The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

tommyGunZ said:

Your irrational hate of Al Gore hurts your argument here.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Probably bad for some people, good for others, and risky for everyone.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Probably bad for some people, good for others, and risky for everyone.

Click to expand...

Why is it risky?

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Probably bad for some people, good for others, and risky for everyone.

Click to expand...

Why is it risky?

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

TheIronSheik said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Probably bad for some people, good for others, and risky for everyone.

Click to expand...

Why is it risky?

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, this is a serious question. I'm not arguing any point at all. I realize that the scientists agree that man made climate change is happening. But has there been a consensus as to what the effects will be? Also, do they know if these levels would top off at any point? Say nothing is done: Would the levels continue to rise?

Click to expand...

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.


Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.

Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

It's long and 6 years old, but this editorial from one of the IPCC scientists is worth reading.

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

It's long and 6 years old, but this editorial from one of the IPCC scientists is worth reading.

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.


Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.

Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

cstu said:

Only 95%? So you're saying there's a chance?

Click to expand...

matuski said:

Rayderr said:

It's long and 6 years old, but this editorial from one of the IPCC scientists is worth reading.

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.


Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.

Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This last sentence is what has changed in the last 7 years. 95% certainty is about as iron-clad as it gets.

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

It's long and 6 years old, but this editorial from one of the IPCC scientists is worth reading.

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

:

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Rayderr said:

It's long and 6 years old, but this editorial from one of the IPCC scientists is worth reading.

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

:

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It can be hard to live by Jim McCarthy's Rule#4.

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Rayderr said:

It's long and 6 years old, but this editorial from one of the IPCC scientists is worth reading.

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

:

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It can be hard to live by Jim McCarthy's Rule#4.

Click to expand...

Not sure how that is relevant to what you highlighted. Is a simulation proof that something will happen? If I run all of this weekends games on Madden, will the results turn out exactly like they will in real life?

Click to expand...

Jewell said:

'No children, happy to go extinct', tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he's considering a vasectomy)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html

A meteorologist who has covered weather for the Wall Street Journal tweeted that he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and is considering having a vasectomy.

He also vowed to stop flying after the world's recent climate-change report made him cry.

Click to expand...

Another Earth Day has passed, so this is a good time to look back at predictions made on the original Earth Day about environmental disasters that were about to hit the planet, says the Washington Policy Center (WPC).

Most Earth Day predictions turned out to be stunningly wrong. In 1970, environmentalists said there would soon be a new ice age and massive deaths from air pollution. The New York Times foresaw the extinction of the human race. Widely-quoted biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide starvation by 1975.

More predictions of impending disaster:

“…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

The world will be “…11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age),” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. – New York Times June 23, 1890
The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society – January 1905

[Note by CWC: Amundsen was the first to successfully navigate the entire northwest passage - in 1905.]

“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. – Washington Post 11/2/1922

Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine 9/10/1923

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise – New York Times 3/27/1933

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939

A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” – May 30, 1947

Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. – August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. – New York Times – January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. – Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. – New York Times – February 20, 1969

The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. – New York Times – July 18, 1970

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. — Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters—the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. — Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” – Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” – Washington Post – July 9, 1971

New Ice Age Coming-—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

“There is very important climatic change (Global Cooling) going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” – Fortune Magazine February 1974

“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Time Magazine June 24, 1974

A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times – December 29, 1974

Regardless of long term trends, such as the return of an Ice Age, unsettled weather conditions now appear more likely than those of the abnormally favorable period which ended in 1972. – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – October 10, 1975

A RECENT flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation – Nature – March 6, 1975

Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975

“Scientist ponder why World’s Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable – New York Times May 21, 1975

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. – New York Times – January 5, 1978

One of the questions that nags at climatologists asks when and how fast a new ice age might descend. A Belgian scientist suggests this could happen sooner and swifter than you might think. – Christian Science Monitor – Nov 14, 1979

Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – November 1980

A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said… Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years – San Jose Mercury News – June 11, 1986

‘New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,’ – St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ‘80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. – Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. – 5000 Days to Save the Planet – Edward Goldsmith 1991

‘’I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left – we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.’’ – ABC – The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade if global warming trends continue – Carl Sagan – Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. — Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. – The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate – Ross Gelbspan – 1996

“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino.” – BBC November 7, 1997

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

“Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 – it may even break the record set in 1998. – Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 – the hottest year to date – The Scotsman December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 – Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an “above normal” year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year’s, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. — Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, – ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States – NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country – Science Daily Oct. 11, 2007

Click to expand...

