I am sick to death of blatant lies from denialists, they are flat out wrongheaded.
The one about the global cooling hysteria from 40 years ago is just utter BULLSH1T.
I was environmentally and politically aware 40 yeaars ago, and global cooling was NEVER an issue, got it?

That does not mean some few people may not have spoken about it, but that nobody ever considered it a problem that required the attention of governments and the worldwide community, like we see now with Global Warming, and to compare the two as being even remotely similiar is misrepresenting the reality of what happened then, and what is happening now.
But misrepresentation are what these eejits do best.

Maybe you were in your Hippy phase then Mozz and you just don't remember much of that period.  I suggest you google global cooling and stop being ignorant and a denialist.  Oh and maybe your quoting of 40 years is a bit out eh?  Wouldn't want you misrepresenting people now would we.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 10:38am:

I am sick to death of blatant lies from denialists, they are flat out wrongheaded. The one about the global cooling hysteria from 40 years ago is just utter BULLSH1T. I was environmentally and politically aware 40 yeaars ago, and global cooling was NEVER an issue, got it? That does not mean some few people may not have spoken about it, but that nobody ever considered it a problem that required the attention of governments and the worldwide community, like we see now with Global Warming, and to compare the two as being even remotely similiar is misrepresenting the reality of what happened then, and what is happening now. But misrepresentation are what these eejits do best.

Mozz is right, my memory of those years are very long summers, so to use the same analogy as the confusionalists use today, it was hot and sunny in those days, so global cooling is just a confusionalist beat up.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 10:38am:

I am sick to death of blatant lies from denialists, they are flat out wrongheaded. The one about the global cooling hysteria from 40 years ago is just utter BULLSH1T. I was environmentally and politically aware 40 yeaars ago, and global cooling was NEVER an issue, got it? That does not mean some few people may not have spoken about it, but that nobody ever considered it a problem that required the attention of governments and the worldwide community, like we see now with Global Warming, and to compare the two as being even remotely similiar is misrepresenting the reality of what happened then, and what is happening now. But misrepresentation are what these eejits do best.

40 years ago you had the commies to side with as a way of sticking it to the cigar chomping oppressors.  And Muso's exaples are about alternative energy sources - and those have been seriously on the agenda since the oil crisis in the 70s, the same period when global cooling was the accepted science.  You will not be surprised that I am all for sensible alternative energy sources (not bio fueld because that takes away valuable agricultural areas from food production.)

Which right wing retard said this (the last word should be a dead giveaway):


Quote:

America's dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has faced. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation, and sets back our ability to compete. ... It falls on us to choose whether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence. And for the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601147.html?sid=ST2009012601175

Note the order of importance: security, economy, planet. So yes, let's have energy indepencence from the Arabs, the Russians, Nigerians, Venezuelans - the whole third world rougues galery. That is what it is really about. The planet saving stuff is added to butter up the environmentalists who would not go along with energy independence just on strategic and economic grounds. Giving the finger to third world blackmailing monsters would be far too insensitive for them. SO they are given the save the whales, er, planet sop.

Exactly.

Don't take our word for it...

Quote:

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages.

Now we have just gone through a warming trend...  oh dear...

Seems you and Skippy have faulty memories Mozz... ok you were a Hippy then, that explains you at least.

Soren wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 11:06am:

You will not be surprised that I am all for sensible alternative energy sources (not bio fueld because that takes away valuable agricultural areas from food production.)

Good.

We have some common ground then. Actually if you don't have a problem with switching to alternative energy sources, I don't see that we even have an argument, because a significant transition to alternative energy will fix the problem of CO2 pollution.  

It really doesn't matter if you don't grasp the concept of global warming as long as you support the same solution.

Some biofuel is extremely viable, especially Sweet Sorghum and Jatropha. Both of these can be grown in semi arid areas with very little agricultural value. The use of corn for ethanol in the USA is problematic. The use of rapeseed oil is not ideal for the reasons you cite.  

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 11:13am:

Exactly. Don't take our word for it... Quote: Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Now we have just gone through a warming trend...  oh dear... Seems you and Skippy have faulty memories Mozz... ok you were a Hippy then, that explains you at least.

Haha - it's been a while since you brought up this particular gem. I wondered when we'd see it come through the recycler again.

The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era….

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming.....
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/22/another-denier-talking-point-global-cooling-bites-the-dust/


You'll love this clip, if only for the music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

For the faithful, don't watch that - the facts will just upset you. See my disclaimer below------v    ;D

ROTFLMAO...  oh dear more misrepresentation eh  how unusual.

I don't recall anyone saying there was SCIENTIFIC "CONCENSUS" Bozo.

Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s.

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages.

I didn't say it, the quote doesn't say it ...  not even Mozz says it...  if you want to lie puhlease do try and at least quote people correctly.

