Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Max Carnage

Did 1970s scientists predict global cooling?

93 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, tor said:

Ah didn't see that. Did you post details in the other thread (if so link?). After the grand cigar investment worked out I have decided that any investment which makes money based on obvious things like excise going up by X% every year I figure taking advantage of the electricity companies game play for the house in hornsby might be worth considering.

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

However, Professor Mackey said the vast majority of people accepted the science around climate change, which was positive.

A study by Griffith University and Cardiff University found 6.5 per cent of Australians were strong climate change sceptics in 2010, while 74 per cent believed "the world's climate is changing".

About half of the respondents completely or very substantially trusted what scientists said about the environment.

Mean climate change concern levels were highest in Victoria and Western Australia and lowest in Queensland and New South Wales.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/one-in-five-australians-believe-global-warming-is-a-hoax-20170927-p4yw5d.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA engaging in blasphemy!

NASA satellite spots cause of unprecedented spike in atmospheric CO2

Quote

...Although there's been some huge efforts to reduce the amount of CO2 produced through human activity, the amount of the gas pumped into the atmosphere has still increased by an average of 2 parts per million (about 4 gigatons of carbon) annually, in recent years. But 2015 and 2016 broke the trend with the largest spikes on record: up to 3 parts per million, amounting to 6.3 gigatons of carbon. Emissions from human activity stayed roughly the same in those years, so where was it all coming from?...

but just to make sure they remain Ok with the PC crowd..

Quote

...These naturally-occurring processes may be seen by some as evidence against human-induced climate change, but they're snowballing symptoms of bigger anthropogenic causes. After all, increased carbon levels are believed to contribute to more frequent and severe El Nino events, which in turn can speed up these "natural" processes and exponentially alter the Earth's climate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2017 at 9:20 AM, cobran20 said:

How the wheel turns! This aligns with Armstrong's forecast.

Britain could face 'mini ice age' by 2030

This is now a reheated story of a reheated story (pardon the double pun) :o

I'm going to have to write a recursive bot program to deal with it when it inevitably raises it's ugly head again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, staringclown said:

This is now a reheated story of a reheated story (pardon the double pun) :o

I'm going to have to write a recursive bot program to deal with it when it inevitably raises it's ugly head again.

Probably, much like global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

Probably, much like global warming.

Do you have some sort of mental illness? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zaph said:

Do you have some sort of mental illness? 

Ooh, that hurts. Looks like I've hit a raw spot.

Keep your eyes on the attached. It is closer to the truth than what you read.

1.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope I'm alive to witness that 'light bulb' moment when the truth is acknowledged.

Bitter Cold Is “Exactly What We Should Expect” From Global Warming, Says Al Gore

 

Quote

...Fortunately, there are still scientists with common sense. Meteorologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. stated, “For those who claim USA/Canada nor’easter is stronger because of 'global warming,' they apparently do not realize that it’s so strong because of especially strong horizontal temperature gradient in troposphere. It ‘bombed’ because of usually cold air!”

WeatherBELL meteorologist Joe Bastardi called claims that the Bomb Cyclone was caused by global warming “flat out insanity and deception.” He added of such declarations, “it’s not science; it’s witchcraft.”

University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass echoed Pielke and Bastardi when he said of the assertions of Mann and Gore, “Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science.” Mass concluded that “The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless.”...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snowstorm blankets Sahara in white

Quote

The usually sun-kissed sand dunes of the Sahara have been blanketed in snow for the third time in almost 40 years.

With temperatures touching 1 degree Celsius, residents in the Algerian town of Ain Sefra — known as the gateway to the Sahara — enjoyed sliding down the dunes before 40cm of snowfall melted away by the afternoon....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it because of the el nino / la nina effect and completely expected by absolutely every scientist on both sides of the issue? Like this is the hottest ever year without the warming effect?

I thought last we came down on your definitive position it was that "climate change is happening but it wasn't related to humans and there is nothing we can do about it". Am I reading you wrong or are you now saying climate change isn't happening at all? or maybe you have gone all armstrong global cooling idea?

I know you are just going to say "I already answered that" and tell me to search the archives but I don't want to read your old stuff, just want to know if you think your current feelings are still the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tor said:

Wasn't it because of the el nino / la nina effect and completely expected by absolutely every scientist on both sides of the issue? Like this is the hottest ever year without the warming effect?

I thought last we came down on your definitive position it was that "climate change is happening but it wasn't related to humans and there is nothing we can do about it". Am I reading you wrong or are you now saying climate change isn't happening at all? or maybe you have gone all armstrong global cooling idea?

I know you are just going to say "I already answered that" and tell me to search the archives but I don't want to read your old stuff, just want to know if you think your current feelings are still the same.

The expect the theory of man made global warming to be proven as accurate as the global freezing theory of the 1970's.

We know that the Globull Warming forecasts have already proven BS, hence the change in name of theory to now 'Climate Change', as if climate never changes.

My money is on Armstrong/Socrates' forecast to be proven correct rather than  'Climate Change'/Globull Warming or whatever its next incarnation will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue

Quote

The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue

It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.

Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0