Rayderr said:

Another Earth Day has passed, so this is a good time to look back at predictions made on the original Earth Day about environmental disasters that were about to hit the planet, says the Washington Policy Center (WPC).

Most Earth Day predictions turned out to be stunningly wrong. In 1970, environmentalists said there would soon be a new ice age and massive deaths from air pollution. The New York Times foresaw the extinction of the human race. Widely-quoted biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide starvation by 1975.

More predictions of impending disaster:

“…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

The world will be “…11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age),” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. – New York Times June 23, 1890
The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society – January 1905

[Note by CWC: Amundsen was the first to successfully navigate the entire northwest passage - in 1905.]

“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. – Washington Post 11/2/1922

Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine 9/10/1923

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise – New York Times 3/27/1933

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939

A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” – May 30, 1947

Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. – August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. – New York Times – January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. – Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. – New York Times – February 20, 1969

The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. – New York Times – July 18, 1970

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. — Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters—the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. — Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” – Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” – Washington Post – July 9, 1971

New Ice Age Coming-—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

“There is very important climatic change (Global Cooling) going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” – Fortune Magazine February 1974

“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Time Magazine June 24, 1974

A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times – December 29, 1974

Regardless of long term trends, such as the return of an Ice Age, unsettled weather conditions now appear more likely than those of the abnormally favorable period which ended in 1972. – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – October 10, 1975

A RECENT flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation – Nature – March 6, 1975

Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975

“Scientist ponder why World’s Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable – New York Times May 21, 1975

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. – New York Times – January 5, 1978

One of the questions that nags at climatologists asks when and how fast a new ice age might descend. A Belgian scientist suggests this could happen sooner and swifter than you might think. – Christian Science Monitor – Nov 14, 1979

Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – November 1980

A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said… Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years – San Jose Mercury News – June 11, 1986

‘New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,’ – St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ‘80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. – Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. – 5000 Days to Save the Planet – Edward Goldsmith 1991

‘’I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left – we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.’’ – ABC – The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade if global warming trends continue – Carl Sagan – Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. — Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. – The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate – Ross Gelbspan – 1996

“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino.” – BBC November 7, 1997

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

“Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 – it may even break the record set in 1998. – Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 – the hottest year to date – The Scotsman December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 – Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an “above normal” year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year’s, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. — Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, – ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States – NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country – Science Daily Oct. 11, 2007

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MaxThreshold said:

Rayderr said:

Another Earth Day has passed, so this is a good time to look back at predictions made on the original Earth Day about environmental disasters that were about to hit the planet, says the Washington Policy Center (WPC).

Most Earth Day predictions turned out to be stunningly wrong. In 1970, environmentalists said there would soon be a new ice age and massive deaths from air pollution. The New York Times foresaw the extinction of the human race. Widely-quoted biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide starvation by 1975.

More predictions of impending disaster:

“…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

The world will be “…11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age),” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. – New York Times June 23, 1890
The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society – January 1905

[Note by CWC: Amundsen was the first to successfully navigate the entire northwest passage - in 1905.]

