THE GLOBAL COOLING CONSENSUS IN THE 1970s

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VriOsL4nGOE

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VriOsL4nGOE

Great. You compare today's Global Warming hype, as treated in Time and Newsweek, with all the vagueries, convolutions and bogus science by obvious non-scientists, to the exact same thing in the 70's. (except then it was Global Cooling) and you ridicule it and its complete invalidity.

So what? We already know all this.


.

Into the Night wrote:
00.10: There were climatologists in the 1970's?

01.18: 6 papers was really a consensus wasn't it? So was 7! Did you know there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific method? It has no place there.

02.04: You use of the 'maybe' and 'but' words in the articles you are using to show the invalidity of the Global Cooling argument denies the Global Warming argument. The same phraseology is used in the media (and by 'scientists') today.

03.04: The 'ifs' and 'vague numbers' you mention are also still used to today to describe Global Warming.

03.22: Quote and misquotes are a main feature of the Global Warming argument today.

03.54: The quote vs the 'actual' quote does not change the meaning of the quote. Hilarious.

04.09: The time interval where cooling was to begin was not specified in either quote. You are changing the meaning of the quote by adding your own wording.

04.39: Judging a magazine's content by it's cover now?

04.51: Might I ask why you build this whole case for Global Cooling in the media, specifically Time magazine (which I guess represents the whole media to you), then tear it down by looking at magazine covers? Aren't you attempting to deny your own argument? Why is Times any more correct about Global Warming than Global Cooling?

You attempt to make a pretty stupid argument here, which is already based on the wrong idea that consensus (whether in the media or elsewhere) drives the scientific process. Near the end, you even attempt to deny the argument you just made!

How you expect this to prove either is occurring or has occurred is beyond me. Your media skills actually tend to suck. My kid and his friend can produce far better videos than yours.

Meanwhile the world continues to roll along, ignoring you and your consensus.

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
00.10: There were climatologists in the 1970's?

Demonstration of ignorance. The Chinese invented climatology in the 13th century.

DRKTS wrote:

01.18: 6 papers was really a consensus wasn't it? So was 7! Did you know there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific method? It has no place there.

Pay attention- I said for every one paper that discussed cooling there we 7 papers that discussed warming. So for the 6 papers that discussed warming there were 42 that discussed warming. Can't you read a graph?

DRKTS wrote:

02.04: You use of the 'maybe' and 'but' words in the articles you are using to show the invalidity of the Global Cooling argument denies the Global Warming argument. The same phraseology is used in the media (and by 'scientists') today.

03.04: The 'ifs' and 'vague numbers' you mention are also still used to today to describe Global Warming.

The maybes were used in the newspaper article to indicate that the conclusions were tentative. This is stark contrast to how they are presented today by the denialist community who seem to think they were carved in stone.

DRKTS wrote:

03.22: Quote and misquotes are a main feature of the Global Warming argument today.

Please give an example of a climatologist who misquotes the anti-AGW community. On the other side you have the videos that I have posted pointing out the deliberate misquotes of many of the leading climate deniers on the web.

DRKTS wrote:

03.54: The quote vs the 'actual' quote does not change the meaning of the quote. Hilarious.

That misquote (omitting two key phrases) was used by Sleschinger to argue that the climatologists said that we should have been in an ice age by 2004 - look how wrong they were. The full quote indicates that the cooling process is very slow and would take place over thousands of years, not decades.

DRKTS wrote:

04.09: The time interval where cooling was to begin was not specified in either quote. You are changing the meaning of the quote by adding your own wording.

What wording did I add? I copied that directly from the report.

DRKTS wrote:

04.39: Judging a magazine's content by it's cover now?

Nope, I ma judging those who falsely portrayed these covers as proof that the climatologists all believed that there was global cooling about to happen.

DRKTS wrote:

04.51: Might I ask why you build this whole case for Global Cooling in the media, specifically Time magazine (which I guess represents the whole media to you), then tear it down by looking at magazine covers? Aren't you attempting to deny your own argument? Why is Times any more correct about Global Warming than Global Cooling?

At the beginning I clearly state that the issue here is that the whole argument that climatologists were all or mostly predicting global cooling in the 1970s is entirely bogus.

DRKTS wrote:

You attempt to make a pretty stupid argument here, which is already based on the wrong idea that consensus (whether in the media or elsewhere) drives the scientific process. Near the end, you even attempt to deny the argument you just made!