Go build your Snowmen somewhere else eh.  Oh sorry meant STRAWMEN...  hmmmm...  must be the cold.  ;D

Quote:

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming

As if   someone from the National Climatic Data Center would know more about climate than boofy, please muso, show some respect for the boofster.

Next thing you'll be telling us that the National Climatic Data center collects data on such things.

Oh look...  its Tweedledumber.
Flame away Bozo number 2, we know you have no self control.

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:50pm:

Oh look...  its Tweedledumber. Flame away Bozo number 2, we know you have no self control.

Abuse away boofy, I'm used to it from the uninformed . ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

I don't recall anyone saying there was SCIENTIFIC "CONCENSUS"

Good! At least you acknowledge that there was never any consensus of global cooling unlike the last time you posted on this issue. I might actually be getting through to you.  ;D

As the references say, it was just after all, a misrepresentation in the popular press.

So what's all the fuss about? The popular press having concerns? Who cares? Why mention it at all?

The main thing is that we have known about te Greenhouse effect and the potential for global warming since the time of Arrhenius.

Grendel - you do know what caused the cooling period around the 40's to the 60's now, don't you?

Love your disclaimer muso, very apt. lmbfao

And for Grendel, the whole point of my addressing the lies told about the perception of Global Cooling from the '70s as a critical issue that the world need address is just plain untrue.

It was not even something that came to the attention of the aussie media at the time, and if you asked any aussies in the 50 or over group what they remember of the Global Cooling Crisis, there response would be , WHAT??
Even if a very few who were more familiar with US media of the time would remember it, it would be as only a minor story that did not gain much attention from the people, or governments of the period, and no mass movements sprang from the information.

So why do we bring it up?
We don't, DENIALISTS do.
Why?
Because they seek to create the belief that hysterical speculation is the norm for scientists, and a past theory which is proved wrong will therefore reduce the credibility of all scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular.

Some commentators lurch from one doomsday scenario to the next, and media always give them at least some credence, but never in my lifetime have we seen a coming together of disparate groups from all parts of the globe, and all sections of the community, to address an issue more comprehensively reviewed than this issue of Global Warming.
We have never seen the level of cooperation and committment by governments on any other issue.
We have never seen greater scientific concensus.

But we still have spoilers who "know" in their hearts, that it is all a giant conspiracy to enrich scientific researchers by creating a cooperative cabal of liiars on a level never known before.
Of course, that makes much more sense. ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s.

The Green movement and ...others? Specifically who in the "Green Movement" are we talking about here, Grendel?

Come on now - produce this information or forever hold your peace.

I am pretty sure I know everything there is to know about this particular issue, so fire away.  ;D

You can quit here if you like or get yourself deeper into it - suit yourself.  ;D

One of the forums other confusionalists said the same thing yesterday maybe boof is just copying them.


Quote:

You can quit here if you like or get deeper into it - suit yourself.

Its my bet that he is already in his togs on the diving board.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 4:41pm:

One of the forums other confusionalists said the same thing yesterday maybe boof is just copying them.

Oh I don't mind if he phones a friend - the blind leading the blind. ;D

muso wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:11pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2009 at 11:06am:  You will not be surprised that I am all for sensible alternative energy sources (not bio fueld because that takes away valuable agricultural areas from food production.) Good. We have some common ground then. Actually if you don't have a problem with switching to alternative energy sources, I don't see that we even have an argument, because a significant transition to alternative energy will fix the problem of CO2 pollution.   It really doesn't matter if you don't grasp the concept of global warming as long as you support the same solution. Some biofuel is extremely viable, especially Sweet Sorghum and Jatropha. Both of these can be grown in semi arid areas with very little agricultural value. The use of corn for ethanol in the USA is problematic. The use of rapeseed oil is not ideal for the reasons you cite.

Well, it's 'all good', then, as the lower classes say.

Energy independence - I am all for it.
Clean and cheap and abundant sources of energy - yes please.
Climate change -  considering that it always changes, what's new.
Man-made climate change - hubristic and parochial (the two always go together), in my view.

The hoof is showing under some people's holy green cloaks - there is an indecent haste in the voice of some of the doomsayers who wish to destroy the western world's economy to make room for spinning wheels for hemp. In reality it is echo of the leftoid Big Brother alliance who were bollocked decisevely in 1989 when the Wall came down. They had to find another coalition building agenda to whiteant western economies. They have now regrouped around social activism under the green banner.

Go google yourself some FACTS Bozo...  it doesn't take much.
I lived through it and the warming and the Dimming and the warming and ....   :D
If you knew as much as you pretend to know you'd know I'm right.