“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. – Washington Post 11/2/1922

Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine 9/10/1923

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise – New York Times 3/27/1933

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939

A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” – May 30, 1947

Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. – August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. – New York Times – January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. – Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. – New York Times – February 20, 1969

The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. – New York Times – July 18, 1970

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. — Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters—the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. — Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” – Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” – Washington Post – July 9, 1971

New Ice Age Coming-—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

“There is very important climatic change (Global Cooling) going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” – Fortune Magazine February 1974

“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Time Magazine June 24, 1974

A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times – December 29, 1974

Regardless of long term trends, such as the return of an Ice Age, unsettled weather conditions now appear more likely than those of the abnormally favorable period which ended in 1972. – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – October 10, 1975

A RECENT flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation – Nature – March 6, 1975

Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975

“Scientist ponder why World’s Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable – New York Times May 21, 1975

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. – New York Times – January 5, 1978

One of the questions that nags at climatologists asks when and how fast a new ice age might descend. A Belgian scientist suggests this could happen sooner and swifter than you might think. – Christian Science Monitor – Nov 14, 1979

Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society – November 1980

A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said… Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years – San Jose Mercury News – June 11, 1986

‘New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,’ – St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ‘80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. – Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle……Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…..At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. – 5000 Days to Save the Planet – Edward Goldsmith 1991

‘’I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left – we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.’’ – ABC – The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade if global warming trends continue – Carl Sagan – Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. — Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. – The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate – Ross Gelbspan – 1996

“It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino.” – BBC November 7, 1997

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

“Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 – it may even break the record set in 1998. – Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 – the hottest year to date – The Scotsman December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 – Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an “above normal” year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year’s, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. — Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, – ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States – NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country – Science Daily Oct. 11, 2007

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It also seems like the predictions get more dire whenever the gubment grant money gets cut.

Click to expand...

Dr Oadi said:

So this report left out the last 15 years because they could not explain why the planet has largely stopped warming over that period. Nice.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

Dr Oadi said:

So this report left out the last 15 years because they could not explain why the planet has largely stopped warming over that period. Nice.

Click to expand...

Yeah, calling any of this stuff "science" is amusing (and disgusting at the same time). In actual science you adjust your hypothesis when the data doesn't fit. Global warming kooks have shown that they far prefer dressing up or discarding data so that it fits their hypothesis. Kook science.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

DrJ said:

Dr Oadi said:

So this report left out the last 15 years because they could not explain why the planet has largely stopped warming over that period. Nice.

Click to expand...

Yeah, calling any of this stuff "science" is amusing (and disgusting at the same time). In actual science you adjust your hypothesis when the data doesn't fit. Global warming kooks have shown that they far prefer dressing up or discarding data so that it fits their hypothesis. Kook science.

Click to expand...

The IPCC is far from an honest broker when it comes to publishing data. I wish they would get scientist in charge who are more interested in the facts than advancing an agenda.

Click to expand...

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

Click to expand...

matuski said:

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

matuski said:

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I think about people that still buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They're pretty much like the people predicting end times over Obama care.

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

TheIronSheik said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Probably bad for some people, good for others, and risky for everyone.

Click to expand...

Why is it risky?

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, this is a serious question. I'm not arguing any point at all. I realize that the scientists agree that man made climate change is happening. But has there been a consensus as to what the effects will be? Also, do they know if these levels would top off at any point? Say nothing is done: Would the levels continue to rise?

Click to expand...

Anytime you don't fully know what the effects of something will be, there is a risk that maybe they'll be pretty bad (as they perhaps were for the dinosaurs ~70 million years ago).It's a lot easier to predict the effects of climate stasis than it is to predict the effect of climate change. Climate change is therefore riskier.

Click to expand...

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I think about people that still buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They're pretty much like the people predicting end times over Obama care.

Click to expand...

Never said I bought into it at all. I am in no way qualified to argue climate change with any authority.

But when your first and only attack is to call people kooks, you will have to pardon me when I side with the consensus of a thousand+ scientists over the option you provide.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I think about people that still buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They're pretty much like the people predicting end times over Obama care.

Click to expand...

Never said I bought into it at all. I am in no way qualified to argue climate change with any authority.

But when your first and only attack is to call people kooks, you will have to pardon me when I side with the consensus of a thousand+ scientists over the option you provide.

Click to expand...

Many of the guys you're referring to aren't actually practicing science so it's really not accurate to call them scientists. It's kook science.

Click to expand...

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I think about people that still buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They're pretty much like the people predicting end times over Obama care.