How you expect this to prove either is occurring or has occurred is beyond me. Your media skills actually tend to suck. My kid and his friend can produce far better videos than yours.

Meanwhile the world continues to roll along, ignoring you and your consensus.

The word "consensus" about global cooling in this context is used by the anti AGW community, not by me. I am merely showing that one of their favourite go-to talking points is rubbish.

DRKTS wrote:
I understand and have explained clearly what "consensus" means in a scientific setting. Stop trying to use semantics to avoid the main point.

Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.

Reference please

DRKTS wrote: No, you need to take some comprehension pills.

DRKTS wrote:I was studying space science (including the solar effects on the Earth's atmosphere) in college.

DRKTS wrote: So the claim of "most" or a consensus of scientists agreed with a global cooling prediction is a complete lie.

DRKTS wrote:PS you still have not answered that question.

DRKTS wrote:Please give an example of a climatologist who misquotes the anti-AGW community.

IBdaMann wrote:
You need some honesty pills.

Anyone can talk about today's Global Warming hype in exactly the same way you rip apart the Global Cooling hype from the 70s.

It's all hype for the scientifically illiterate and gullible, for entertainment purposes only, like "the search for Bigfoot" or "UFO discoveries."

Enrolling in a class is one thing but actually showing up and paying attention is another. Did you even attend an accredited school?

When I studied physics in college, there was no "greenhouse gas," "greenhouse effect," or any other violation of physics being preached. The idea that there is some sort of "consensus" among scientists that Global Warming violations of physics are somehow occurring today is a lie.

...and you never addressed any of mine which were asked first. Your tactic for EVADING is to pretend you are waiting for answers to a question I have already answered...twice.

So how about you start providing some answers?

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.

Reference please

Ceist wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Then, as now, consensus was claimed. Then, as now, consensus in science is meaningless.

Reference please

He has posted a number of times that he believes that "supporting evidence plays no role in science." So don't expect any references or links to sources with evidence that supports his claims.

It also means he can just ignore any evidence anyone else provides.

That's a very convenient belief for a science denier who has no evidence at all to support his wacky conspiracy theory beliefs and junk-science claims

As he apparently believes he is an 'expert' on everything, in his delusional 'reality', you're just supposed to agree with him and believe whatever he tells you.

Ceist wrote: Judging by what I've read of his posts on the internet, his understanding of science, and physics in particular, would earn him a big red F at a high-school level.

DRKTS wrote: The difference now there is overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW,

DRKTS wrote: back then there was little evidence for global cooling and lots for global warming.

DRKTS wrote: You must be very old or did not study physics very attentively. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Fourier in 1824.

Ceist wrote:
LOL! That's hilarious. IBAwesome claims he "studied physics in college".

Judging by what I've read of his posts on this forum, his understanding of science, and physics in particular, would earn him a big red F at a high-school level.

Perhaps he truly believes he only needs to assert over and over again that he is "discussing real science" and "speaks for the body of science" and everyone should just accept his wacky evidence-free delusional beliefs.

Into the Night wrote:If a belief in something is widespread, such as God, is that a consensus worthy of being science? What about the consensus of others who believe in no god at all? What about the consensus of those who believe in a different god or gods?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:If a belief in something is widespread, such as God, is that a consensus worthy of being science? What about the consensus of others who believe in no god at all? What about the consensus of those who believe in a different god or gods?

These are all great questions.

I don't think it matters in which particular gods one believes. All that matters is that there is an overwhelming consensus that divine deity(ies) are driving/forcing nature.

As for the second half of the requirement, we also have an overwhelming consensus that there is overwhelming evidence that divine deity(ies) are driving/forcing nature.

Note: employing the DRKTS/Ceist/Climate Scientist principle for good measure, we will call the supporting evidence "scientific evidence" to seal the deal.

Ergo, we have science ...for religion.



.

IBdaMann wrote:
All religions claim to have "overwhelming evidence" and "signs from the heavens" and to be "undeniable," "irrefutable" and "beyond any doubt."

We've heard it all before. Your particular twist is that you dishonestly insert the word "scientific" specifically to dupe other gullible people.

Your religion, like most others, involves mysterious miracles that violate the laws of physics. There is nothing scientific about your unfalsifiable faith or the "evidence" you claim supports it.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has been convinced by your mistaken belief in supporting evidence being science that you never actually paid attention in any science classes you might have taken.

There is no "greenhouse effect" much less one that was "discovered" in 1824.

