Leading climate scientist admits he was wrong - also says Al Gore was wrong

If it wasn't a large number of scientists then it does not matter. It is nothing like what we have today. In fact, the consensus of climate scientists in the 1970s was global warming.

Put up or shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

Last summer was the coldest summer in England's recorded history. When winter came to Europe the canals in Holland froze over for the first time in many, many years. Japan suffered extreme snow fall last Winter.

You say that he is affiliated in the double broadest expect so maybe his opinion is more informed than yours.

[/quote]How has that changed any of the thousands of research papers which have collectively analysed millions of pieces of data to show that climate change is happening??[/QUOTE]
You are right on here. They have collectively analyzed data to show what they wanted to show. They haven't looked for the truth and now they swear bullets all winter when it is so cold that people are praying for a little warmth.

 

It isn't the number of scientists but how much influence they have and how much attention they get in the popular media.

Because just like today climate scientists are warriors in the battle to take over the planet by lib elites and leftwing politicians.

The scientists get their funding from the same sources who want to control our lives and they have to say what the establishment wants them to say or they are out of a job.

 

Global warming predicts things like colder winters due to changing air flows. If you bring more cold air from somewhere it will get cold.

Notice though, and this is the thing that you science haters never seem to get, is that it is GLOBAL (do you understand wtf global means?) WARMING, not, if it's cold where I currently am then it's false.

 

Sigh. So much stupid in so few words.

It's whether or not their conclusions stand up to peer review.

 

It's more than scientists, it's the media hyping the issues as propaganda.

I see that you are a coward, and will not prove your claim. I figured as much.


_

 

You are the one being played for a fool by the global warming establishment.

Lovelock is giving you a "heads up" to see what is happening and you prefer to keep your head in the sand.

How sad.

 

You haven't demonstrated yours.

 

No doubt how I was taken in by the crafty Evolution establishment so they could sell me antibiotics.

 

1974 Time Magazine article
While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media. In their June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled Another Ice Age? that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary" [31]

1975 Newsweek article
An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled [32] "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."[32]
On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."').[33]

Other 1970s sources
In the late 1970s there were several popular books on the topic, including The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.[34]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


Ok, your turn, or are you a chicken?



_

 

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf

 

And well done, from the opening paragraph of your own bloody link.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

 

Your own source has proven you wrong:

"Despite active efforts to answer these questions,
the following pervasive myth arose: there was a
consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that
either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was
imminent"

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf


_

 

1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors

By 1971 studies indicated that human caused air pollution was spreading, but there was uncertainty as to whether aerosols would cause warming or cooling, and whether or not they were more significant than rising CO2 levels. J. Murray Mitchell still viewed humans as "innocent bystanders" in the cooling from the 1940s to 1970, but in 1971 his calculations suggested that rising emissions could cause significant cooling after 2000, though he also argued that emissions could cause warming depending on circumstances. Calculations were too basic at this time to be trusted to give reliable results.[19][20]
An early numerical computation of climate effects was published in the journal Science in July 1971 as a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate". The paper used rudimentary data and equations to compute the possible future effects of large increases in the densities in the atmosphere of two types of human environmental emissions:[21]
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide;

particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.

The paper suggested that the global warming due to greenhouse gases would tend to have less effect with greater densities, and while aerosol pollution could cause warming, it was likely that it would tend to have a cooling effect which increased with density. They concluded that "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."[22]

Both their equations and their data were badly flawed, as was soon pointed out by other scientists and confirmed by Schneider himself.[21] In January 1972, Charlson et al. pointed out that with other reasonable assumptions, the model produced the opposite conclusion.[23] The model made no allowance for changes in clouds or convection, and erroneously indicated that 8 times as much CO2 would only cause 2°C of warming.[24] In a paper published in 1975, Schneider corrected the overestimate of aerosol cooling by checking data on the effects of dust produced by volcanoes. When the model included estimated changes in solar intensity, it gave a reasonable match to temperatures over the previous thousand years and its prediction was that "CO2 warming dominates the surface temperature patterns soon after 1980."[25]
[edit]1972 and 1974 National Science Board

The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[26] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[26]


The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead, continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."[27] However discussion of cyclic glacial periods does not feature in this report. Instead it is the role of man that is central to the report's analysis. "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century".[27] The report can not conclude whether carbon dioxide in warming, or agricultural and industrial pollution in cooling, are factors in the recent climatic changes, noting; "Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates through the system."[28]

1975 National Academy of Sciences report

There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues that needed more research.[29] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."
The report further stated:
The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.
The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization which has no recognised scientific standing and has previously denied the link between tobacco and cancer, claims that "the NAS "experts" exhibited ... hysterical fears" in the 1975 report.[30]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#cite_note-grida7-0


_

 

Oh look, quote mining!

Want to read that over again, especially the bit where it says that it's a myth?

You've lost, give up.

 

Slink away now. You've embarrassed yourself enough here for one day.

There is a mercy rule here at PF.


_

 

It says it's a myth. Read it again.

The only person being embarrassed here is you.


the following pervasive myth arose:



Do you understand what that means? It means what followed
there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that
either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent"
is a myth.

 

I can't keep beating you like a tuna in a net. It looks brutal. I'll just remind you that you threw a hissy fit about numbers,
and then promptly proved me right when badgered into defending your argument with a source.

That's as close to an instant replay as we can come on an internet BB.


_


_

 

So you're just going to continue to lie?

Ignore listed.

 

You article's table shows several papers by 12 scientists promoting a global cooling conclusion. You said a handful. You have deceived the board.


_

 

This is where I get lost. To what end do the lib elites and left-wing politicians want to take over the planet? You're saying that climate scientists are merely working at the behest of these elites and politicians... what's in it for them (i.e., the scientists)?

Scientists have to say what "the establishment" wants them to say? Again you're losing me... have you ever met a scientist? They are not into politics. Most of them aren't even into what's traditionally considered "keeping a job." They're basically like artists in that respect, just at the other end of the analytical/creative spectrum.

 

You don't know how science works if you claim that anything is a proven fact.

 

They want to create a one world gov't for their dreamed of Utopia.

Grant money, fame, book sales, prestige.


Scientists are not into politics? Really? What makes you say that?





_

 

Notice he only said that he had been alarmist about the timing (or rate) of climate change but not climate change itself. Which is actually true. Climate change is happening but not at the pace predicted by him. Nor did the scientific community in general believe it was going to be that fast.

He had initially said that 80% of the people will be dead by 2100 and by 2040, part of the Sahara desert will have moved to Europe.

The advocates of global warming admit that the rate of global warming is not that rapid and by their standards, he is an alarmist and now he admits it himself.

Just admit it you guys trying to deny global warming have no idea what you are talking about. The experts in the field overwhelmingly support it and there is plenty of evidence to show it is happening.

 

No he wrote a hippy book in the 1970's so did Robert Heinlien - would you consider HIM a climatologist?

See that is the problem with the denialists ANY scientist is the same as any other scientist

We see this in the "lists" of so called "dissenting scientists" which include anyone who has a degree - even if that degree is in analysing coproliths