Where did the global cooling chicken littles go?

Question

Most of you on this forum probably weren't even alive during the 1970's so I will update you. During the 1970's the same scientist were predicting the next ice age during the next 20 years. Later on it was acid rain. After that it was power lines give you cancer. After that it was an ozone hole and we all would have skin cancer by the year 2000. Global warming is the latest scare tactic from a long line of failed scare tactics

Robert A - I will gladly address the "science" as you so advised. Anytime there is a consensus among scientists I question it and doubt it. Overwhelmingly the scientific community does not agree on much. Therefore I question the motivation behind this latest scare.
I don't follow your logic in comparing the disaster in India or a fertilizer explosion to question at hand. Disasters of these sort do happen and always will.
As far as electromagnetic fields are concerned they are ever present around humankind. Examples: microwaves, mobile phones, and just about any electric device we currently use.
In closing nature is a complex system that we can't possibly understand nor control. Only mankind in his arrogance thinks we can influence the outcome of natural events.

Answer 1

You are of course referring to that famous Newsweek article. You can read it here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060402-112828-5298r.htm

Despite what many would want us to believe, the scientific community is NOT unanimous on global warming.

And what has been all but completely disproved is that man is somehow the cause of it. As for this silly idea that we're mass producing carbon dioxide and destroying the world.........

Source: http://www.techcentralstation.com/052003M.html

Oops, using more carbon dioxide than emitting, but that's not what al gore told us!

I think you're on to something here, using absurdity to demonstrate absurdity................

(My apologies for the use of factual information. Given most of the content on Y/A, I suspect that might be a violation of community guidelines.)

Answer 2

Global cooling had minor proponents 30, 40 years ago, nothing like the overwhelming scientific opinion and concern there is now over global warming. Acid rain is indeed a concern and in many places action has been taken to reduce the impact of oxides of sulphur in particular. I wouldn't be too anxious to refute the possible health hazards of power lines, their proximity to habitation is now often avoided. International regulations as a result of concern about depletion of the ozone layer have resulted in the banning of chemicals which compromise the ozone layer which is now stabilising. I suppose too you would say that Los Angeles smog or pollution of rivers was a scare tactic? The Bhopal Disaster? The Port Texas ammonium nitrate explosion? Address the detailed science young man or we will have to have you back in nappies (diapers) for the time reality strikes home.

Edited comment in response to further details: I think that far from saying disasters do happen and always will we should strive to make disasters less frequent and of lower severity. I hope that monumental loss of life due to failure to act on global warming will not occur in places like Bangladesh in a way that leaves us all to greater or lesser degrees culpable.

Answer 3

Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is currently the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University.

I guess he's not talking about the weather anymore.

Answer 4

This is basically a myth perpetrated by global warming deniers in the popular press. It is in no way comparable to the strong consensus in the peer reviewed scientific literature that now exists for global warming.

That says that global warming is real, caused by us, and very dangerous in the next hundred years. The suggestions in the popular press in the 70s that we might be headed for another ice age in thousands of years is not remotely like it.

Here is a climatologists refutation, entitled appropriately "The Global Cooling Myth".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Those looking for the truth can find it here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

You may not like it, but it is not speculative, it is backed by hard data, and is generally agreed to as correct by the vast majority of scientists.

Answer 5

"It" did no longer. the relationship between carbon and water vapor and temperature has been popular because of the fact the nineteenth century. The impact of the sunlight is yet another ingredient that would desire to override the consequence of extra advantageous carbon emissions however the consumer-friendly physics of the greenhouse result isn't debatable. attack tax schemes and different stupid and beside the point concepts that hustlers arise with yet do no longer basically be a denier for its very own sake.

Answer 6

I am probably about your age- I am 48 feel 20 though. Yes, they were all full of it. I am all for real science and feel as though we are being jerked around by special interests. Where is the truth?

Answer 7

They froze solid from exposure to the new ice age! Nyuk!!