Would you care to cite the news announcement in which Fourier stated to the press "I discovered 'greenhouse effect'?

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), French mathematician and natural philosopher, did groundbreaking work in mathematics and the theory of heat. He was the first to propose that the Earth's atmosphere acts to raise the planet's temperature.


"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.

DRKTS wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
All religions claim to have "overwhelming evidence" and "signs from the heavens" and to be "undeniable," "irrefutable" and "beyond any doubt."

We've heard it all before. Your particular twist is that you dishonestly insert the word "scientific" specifically to dupe other gullible people.

Your religion, like most others, involves mysterious miracles that violate the laws of physics. There is nothing scientific about your unfalsifiable faith or the "evidence" you claim supports it.

Religion is about faith not evidence. If there was the same level of evidence of the existence of god(s) as there is AGW then 97% of the people on the planet would be following one religion. 2% would be agnostics. 1% atheists.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has been convinced by your mistaken belief in supporting evidence being science that you never actually paid attention in any science classes you might have taken.

Dumb and getting dumber. That sounds a matter of faith not fact.

There is no "greenhouse effect" much less one that was "discovered" in 1824.

Would you care to cite the news announcement in which Fourier stated to the press "I discovered 'greenhouse effect'?

It would have been in French, silly. The AIP on the discovery of global warming....

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), French mathematician and natural philosopher, did groundbreaking work in mathematics and the theory of heat. He was the first to propose that the Earth's atmosphere acts to raise the planet's temperature.


"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.

DRKTS wrote: Religion is about faith not evidence.

DRKTS wrote: If there was the same level of evidence of the existence of god(s) as there is AGW then 97% of the people on the planet would be following one religion. 2% would be agnostics. 1% atheists.

DRKTS wrote: It would have been in French, silly. The AIP on the discovery of global warming....

Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), French mathematician and natural philosopher, did groundbreaking work in mathematics and the theory of heat. He was the first to propose that the Earth's atmosphere acts to raise the planet's temperature.


"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.

Ceist wrote:Lest we forget, in over 1450 posts, IBAwesome has only ever posted a handful of *cough* 'truly authoritative sources' (his words) to support his ludicrous pseudoscience and conspiracy claims:

-a blog run by a guy called Cliff Harris with zero science background who believes he can predict the climate using the Bible. Harris claims to be one of the "world's top ten climatologists". He's also 'chemtrails' conspiracy theorist.

- the "Ice Age Now" blog run by retired architect with zero background in science and crackpot extraordinaire Robert W Felix.

Here's a little background info on Felix:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/666-robert-w-felix.html

- a first year intro to Physics textbook that IBAwesome cited to claim the "greenhouse effect was bunk" because it supposedly said nothing about the 'greenhouse' effect. Hilariously, when shown actual screenshots of the pages where it did, he went on a long rant and claimed that it was a "complete fabrication".

Ceist wrote: Poor IBAwesome. Has he really run out of his usual vitriolic emissions and is now reduced to making limp dick comments?

Ceist wrote:*Ceist curiously notices that IBAwesome is staring into a mirror talking to himself*

Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are
commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review.
The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the
author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre.

arthur18 wrote:
I saw a reference to John Tyndall above. I have attached an interesting paper from the Tyndall Centre. Have people been brainwashed?

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf

Into the Night wrote:I usually don't post links.

Into the Night wrote:I don't believe in link wars.

Into the Night wrote:I believe in reasoning it out yourself.

Into the Night wrote:To that end, instead of posting links, I usually explain the foundations of my statement.

Into the Night wrote:I also encourage people to research it themselves.

Into the Night wrote:They learn stuff that way.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I usually don't post links.

That has been noted.

Earthling wrote:Exchanging information cannot be classed as warfare.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I believe in reasoning it out yourself.

That explains why you're so often wrong.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I also encourage people to research it themselves.

In the case of climate change, impossible without referring to other people's studies, usually via links.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I usually don't post links.

That has been noted.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I don't believe in link wars.

Exchanging information cannot be classed as warfare.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I believe in reasoning it out yourself.

That explains why you're so often wrong.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:To that end, instead of posting links, I usually explain the foundations of my statement.

Based on your own observations and conclusions.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I also encourage people to research it themselves.

In the case of climate change, impossible without referring to other people's studies, usually via links.

Earthling wrote:

Into the Night wrote:They learn stuff that way.

Not always the right stuff, you make that obvious.