Anyone catch the VICE 'Climate Change' Episode?

[-Asdfgh-]

Those were media sensationalist stories. A scientist proposed a global cooling hypothesis--without any research to back it up

That was based on sulphur oxides and particulates causing cloud formation and causing, which was an effect seen 1950-70 before it began to be cleaned up due to health concerns, so it might have worked alongside Milankovitch but further examination didn't bear out the theory it would cause an early ice age.

 

[GregC]

It was all the rage. Perhaps without all the hysteria, possibly because there was no internet.
The scientists themselves disagree about warming and cooling.
I'm out.

Actually, someone did a study on the global cooling "rage" among scientists in the '70s--and there wasn't one. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Yes, not every single climatologist is on board with warming--only 97% of them.

 

[Turock]

Yes, not every single climatologist is on board with warming--only 97% of them.

That number is as fake as that Time magazine cover.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

That cover may be fake, (my understanding is that it was created to make a point); however, the fact remains that on June 24th 1974 Time magazine ran a story entitled Another Ice Age.
TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974

Newsweek also ran several articles on global cooling, such as the April 1975 article called The Cooling World.

So while that cover may be fake, I'm old enough, and I remember those global cooling stories first hand.

Did they throw you off or something?

 

[NWB]

If you believe a few articles and a CIA report somehow mean that global cooling was all the rage among climate scientists back in the 1970s, you're probably not interested in accurately representing science.

Actually global cooling was a fairly popular notion back then. It was more accepted than most people today remember and shouldn't be discounted as mere fancy.

That said, the science supporting global cooling was eventually overturned by better methods and new data. The science supporting a warming planet has much greater supporting evidence in its favor than the global cooling hypothesis did.

I see a problem with scientists who are not forthcoming about their funding sources and those that give seemingly contradicting statements every year or so. Look at nutrition science where one day a particular food is bad for you and then next year it's touted as healthy. Or pharmaceutical scientists who are profit-motivated towards their findings. This doesn't instill a lot of confidence in science to the public's mind. Believe me, I'm very pro-science but can see how scientists could do a much better job of presenting their work, like openly stating funding sources and levels of uncertainty in their findings.

After looking at the amassed data and various papers on the subject, I can't find fault with the climate science linking anthropogenic emissions with warming temperatures.

 

[Turock]

Did they throw you off or something?

Yes, I was somethinged. You?

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Yes, I was somethinged. You?

No, they didn't throw me off.

 

[Turock]

No, they didn't throw me off.

But were you somethinged?

 

[ZenG]

Do the right thing,people...sell your car and go bicycling everywhere.....

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

But were you somethinged?

No. If you're looking for company, keep looking.

 

[cfsporn]

Do the right thing.people...sell your car and go bicycling everywhere.....

One step ahead of you. Never owned a car, don't want to own a car, and probably will never own a car.

I take public transit everywhere and wouldn't trade my monthly metro card for a Bentley.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

That said, the science supporting global cooling was eventually overturned by better methods and new data. The science supporting a warming planet has much greater supporting evidence in its favor than the global cooling hypothesis did.

Global warming was first posited in the 19th century, and came to prominence in the later 1950s, and even in the 1970s the presumption was pretty solidly towards warming, not cooling. In the UK the 1968 Reith lectures were on global warming.

Look at nutrition science where one day a particular food is bad for you and then next year it's touted as healthy... Believe me, I'm very pro-science but can see how scientists could do a much better job of presenting their work, like openly stating funding sources and levels of uncertainty in their findings.

Reporting in the popular press about the relatively small changes to nutritional advice is a case in point, but it's not often scientists get to present their work directly to the public, although many are increasingly trying to. It's a tricky one as scientists need to spend time doing their science, applying for funding, managing their labs, writing academic papers, teaching. Public outreach is a hard one to fit in too. Some do better than others as people have different talents in different areas. A case in point would be Brian Cox (not the actor but the Professor) who is a good communicator, although it needs to be about the science first, not the personality.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Do the right thing.people...sell your car and go bicycling everywhere.....

I plan to fix my bicycle up this weekend and make more use of it come Easter, at least. That's as much for health, though. Getting rid of your car makes more sense if you are a flautist.

 

[GregC]

That number is as fake as that Time magazine cover.

Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a source that very clearly debunks it, just like I did with the cover.

Back already? Throwing that bit about global cooling out the window now?

 

[Sav'nBass]

...except for that time it was getting cooler.

This is why Global Climate change is a more accurate description of what is happening.

Man's effect on the planet is huge.. and it is all fueled by greed and the profit motive. When the service motive holds sway on this planet we will see a change.. till then it will be business as usual.

 

[Turock]

Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a source that very clearly debunks it, just like I did with the cover.

Back already? Throwing that bit about global cooling out the window now?

I was giving sources earlier, perhaps you remember dismissing them. It's out there; look for it if it concerns you.
Now, I'm really out, not to be sucked back in by an obvious global cooling denier.

 

[Luke19Boarder]

That number is as fake as that Time magazine cover.

Interesting, I'm unable to find hundreds of peer-reviewed articles refuting anthropological climate change. They must exist if there isn't a consensus in the scientific community ... right?

 

[ZenG]

My post was meant as off-beat humor.......

I'm not riding a bicycle anytime soon. I have been subjected to this scientific "the sky is falling" routine on global warming and several other subjects for a long time now......having it pounded into my brain from all media angles day in , day out ....to the point where it is meaningless.

You could call it "observer fatigue".........

I hate watching the news.....the same old "fear stories" pumped at me very day.....so many of them you can't keep up. Fear, fear, fear, fear .......and more fear....

As Jimmy Buffet said:- "I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead".

Are we getting nuked tomorrow? Are aliens taking over the planet? Is the planet going to be hit by an asteroid 6 months from now? Is the entire coast of North America going to slide into the ocean during a megaquake? Is the planet getting warmer?

I could really care less........just get off my lawn and leave me alone.

 

[HeavyAxe]

I still don't get the argument fiercely denying climate change and stating we should do nothing. Think about it... If we do something and manage to combat climate change at least enough to make earth livable for us, the worst you can expect is some higher taxes. However if we do nothing and climate change is indeed a human caused incident, then it will be too late and earth will be done, at least an earth with humans.

 

[cfsporn]

I still don't get the argument fiercely denying climate change and stating we should do nothing. Think about it... If we do something and manage to combat climate change at least enough to make earth livable for us, the worst you can expect is some higher taxes. However if we do nothing and climate change is indeed a human caused incident, then it will be too late and earth will be done, at least an earth with humans.

Huge +1 here.

The passion of most climate change deniers baffles me. I always viewed it as a "What if all this climate change stuff is wrong, and we end up spending a whole lot of time and money just making the world a better place?" sort of thing.