ROTFLMAO
I've been backing alternate energy sources for decades Bozo...  ask Mozz, see if he remembers what I said on Cracker, don't ask that other idiot who follows you like a bad smell.  Just don't try to tell me we need to do it to control the weather.  :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 5:14pm:

Go google yourself some FACTS Bozo...  it doesn't take much. I lived through it and the warming and the Dimming and the warming and ....   :D If you knew as much as you pretend to know you'd know I'm right. ROTFLMAO I've been backing alternate energy sources for decades Bozo...  ask Mozz, see if he remembers what I said on Cracker, don't ask that other idiot who follows you like a bad smell.  Just don't try to tell me we need to do it to control the weather.  :D

looks like you were right muso, no proof from boof just more abuse.


Quote:

In reality it is echo of the leftoid Big Brother alliance who were bollocked decisevely in 1989 when the Wall came down. They had to find another coalition building agenda to whiteant western economies.

Ha ha ha ,la la la la laaa . ::)

why do you post such rot?

You irk me with your pathetic vendetta...  grow up.

The proof is there for anyone who actually wants to see it unlike the denialist that you are.

Google isn't hard to use

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 8:36am:

why do you post such rot? You irk me with your pathetic vendetta...  grow up. The proof is there for anyone who actually wants to see it unlike the denialist that you are. Google isn't hard to use

You call my posts rot, I call your posts rot, I'm not going to stop exposing your lies, that's what these forums are about.
I suggest if you're not up to it you stop posting the lies, otherwise people like me will continue to expose your lies.
Now, where is your PROOF that muso is wrong,we don't want more of you rhetoric and abuse, we want facts, you got any?

wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 8:32am:

Quote: In reality it is echo of the leftoid Big Brother alliance who were bollocked decisevely in 1989 when the Wall came down. They had to find another coalition building agenda to whiteant western economies. Ha ha ha ,la la la la laaa . ::)

Your nervious giggling is giving you away, little red devil... And the hoof is definitely showing.

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 8:54am:

wrote on Jul 13th, 2009 at 8:32am: Quote: In reality it is echo of the leftoid Big Brother alliance who were bollocked decisevely in 1989 when the Wall came down. They had to find another coalition building agenda to whiteant western economies. Ha ha ha ,la la la la laaa . ::) Your nervious giggling is giving you away, little red devil... And the hoof is definitely showing.

No nervous giggling soren, I was laughing out aloud at your ridiculous post.
You looked under your bed this morning? I think I seen a couple of commies sneak into your joint.

OK, I have seen an,Oil Crisis, A Peak Oil Crisis, A Nuclear Crisis, An Inflation Crisis, An Unemployment Crisis, A Constitutional Crisis, need I go on?

The thing is that the media had a field day with all of these, but the much vaunted Cooling Crisis, of the '70's, as falsely portrayed by the denialists, hardly was a pebble on a road full of speed humps, and certainly nothing like the current climate change issue, and it is the false misrepresentation of it as being in any way relevant in setting a precedent for our current situation is just not true.

Denialists are once more misrepresenting what actually happened, and are trying to impose their false reality as historical fact, and it just does not give them any greater credibility, just diminishes what very little they may have had.

Grendel, you scoff, and splutter invective, but always run a mile when challenged by someone like muso, to actually debate "FACTS", that is why I so often refer to you as the coward of the county.
For all your bluster, you do not ever have the gumption to seriously debate an issue like this with someone like muso, who you know can nullify your argument, yet you maintain your argument is sound, without having the guts to actually test it against someone you fear you cannot beat in a debate, with just facts.

Soren wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 5:07pm:

The hoof is showing under some people's holy green cloaks - there is an indecent haste in the voice of some of the doomsayers who wish to destroy the western world's economy to make room for spinning wheels for hemp. In reality it is echo of the leftoid Big Brother alliance who were bollocked decisevely in 1989 when the Wall came down. They had to find another coalition building agenda to whiteant western economies. They have now regrouped around social activism under the green banner.

Could be something in that. I don't have much respect for the 'feel good' deep greens. At one chemical plant where I worked as Environmental manager about 15 years ago, I actually did something radical. I invited Greenpeace to have a look at our operation and discuss how we were progressing in our clean production initiatives.
(These clean production initiatives actually saved us a considerable amount of money - they usually do. )

I was totally underwhelmed by the calibre of people they sent (what they call in the UK very anoraky). They kept talking about dioxins, while I made it clear that not only did our system not produce dioxins, but we had actually conducted tests in the (at that time) only lab in Australiasia that I trusted to do those tests.

One of them actually watered our garden by the office. (Not exactly house trained)  So I think you gather from this that I tend to regard the deep greens with a certain 'eeew' attitude.

As far as anthropogenic climate change itself is concerned, I have no doubts that the official line is correct. Much of it is basic science. However I don't regard myself as a socialist and I'm damned if I'm going to let a simple change of technology ruin our economy.