Click to expand...

Never said I bought into it at all. I am in no way qualified to argue climate change with any authority.

But when your first and only attack is to call people kooks, you will have to pardon me when I side with the consensus of a thousand+ scientists over the option you provide.

Click to expand...

Many of the guys you're referring to aren't actually practicing science so it's really not accurate to call them scientists. It's kook science.

Click to expand...

If you can document this, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, I'll beg your forgiveness again for giving your claims the credibility they have so far deserved.

Click to expand...

matuski said:

My issue with this is how someone turns this into a real life application.

Accepting the findings that humans are largely responsible for recent climate change... how do we turn that into an actionable thing? Seems like something that would involve universally accepted laws around the world... how would you enforce that?

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I think about people that still buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They're pretty much like the people predicting end times over Obama care.

Click to expand...

Never said I bought into it at all. I am in no way qualified to argue climate change with any authority.

But when your first and only attack is to call people kooks, you will have to pardon me when I side with the consensus of a thousand+ scientists over the option you provide.

Click to expand...

Many of the guys you're referring to aren't actually practicing science so it's really not accurate to call them scientists. It's kook science.

Click to expand...

If you can document this, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, I'll beg your forgiveness again for giving your claims the credibility they have so far deserved.

Click to expand...

You could start with the quote I originally responded to, that the report in question left out the last 15 years because it couldn't be explained.

When all of these models and predictions have been so wildly off, I don't see where they've earned any credibility,

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

matuski said:

My issue with this is how someone turns this into a real life application.

Accepting the findings that humans are largely responsible for recent climate change... how do we turn that into an actionable thing? Seems like something that would involve universally accepted laws around the world... how would you enforce that?

Click to expand...

You can't, and one could argue it would be entirely unfair if you even tried. This is part of why Kyoto fell apart - the Chinese say it's unfair to impose restrictions on them when they're a developing country. You can't tell billions of Asians or Africans that they can't have heat because you've banned carbon emissions. These people are all many times poorer than anyone in this country can even try to claim to be, it would be very inhumane.

Click to expand...

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I think about people that still buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. They're pretty much like the people predicting end times over Obama care.

Click to expand...

Never said I bought into it at all. I am in no way qualified to argue climate change with any authority.

But when your first and only attack is to call people kooks, you will have to pardon me when I side with the consensus of a thousand+ scientists over the option you provide.

Click to expand...

Many of the guys you're referring to aren't actually practicing science so it's really not accurate to call them scientists. It's kook science.

Click to expand...

If you can document this, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, I'll beg your forgiveness again for giving your claims the credibility they have so far deserved.

Click to expand...

You could start with the quote I originally responded to, that the report in question left out the last 15 years because it couldn't be explained.

When all of these models and predictions have been so wildly off, I don't see where they've earned any credibility,

Click to expand...

Lets stick to the scientists that "aren't actually practicing science" before we get into the relevance of the last 15 years versus all the data prior.

The 15 year talking point was started by the lone dude from the University of Colorado and picked up on by your favorite conservative talk shows.

So back to the non-practicing scientists - would Stephen Hawking qualify as "not actually practicing".. I mean all he does is sit around all day?

Click to expand...

matuski said:

DrJ said:

matuski said:

My issue with this is how someone turns this into a real life application.

Accepting the findings that humans are largely responsible for recent climate change... how do we turn that into an actionable thing? Seems like something that would involve universally accepted laws around the world... how would you enforce that?

Click to expand...

You can't, and one could argue it would be entirely unfair if you even tried. This is part of why Kyoto fell apart - the Chinese say it's unfair to impose restrictions on them when they're a developing country. You can't tell billions of Asians or Africans that they can't have heat because you've banned carbon emissions. These people are all many times poorer than anyone in this country can even try to claim to be, it would be very inhumane.

Click to expand...

So stick with this rather than trying in folly to debunk the science.

You can accept the science while recognizing the limitations of what it calls for.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

TheIronSheik said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Probably bad for some people, good for others, and risky for everyone.

Click to expand...

