cranky journalistic piece that was way under the radar for most people.

You will find that it was no way comparable to the current level of alarm about carbon, so it could be just a piece of tat - you know how the newspapers work.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that the oil/energy companies fund a lot of the anti-global warming theory research, and that it's unlikely that environmental groups have the cash to do likewise in the opposite direction.

I'm fairly sure that the 'cooking' of evidence you refer to is being done far more on the side that wants us to continue our destructive behaviour in the name of commerce and profit than wants us to take a long hard look at what we're doing.

If you think that climate change isn't happening, and the environmentalists are doing this purely to stop you from enjoying your car, then you're getting the cart before the horse, and I'd seriously consider getting some perspective.

Tc.

Of course, just follow the money. The firms making money from destructive behaviour will try to spin it out as long as they can. As ever, fear and greed is behind it all.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yeah, but you have to follow the right money. Global warming theory is an industry in its own right, paid for by governments. The oil companies are late in the game and it's dangerous to their profitability to go against the PC global warming view.

The thing that scares me about the global warming science is that they fail to consider contrary evidence and alternative explanations. And if you want another example of policy driven by dangerously crap science, just look at speeding.

We've definitely entered a 'post scientific era' where policy dictates the findings of science because policy has the cash to pay for whatever answers it wants to hear.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Climate change is fact, not PC. I'd stake every last bit of my reputation on that. I very much doubt the governments of the world would want to fiddle with the political hot potato of reducing emissions by curbing car use if the evidence wasn't pretty compelling.



Some speeding is still wrong, and most of the science behind the global warming theory is sound. The alternative theories exist, but are just as scary. As I said, in fact, the only people who believe that it's not a problem also believe that Jesus is going to come and rapture them away soon, and if that's not a fundamentally ignorant and wishful viewpoint I don't know what is!

Yes we've had temperature fluctuations in the days before we polluted the globe to the extent that we do today... but not this sustained. Importantly, when it happened short-term before, the people weren't doing things that exacerbated it.



Governemnts have bugger-all cash compared to multinational energy companies. That's why corporations are dictating policy in the US (A 'Healthy Forests Act' that promotes tax breaks for massive logging and deforestation, a 'Clean Air Act' which does likewise for the worst polluters, and most insidious, a 'No Child Left Behind Act' which makes it compulsory for schools to supply student lists to the military ) rather than the other way round.

Tc.