I've also seen the Rudd government's Department of Climate Change in operation, and a very sorry lot they are too. Something needs to be done about changing to renewable techniology as soon as possible, but I very much doubt if the Rudd government are up to the challenge. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 5:14pm:

Go google yourself some FACTS Bozo...  it doesn't take much. I lived through it and the warming and the Dimming and the warming and ....   :D If you knew as much as you pretend to know you'd know I'm right.

Wise decision. When you're caught in a rip and being carried rapidly out of your depth, the easiest think to do is swim as strongly as you can in a perpendicular direction.

Your post was very perpendicular. ;D

You could have been more gracious I guess........nah!!!!!!!

Good grief...  why don't you look for yourself Mozz...  why should I always have to go in search for you lot.

I lived through it so did you...  you seem to have been stoned during it.

It's a fact that it happened I'm not the only one mentioning it am I.

Bozo lied about what I said and deliberately misrepresented what was said.  Oh dear..  that's ok though.

I don't resile or deny the fact that something that happened happened.

You aren't going to find any Green sites still advocating it...  they were wrong its all been deleted.

I don't mind you guys having a different opinion to me.
But just cut the lying out ok.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 9:40am:

Bozo lied about what I said and deliberately misrepresented what was said.  Oh dear..  that's ok though.

No no. You did an admirable job of self-misrepresentation.


Quote:

I don't resile or deny the fact that something that happened happened. You aren't going to find any Green. I don't mind you guys having a different opinion to me. But just cut the lying out ok.

No. You aren't going to find any Greenie that was talking about such an esoteric matter in the 70's either. I lived through the 70's too you know.  They were more concerned about DDT, leaded petrol and industrial pollution back in those days.

Want a life-belt or do you still want to phone a friend?  ;D

wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 9:04am:

You looked under your bed this morning? I think I seen a couple of commies sneak into your joint.

What are you saying here? Are you suggesting that he smokes commies?

Good Grief yourself, nobody says that some people put forward the fact that there had been cooloing, but there was NO Global Cooling Crisis, and misrepresenting the factss, to try and have people who were not around, into believing that there was, is promoting misinformation.

Trying to pretend it was just a fore runner for what denialists call the climate hysteria of today, is misrepresenting it as anything other than a small story, not widely known, even in it's day, that hardly anybody gave any credence to.

That is in no way comparable to the huge body of information that agrees with the facts on Global Warming, that the vast majority of scientists agree upon, a very rare thing in itself, and that virtually every government in the world is taking seriously.
Your cooling crisis may have got an opinion piece written about it in the chicago tribune of 1971, but there were no mass environmental movements, and most people in the world, never even heard of it, and that is about as different from what we see today as you could possibly get.

God you are an idiot....  do you actually read what people write here.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Now go away and google any number of more articles and reports about it.

Where I live it was on the TV and in the Newspapers on and off for about 3 years.

I don't need to google anything, I was around, I was a member of greenpeace, I remember what issues were considered important.

I know some put forward the data that we had experienced cooling, but virtually NOBODY, believed we were suffering from a climate crisis, or that we were entering an ice age, but denialists try to pretend it was a big issue, in their attempt to display a degree of alarmism that did not exist.

We have never seen anything like our current Global Warming Crisis before, no matter how many lies the denialist promote, that fact they cannot change.

They go back in time and show periods before humans that were hotter, or times that climate changed before, but they always try to misrepresent the rate of change, to force the belief that it is just natural variation, when change of this rate is anything but natural, or precedented, outside of extinction events.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

God you are an idiot....  do you actually read what people write here. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp Now go away and google any number of more articles and reports about it. Where I live it was on the TV and in the Newspapers on and off for about 3 years.

- and do you agree with that report?

ROTFLMAO  Greepeace...

Didn't you lot read papers and watch TV?

For your information, the media is how the public learns about this stuff.  Not by smoking pot and mellowing out and not by reading scientific papers.  Some of which at the time BTW backed the green cooling push.  No it wasn't as big as the current push.  Nor was the Dimming push.  But they all occurred.  I posted a link oh dear you didn't read it.  For 3 years in Australia well at least in Sydney.  Global cooling was part of the Green agenda.  It was on TV and in print.  It wasn't there on a daily basis but it was there.  If I had to guess I'd say somewhere between late 74 and early 77.

Now stay in denial for all I care distort the truth and change the language...  I don't give a toss but don't tell me I'm a liar when the truth is you are.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 10:11am:

ROTFLMAO  Greepeace... ...... and not by reading scientific papers.  Some of which at the time BTW backed the green cooling push. .

No. They didn't actually. Not at all - but If you're insistent on that, provide me with the title of the paper.

Want that lifeline yet?

RAOTFLAYBSS, hey I can type in capitals too.


Quote:

No it wasn't as big as the current push.

Well, that is like saying the pebble I picked from my shoe was not as big as K2, but it was there.