Why is it risky?

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, this is a serious question. I'm not arguing any point at all. I realize that the scientists agree that man made climate change is happening. But has there been a consensus as to what the effects will be? Also, do they know if these levels would top off at any point? Say nothing is done: Would the levels continue to rise?

Click to expand...

Anytime you don't fully know what the effects of something will be, there is a risk that maybe they'll be pretty bad (as they perhaps were for the dinosaurs ~70 million years ago).It's a lot easier to predict the effects of climate stasis than it is to predict the effect of climate change. Climate change is therefore riskier.

Click to expand...

Is there even such a thing as climate stasis?

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

DrJ said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

TheIronSheik said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

TheIronSheik said:

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. Is change a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Probably bad for some people, good for others, and risky for everyone.

Click to expand...

Why is it risky?

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, this is a serious question. I'm not arguing any point at all. I realize that the scientists agree that man made climate change is happening. But has there been a consensus as to what the effects will be? Also, do they know if these levels would top off at any point? Say nothing is done: Would the levels continue to rise?

Click to expand...

Anytime you don't fully know what the effects of something will be, there is a risk that maybe they'll be pretty bad (as they perhaps were for the dinosaurs ~70 million years ago).It's a lot easier to predict the effects of climate stasis than it is to predict the effect of climate change. Climate change is therefore riskier.

Click to expand...

Is there even such a thing as climate stasis?

Click to expand...

The difference between stasis and change is a matter of degree. Where we draw the line between the two might be somewhat arbitrary, but the point is that the consequences of smaller changes are typically easier to predict than the consequences of bigger changes.

Click to expand...

Dr Oadi said:

So this report left out the last 15 years because they could not explain why the planet has largely stopped warming over that period. Nice.

Click to expand...

Homer J Simpson said:

Dr Oadi said:

So this report left out the last 15 years because they could not explain why the planet has largely stopped warming over that period. Nice.

Click to expand...

Link?

Click to expand...

Dr Oadi said:

Homer J Simpson said:

Dr Oadi said:

So this report left out the last 15 years because they could not explain why the planet has largely stopped warming over that period. Nice.

Click to expand...

Link?

Click to expand...

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/mindex.shtml

Click to expand...

joffer said:

http://t.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-temperatures-44-000-year-high-8C11462851

Arctic temperatures the highest in 44,000 years. For those in Congress that don't think the Earth is that old, please disregard.

Click to expand...

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]

During this period, there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation within this last glacial period was approximately 22,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat makes it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

joffer said:

http://t.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-temperatures-44-000-year-high-8C11462851

Arctic temperatures the highest in 44,000 years. For those in Congress that don't think the Earth is that old, please disregard.

Click to expand...

Yes yes I know, wikipedia but;

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]

During this period, there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation within this last glacial period was approximately 22,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat makes it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

Click to expand...

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/19622

Click to expand...

Who is AJStrata? Well for one thing I would like to remain anonymous for a while until I see what I am getting into here!

I was raised a democrat since my grandfather, on my mother’s side, was a democrat US Congressman from Ohio many decades ago. That was a time when the democrat party was the party of FDR and Kennedy. A party long gone and now only a memory. Today’s democrats are not even a shadow of the people from the middle of the last century, and it shows all too well.

I left the democrat party for good to become an independent (for good it seems) during Reagan’s first term. When I realized that not only had all theChicken Little predictions from the democrats not come true, but that Reagan was demonstrating what conservatives principles and ideas could create. I would never allow myself to be manipulated by any political party again. I am an unabashed conservative, but The fringes worry me and I am glad to see that the political and independent middle now determine which way this country will go. I broke with the hyper conservative movement on April 14th, 2009 for the same reasons I left the Democrats.

I was born, raised and still live in Northern Virginia. Therefore I have known the political class up close and personal. And I know they are simply people trying to do the right thing, but that does not excuse excessive and immoral means to their ends. I think this is true for most people. I am not impressed or cowed by anyone’s position or power – only by the results they achieve.