Nobody denies that some people claimed there was an Ice Age coming, but they were very few, they had no global scientific concesus behind them, and it was never an issue regarded as anything but a mild curiousity, and therefore not relevant to what we see today.

So why do denialists bring it up?

To try and misrepresent what it actually was, and how insignificant it actually was, because they want to create more confusion. They are mischievous, spoiling bast@rds.

Go google it... you think I recall the names some 30 years later?  Bozo.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. Rasool 1 and S. H. Schneider 1
1 Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. 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.


Now you can take that rope and do something appropriate with it Bozo.

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

ROTFLMAO...  oh dear more misrepresentation eh  how unusual. I don't recall anyone saying there was SCIENTIFIC "CONCENSUS" Bozo. Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s.

By the way, that link from the Right Wing Think Tank (which is incidentally riddled with furfies) had the following words of wisdom:

"Scientists ponder why world's climate is changing - a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable - May 21 1975"

So, here's the deal - tell me specifically which lie you want to stick to - your lie that it wasn't scientists but it was these blasted Greenies, or their lie that it was scientists.

-because it becomes very confusing unless you stick to just one lie at a time.  ;D

what link are you referring to Bozo.. oh and do try not to be too clever you'll confuse yourself...  oops too late.

You still lying about there being a cooling scare run in the 70s?

Oh and Bozo...  QUOTE ME DON'T LIBEL ME WITH MISQUOTES AND LIES OK.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 10:21am:

Go google it... you think I recall the names some 30 years later?  Bozo. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate S. I. Rasool 1 and S. H. Schneider 1 1 Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025 Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. 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. Now you can take that rope and do something appropriate with it Bozo.

Watch the video clip that I gave you and you'll hear Stephen Schneider's own account of that paper.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 10:25am:

You still lying about there being a cooling scare run in the 70s?

Are you that confused? - Not me - that's you that's doing the lying.

Which link? This link:



Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

God you are an idiot....  do you actually read what people write here. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

So make up your mind - was it Scientists or Greenies?

Go back in time to the 70s and you'll see what I and others have said as opposed to your reinterpretations is correct.

You want an answer to something BOZO you'll have to QUOTE me... so I know what you are talking about.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 10:43am:

Go back in time to the 70s and you'll see what I and others have said as opposed to your reinterpretations is correct. You want an answer to something BOZO you'll have to QUOTE me... so I know what you are talking about.

I quoted you twice  ;D ;D ;D ;D

You can't weasel out of this one - you're contradicting yourself.

Well the last link you quoted, from Grendel, was very informative,(choking off a laugh), and if you scroll to the bottom, under the objectives of why they produced their PR masterpiece, was this line;


Quote:

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

Hmm, I did not know anyone was still using that hoary chestnut, but wait, they also said;


Quote:

“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”

which means that of course we should give every wacko in a tractor shed equal credence to the IPCC, or the US National Academy of Science.
Well at least you can get bible quotes with your denialism if you get your facts from the tractor shed research institutes.

Where?

All I've seen so far is reinterpretations and quotes from someone else from somewhere else about something else.

You have to stop lying to yourselves.

Weasel away, Grendel.
Don't hold your breath muso, Grendel always weasels out when faced with defending his self proclaimed "facts".

He will feign confusion, or resort to bluster and insult, but he will never give an honest answer to your last challenge.

Only weasels here are you and Bozo...  

Come on lets see you put up some real quotes for a change.
let's see you stop lying about what I've said.

Grendel - I'll keep it simple -

Was it Scientists or Greenies?

By the way, what Stephen Schneider said about the paper was that it was taken out of context. He never at any stage said that there was going to be an Ice Age. It was a popular press misrepresentation of that paper that gave rise to the misconception that there could be global cooling.

He was talking about a very specific scenario - in fact using the very same text as yourself:  

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.

- and if you don't believe me, watch the clip and you'll hear Stephen Schneider say it all by himself. You can hear it from the horse's mouth - one of the original authors.

I posted the quote from the paper seems pretty clear what he said Bozo.

Is what I posted incorrect?

Now do puhlease QUOTE ME and stop carrying on like your namesake Bozo.

I went back over this topic and all the distortions and misquoting start and end with you.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 11:09am:

I posted the quote from the paper seems pretty clear what he said Bozo. Is what I posted incorrect? Now do puhlease QUOTE ME and stop carrying on like your namesake Bozo. I went back over this topic and all the distortions and misquoting start and end with you.

Was it Scientists or Greenies?
Was it Scientists or Greenies?
Was it Scientists or Greenies?
Was it Scientists or Greenies?
Was it Scientists or Greenies?

ATFQ ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 11:09am:

I posted the quote from the paper seems pretty clear what he said Bozo. Is what I posted incorrect?

The emphasis is misleading. It would be like me saying the following means that you're gonna get drunk (watch carefully for the sleight of hand in applying the bold folks):

An increase by a factor of 4 in Grendel's consumption of Tooheys Heavy today in response to his guilty conscience about deliberately distorting facts, may be sufficient to render him intoxicated. This is believed to be sufficient to cause severe inebriation or even short term paralysis for Grendel.

So what I posted was correct...  you just don't like the sound of it.


So how about posting those QUOTES of mine then eh...  love to clear them up for you too.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 11:36am:

So what I posted was correct...  you just don't like the sound of it. So how about posting those QUOTES of mine then eh...  love to clear them up for you too.

I was merely pointing out that furious prestidigitation can make you go blind.

Love the weaseling attempts, but people see through them, Grendel. Who are you trying to kid?

far as I can see the only wanker here is you Bozo.

Running away from those false claims now I see.

Well at least the saner people here who don't fall for arguments based on lies will have noted your misquotes.

The ice age that never was
15 December 2006 by Fred Pearce

There was a chill across the world, and it wasn't just the cold war. From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode. BY MOZZ  Some say it shows climate scientists are scaremongers and shouldn't be believed, whatever they are predicting. So what happened three decades ago? And why should we believe the climatologists now?

Global cooling was a real phenomenon - and it changed global history. In the winter of 1941, it stopped the German army's advance on Moscow: grease froze in German guns and thousands of soldiers died from cold. Hitler's failure to take Moscow marked a turning point in the second world war. Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed. But by the 1970s, no one was giving thanks for global cooling. As snow banks built across the Canadian Arctic and pack ice grew in the North Atlantic, there was concern bordering on panic about where this might be leading. FORGOTTEN BY MOZZ

Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed
In July 1971, Stephen Schneider, a young American climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in New York, made headlines in The New York Times when he warned of a coming cooling that could "trigger an ice age". Soon after, George Kulka, a respected climatologist from the Czech Academy of Sciences, warned on TV that "the ice age is due now any time".

The US National Academy of Sciences reported "a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years". As a hint of the horrors in store, weird weather in Africa led to a drought in the Sahel that starved millions.

Many climate scientists, such as Fred Singer, now a well-known contrarian, called for action to halt the cooling. US government advisers proposed putting giant mirrors into orbit to direct more sunlight onto Earth. Others suggested sprinkling Himalayan glaciers with soot to absorb heat and maintain the ice-melt that feeds the region's rivers.

What prompted this panic? Three decades of evident, if mild, cooling had set the scene, but there was also genuine concern among climate scientists based on predictions of both natural and human-made climate change.

For one thing, the atmosphere was becoming dustier and filling with pollution. Fine, light-scattering particles in the air were shading the planet's surface and, some suspected, causing the cooling. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison argued that dust storms caused by farms spreading into more arid lands were mostly to blame. Meanwhile, Schneider tried to calculate the likely cooling effect of anthropogenic air pollution and compared it with the possible warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions, which it was now clear were accumulating in the atmosphere.

In Schneider's early calculations, published in Science in 1971, the cooling effect was dominant. He said aerosols might have doubled since 1900 and could double again in the coming 50 years. Even allowing for warming from CO2, this could still mean a 3.5 °C drop in global temperatures, which "if sustained over a period of several years... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age".

At the same time, research into the history and timing of past ice ages made it clear that there had been many more than the four originally guessed at, their appearance driven by regular planetary wobbles. Worse, it was now clear that ice ages were the norm rather than the exception. According to Kulka, the most recent interval between ice ages appeared to have lasted only 5000 years. Our present interglacial had already lasted 10,000 years. An ice age was long overdue.

The early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores and with it the suggestion that climate could change very fast: the last ice age may have taken hold within as little as a century. So the cooling in the mid-20th century might not have been a short-term blip but the start of a rapid slide into the next global freeze. The cooling caused by aerosols could kick-start the process, argued Kulka.

It is often claimed today that the fad for cooling was a brief interlude propagated by a few renegade researchers or even that the story is a myth invented by today's climate sceptics. It wasn't. There was good science behind the fears of global cooling. So why did the prognosis prove so wrong?

Short memories were partly to blame. MOZZA A generation of researchers had virtually forgotten the work of Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who predicted at the end of the 19th century that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would cause significant warming. This meant few took much notice when in the 1960s Charles Keeling began to show that concentrations of the gas had been rising since at least the mid-1950s.


OH DEAR...  KISS MY ASS GUYS...  ;D ;D ;D

That's a great article from 2006, you got any written in the seventies when you and the other confusionalists say it all happened?
Because that article looks a lot like someone trying to rewrite history.
If what you said were true there would be thousands of papers from the seventies that you could quote, I cannot find one of them, but there are plenty written in the 2000s trying to rewrite history.

yeah just wait till i check the bottom of my compost heap...  nah...  nothing there but you Skip.