I am not politically active, but actively follow politics. The wife and I have had the fortune to live through the Internet’s evolution. We can recall the day when I first brought home the Mosaic software (first web browser) and ‘surfed’ the pages (all Mosaic’s of course). It was a huge leap from the days of Internet billboards and message boards. And look what has happened since then. The world has been transformed by communications, and soon by the weblogs. I am proud to join those pioneers who established the electronic pamphleteers of our time – those who are listed in my BlogRoll (and many more I still need to add!).

The wife and I have four kids (at this writing on our debut date of 05-18-05 they are 25, 20 and twins at age 10 – yes, we know…) and started our own small company only a short two years ago. We both are software System Engineers in divergent fields, and our company has a few contracts with the Federal Government (hence my reservations about going public all at once). With the launching of our Weblog, we now only need to figure out how to fit in family, company, blogging.

I hope people find this site of some value to them and to the serious political debates of our times.

Cheers, AJStrata

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

Schlzm said:

joffer said:

http://t.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-temperatures-44-000-year-high-8C11462851

Arctic temperatures the highest in 44,000 years. For those in Congress that don't think the Earth is that old, please disregard.

Click to expand...

Yes yes I know, wikipedia but;

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]

During this period, there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation within this last glacial period was approximately 22,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat makes it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

Click to expand...

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/19622

Click to expand...

From the "about" tab:

Who is AJStrata? Well for one thing I would like to remain anonymous for a while until I see what I am getting into here!

I was raised a democrat since my grandfather, on my mother’s side, was a democrat US Congressman from Ohio many decades ago. That was a time when the democrat party was the party of FDR and Kennedy. A party long gone and now only a memory. Today’s democrats are not even a shadow of the people from the middle of the last century, and it shows all too well.

I left the democrat party for good to become an independent (for good it seems) during Reagan’s first term. When I realized that not only had all theChicken Little predictions from the democrats not come true, but that Reagan was demonstrating what conservatives principles and ideas could create. I would never allow myself to be manipulated by any political party again. I am an unabashed conservative, but The fringes worry me and I am glad to see that the political and independent middle now determine which way this country will go. I broke with the hyper conservative movement on April 14th, 2009 for the same reasons I left the Democrats.

I was born, raised and still live in Northern Virginia. Therefore I have known the political class up close and personal. And I know they are simply people trying to do the right thing, but that does not excuse excessive and immoral means to their ends. I think this is true for most people. I am not impressed or cowed by anyone’s position or power – only by the results they achieve.

I am not politically active, but actively follow politics. The wife and I have had the fortune to live through the Internet’s evolution. We can recall the day when I first brought home the Mosaic software (first web browser) and ‘surfed’ the pages (all Mosaic’s of course). It was a huge leap from the days of Internet billboards and message boards. And look what has happened since then. The world has been transformed by communications, and soon by the weblogs. I am proud to join those pioneers who established the electronic pamphleteers of our time – those who are listed in my BlogRoll (and many more I still need to add!).

The wife and I have four kids (at this writing on our debut date of 05-18-05 they are 25, 20 and twins at age 10 – yes, we know…) and started our own small company only a short two years ago. We both are software System Engineers in divergent fields, and our company has a few contracts with the Federal Government (hence my reservations about going public all at once). With the launching of our Weblog, we now only need to figure out how to fit in family, company, blogging.

I hope people find this site of some value to them and to the serious political debates of our times.

Cheers, AJStrata

Click to expand...

They included a closing signature and everything. Serious people.

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

Lutherman2112 said:

Schlzm said:

joffer said:

http://t.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-temperatures-44-000-year-high-8C11462851

Arctic temperatures the highest in 44,000 years. For those in Congress that don't think the Earth is that old, please disregard.

Click to expand...

Yes yes I know, wikipedia but;

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]

During this period, there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation within this last glacial period was approximately 22,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat makes it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

Click to expand...

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/19622

Click to expand...

From the "about" tab:

Who is AJStrata? Well for one thing I would like to remain anonymous for a while until I see what I am getting into here!