Whats it like living in denial?

wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 1:32pm:

That's a great article from 2006, you got any written in the seventies when you and the other confusionalists say it all happened? Because that article looks a lot like someone trying to rewrite history. If what you said were true there would be thousands of papers from the seventies that you could quote, I cannot find one of them, but there are plenty written in the 2000s trying to rewrite history.

Will this do for starters?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Another Ice Age?

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.


As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 1:43pm:

yeah just wait till i check the bottom of my compost heap...  nah...  nothing there but you Skip. Whats it like living in denial?

Fred Peace is from the Green movement is he?

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
 http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

But those article don't quote environmentalists, they quote scientists,you said it was a GREEN conspiracy, were you and grendel lying when you said global cooling was a Greenie thing?

So ,what you are now trying to say is that the scientists were right about global cooling but are lying about global warming?
You seem confused.

Soren,

Watch the clip I provided. It was a media mountain out of a molehill, mostly based on incomplete quotes from the National Academy of Sciences Report of 1975 and the misquoted paper we discussed earlier that was co-authored by Stephen Schneider.

So to summarise, in the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight and changes in Solar irradiance.

I'm amazed that nobody has come up with the name of the book yet. What kind of confusionalists do they have on this forum anyway? The Light Weight Variety I'd say. I'll give you a hint : TLS.

William Connolly has a lot more time on his hands than I do(must be the cold weather or something). He has actually collected everything that was ever written on the subject.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Just for the record Grendel, was it Scientists or Greenies?
You seem to have a problem answering self-incriminating questions.

...and what does the National Academy Report actually say?

Well :

Right at the beginning of the report in the foreword, we read:

"...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...".

Which is a fair assessment of the knowledge of the day.

Also, hidden away at the end of Appendix A  "Survey of Past Climates", we read:

there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline [nb: colder temperatures is automatically a decline? any change is a decline? WMC] could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years

Quote:

"...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...".

Seems a fair assessment of the knowledge of today too.  ;D ;D ;D

hey BOZO still lacking courage I see... sniping from the rear as usual...

Come on buddy  QUOTE ME!

Quote:

Come on buddy  QUOTE ME

Quote:

Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s

Thats a lie.

No its the truth...  

You already denied any of it ever happened Skippy  :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 4:58pm:

No its the truth...   You already denied any of it ever happened Skippy  :D

Proof please
:D

But you said it was the Greenies, were you lying?

come on boof scientists or Greenies?

When you finally admit you said it was Greenies and not scientists, care to share why you believe the scientists of the seventies but not the scientists of now?

More misrepresentation by denialists, do they never tire of their endless pursuit to promote misinformation?

As I said Grendel, ask aussies over 50, who were old enough to remember the period, and see what significance they put on the Ice Age stories.

I never said that there were not stories like this going around, but that they were never considered as "SIGNIFICANT".

The simple truth is that, exactly like skippy said, denialists are trying to rewrite history.
They are trying to validate their argument that climate change hysteria is due to a media fascination, and has been going on forever.

They point to topics that gained some minor interest in the past, and then attempt to use that fact to diminish the importance of what is happening today, as if this is just another case of the media building something up into more than it actually is.

Even if we were to use their media attention theory, as a barometer of the importance of the issue, then I would venture that on a line by line, or story by story basis, the past events, pale into significance compared to what we see today.

Alternately, we could just do what muso does, and stick to the science, and not get bogged down in sensasionalist hyperbole from the mass media, and if we do, we once more see that past events pale into insignificance compared to what we see today.

SO, the denialist camp, promoting past media stories as evidence of a pattern which proves that the current situation is just another minor crisis, like so many before, does not balance out, because previous scenarios were never this grave, and the understanding amongst, and agreement from, scientists was never so united in addressing a single issue as our current climate change crisis is.

What we are facing is unprecedented, and everyone, but the doggedly stubborn denialists accept that fact, and like all flat earthers, they will never allow reason or facts to sway them from their convictions.

The article I posted wasn't written by a denialist.

You guys are so pathetic, you are worse than the people you complain about.

That article is exactly as I remember it.

It is exactly how it was.  You were probably too stupified to remember.

Quote:

Mozz is right, my memory of those years are very long summers, so to use the same analogy as the confusionalists use today, it was hot and sunny in those days, so global cooling is just a confusionalist beat up.

Looks like denial, reads like denial, smells like denial...  back to the bottom of the compost bin with you Skippy

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 4:21pm:

Come on buddy  QUOTE ME!

Ok Trilobite, here goes:

Quoting Grendel:

Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

ROTFLMAO...  oh dear more misrepresentation eh  how unusual. I don't recall anyone saying there was SCIENTIFIC "CONCENSUS" Bozo. Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s.