I was raised a democrat since my grandfather, on my mother’s side, was a democrat US Congressman from Ohio many decades ago. That was a time when the democrat party was the party of FDR and Kennedy. A party long gone and now only a memory. Today’s democrats are not even a shadow of the people from the middle of the last century, and it shows all too well.

I left the democrat party for good to become an independent (for good it seems) during Reagan’s first term. When I realized that not only had all theChicken Little predictions from the democrats not come true, but that Reagan was demonstrating what conservatives principles and ideas could create. I would never allow myself to be manipulated by any political party again. I am an unabashed conservative, but The fringes worry me and I am glad to see that the political and independent middle now determine which way this country will go. I broke with the hyper conservative movement on April 14th, 2009 for the same reasons I left the Democrats.

I was born, raised and still live in Northern Virginia. Therefore I have known the political class up close and personal. And I know they are simply people trying to do the right thing, but that does not excuse excessive and immoral means to their ends. I think this is true for most people. I am not impressed or cowed by anyone’s position or power – only by the results they achieve.

I am not politically active, but actively follow politics. The wife and I have had the fortune to live through the Internet’s evolution. We can recall the day when I first brought home the Mosaic software (first web browser) and ‘surfed’ the pages (all Mosaic’s of course). It was a huge leap from the days of Internet billboards and message boards. And look what has happened since then. The world has been transformed by communications, and soon by the weblogs. I am proud to join those pioneers who established the electronic pamphleteers of our time – those who are listed in my BlogRoll (and many more I still need to add!).

The wife and I have four kids (at this writing on our debut date of 05-18-05 they are 25, 20 and twins at age 10 – yes, we know…) and started our own small company only a short two years ago. We both are software System Engineers in divergent fields, and our company has a few contracts with the Federal Government (hence my reservations about going public all at once). With the launching of our Weblog, we now only need to figure out how to fit in family, company, blogging.

I hope people find this site of some value to them and to the serious political debates of our times.

Cheers, AJStrata

Click to expand...

They included a closing signature and everything. Serious people.

Click to expand...

Can you really trust what someone says if they aren't even willing to sign their own work? Just saying.Schlzm

Click to expand...

Lutherman2112 said:

Schlzm said:

Lutherman2112 said:

Schlzm said:

joffer said:

http://t.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-temperatures-44-000-year-high-8C11462851

Arctic temperatures the highest in 44,000 years. For those in Congress that don't think the Earth is that old, please disregard.

Click to expand...

Yes yes I know, wikipedia but;

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]

During this period, there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation within this last glacial period was approximately 22,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat makes it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

Click to expand...

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/19622

Click to expand...

From the "about" tab:

Who is AJStrata? Well for one thing I would like to remain anonymous for a while until I see what I am getting into here!

I was raised a democrat since my grandfather, on my mother’s side, was a democrat US Congressman from Ohio many decades ago. That was a time when the democrat party was the party of FDR and Kennedy. A party long gone and now only a memory. Today’s democrats are not even a shadow of the people from the middle of the last century, and it shows all too well.

I left the democrat party for good to become an independent (for good it seems) during Reagan’s first term. When I realized that not only had all theChicken Little predictions from the democrats not come true, but that Reagan was demonstrating what conservatives principles and ideas could create. I would never allow myself to be manipulated by any political party again. I am an unabashed conservative, but The fringes worry me and I am glad to see that the political and independent middle now determine which way this country will go. I broke with the hyper conservative movement on April 14th, 2009 for the same reasons I left the Democrats.

I was born, raised and still live in Northern Virginia. Therefore I have known the political class up close and personal. And I know they are simply people trying to do the right thing, but that does not excuse excessive and immoral means to their ends. I think this is true for most people. I am not impressed or cowed by anyone’s position or power – only by the results they achieve.

I am not politically active, but actively follow politics. The wife and I have had the fortune to live through the Internet’s evolution. We can recall the day when I first brought home the Mosaic software (first web browser) and ‘surfed’ the pages (all Mosaic’s of course). It was a huge leap from the days of Internet billboards and message boards. And look what has happened since then. The world has been transformed by communications, and soon by the weblogs. I am proud to join those pioneers who established the electronic pamphleteers of our time – those who are listed in my BlogRoll (and many more I still need to add!).

The wife and I have four kids (at this writing on our debut date of 05-18-05 they are 25, 20 and twins at age 10 – yes, we know…) and started our own small company only a short two years ago. We both are software System Engineers in divergent fields, and our company has a few contracts with the Federal Government (hence my reservations about going public all at once). With the launching of our Weblog, we now only need to figure out how to fit in family, company, blogging.

I hope people find this site of some value to them and to the serious political debates of our times.

Cheers, AJStrata

Click to expand...

They included a closing signature and everything. Serious people.

Click to expand...

Can you really trust what someone says if they aren't even willing to sign their own work? Just saying.Schlzm

Click to expand...

No. You can shine a turd and sign our name to it. It's still just a shiny turd with your name.

Click to expand...

Schlzm said:

Lutherman2112 said:

Schlzm said:

Lutherman2112 said:

Schlzm said:

joffer said:

http://t.nbcnews.com/science/arctic-temperatures-44-000-year-high-8C11462851

Arctic temperatures the highest in 44,000 years. For those in Congress that don't think the Earth is that old, please disregard.

Click to expand...

Yes yes I know, wikipedia but;

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]

During this period, there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation within this last glacial period was approximately 22,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat makes it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

Click to expand...

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/19622

Click to expand...

From the "about" tab:

Who is AJStrata? Well for one thing I would like to remain anonymous for a while until I see what I am getting into here!

I was raised a democrat since my grandfather, on my mother’s side, was a democrat US Congressman from Ohio many decades ago. That was a time when the democrat party was the party of FDR and Kennedy. A party long gone and now only a memory. Today’s democrats are not even a shadow of the people from the middle of the last century, and it shows all too well.

I left the democrat party for good to become an independent (for good it seems) during Reagan’s first term. When I realized that not only had all theChicken Little predictions from the democrats not come true, but that Reagan was demonstrating what conservatives principles and ideas could create. I would never allow myself to be manipulated by any political party again. I am an unabashed conservative, but The fringes worry me and I am glad to see that the political and independent middle now determine which way this country will go. I broke with the hyper conservative movement on April 14th, 2009 for the same reasons I left the Democrats.

I was born, raised and still live in Northern Virginia. Therefore I have known the political class up close and personal. And I know they are simply people trying to do the right thing, but that does not excuse excessive and immoral means to their ends. I think this is true for most people. I am not impressed or cowed by anyone’s position or power – only by the results they achieve.

I am not politically active, but actively follow politics. The wife and I have had the fortune to live through the Internet’s evolution. We can recall the day when I first brought home the Mosaic software (first web browser) and ‘surfed’ the pages (all Mosaic’s of course). It was a huge leap from the days of Internet billboards and message boards. And look what has happened since then. The world has been transformed by communications, and soon by the weblogs. I am proud to join those pioneers who established the electronic pamphleteers of our time – those who are listed in my BlogRoll (and many more I still need to add!).

The wife and I have four kids (at this writing on our debut date of 05-18-05 they are 25, 20 and twins at age 10 – yes, we know…) and started our own small company only a short two years ago. We both are software System Engineers in divergent fields, and our company has a few contracts with the Federal Government (hence my reservations about going public all at once). With the launching of our Weblog, we now only need to figure out how to fit in family, company, blogging.

I hope people find this site of some value to them and to the serious political debates of our times.

Cheers, AJStrata

Click to expand...

They included a closing signature and everything. Serious people.

Click to expand...

Can you really trust what someone says if they aren't even willing to sign their own work? Just saying.Schlzm

Click to expand...

No. You can shine a turd and sign our name to it. It's still just a shiny turd with your name.

Click to expand...

I saw that MythBusters, shining turd takes a lot of work and anyone who pulls that should sign their name to it.Schlzm

Click to expand...