Quoting Grendel again:

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

God you are an idiot....  do you actually read what people write here. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

That link (above) from the Right Wing Think Tank (which is incidentally riddled with furfies) had the following words of wisdom:


Quote:

"Scientists ponder why world's climate is changing - a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable - May 21 1975"

Sounds very similar to Scientific Consensus to me, but you didn't call them (quote)
Quote:

God you are an idiot

So, here's the deal - tell me specifically which lie you want to stick to - your lie that it wasn't scientists but it was these blasted Greenies, or their lie that it was scientists.

-because it becomes very confusing unless you stick to just one lie at a time.  ;D

Once again Grendel

was it the Green Movement and others (direct quote)

or was it more correctly according to the link you had so much confidence in:

Scientists  ?

Which one Grendel ????

Well I know that at least muso is smart enough not to expect anything but evasion, with the odd insult chucked in, for a response to what seems a pretty straight forward question.

However, once more, The Simpsons provide an answer to lifes big questions, like whose fault is it anyway?

Those damn Scienticians of course. lol

Good luck with your quest for a straight answer, but like the pope, grendel has this mystical ability for infallibility, even when openly defending contradictory positions.
Apparently it is not only god, who moves in mysterious ways.
The back pedalling and side stepping would do a ballerina proud, in fact I think Grendel may have gone for his tutu now. ;D

So your saying that every word from an article is mine.  Even though I didn't write it eh.

I posted Fire and Ice for your education Bozo... and only in regards to what we were discussing...  ie the Global Cooling part particularly the media section.  oh dear me.  What a wicked web we weave eh Bozo. Like I said... QUOTE ME...

Gee I wonder what the word others means?  The media?  Scientists?  How many scientists?

Now don't tell me you are going to deny that the "Green Movement" which was great deal more fractured and less organised then, didn't have people and groups joining the cooling bandwagon...  oh dear many "environmentalists" used it to push their own bandwagon and protest mans "polluting" of the atmosphere leading us toward another ICE AGE.

I remember people from groups on A Current Affair talking about it.  I think Mike Willesee was the host then.

So now I've wasted my time again poking holes in your furphies...  why don't you stop telling lies and wasting my time.

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE UBER DUMMIES...

The ice age that never was
15 December 2006 by Fred Pearce

There was a chill across the world, and it wasn't just the cold war. From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode. BY MOZZ  Some say it shows climate scientists are scaremongers and shouldn't be believed, whatever they are predicting. So what happened three decades ago? And why should we believe the climatologists now?

Global cooling was a real phenomenon - and it changed global history. In the winter of 1941, it stopped the German army's advance on Moscow: grease froze in German guns and thousands of soldiers died from cold. Hitler's failure to take Moscow marked a turning point in the second world war. Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed. But by the 1970s, no one was giving thanks for global cooling. As snow banks built across the Canadian Arctic and pack ice grew in the North Atlantic, there was concern bordering on panic about where this might be leading. FORGOTTEN BY MOZZ

Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed
In July 1971, Stephen Schneider, a young American climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in New York, made headlines in The New York Times when he warned of a coming cooling that could "trigger an ice age". Soon after, George Kulka, a respected climatologist from the Czech Academy of Sciences, warned on TV that "the ice age is due now any time".

The US National Academy of Sciences reported "a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years". As a hint of the horrors in store, weird weather in Africa led to a drought in the Sahel that starved millions.

Many climate scientists, such as Fred Singer, now a well-known contrarian, called for action to halt the cooling. US government advisers proposed putting giant mirrors into orbit to direct more sunlight onto Earth. Others suggested sprinkling Himalayan glaciers with soot to absorb heat and maintain the ice-melt that feeds the region's rivers.

What prompted this panic? Three decades of evident, if mild, cooling had set the scene, but there was also genuine concern among climate scientists based on predictions of both natural and human-made climate change.

For one thing, the atmosphere was becoming dustier and filling with pollution. Fine, light-scattering particles in the air were shading the planet's surface and, some suspected, causing the cooling. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison argued that dust storms caused by farms spreading into more arid lands were mostly to blame. Meanwhile, Schneider tried to calculate the likely cooling effect of anthropogenic air pollution and compared it with the possible warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions, which it was now clear were accumulating in the atmosphere.

In Schneider's early calculations, published in Science in 1971, the cooling effect was dominant. He said aerosols might have doubled since 1900 and could double again in the coming 50 years. Even allowing for warming from CO2, this could still mean a 3.5 °C drop in global temperatures, which "if sustained over a period of several years... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age".

At the same time, research into the history and timing of past ice ages made it clear that there had been many more than the four originally guessed at, their appearance driven by regular planetary wobbles. Worse, it was now clear that ice ages were the norm rather than the exception. According to Kulka, the most recent interval between ice ages appeared to have lasted only 5000 years. Our present interglacial had already lasted 10,000 years. An ice age was long overdue.

The early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores and with it the suggestion that climate could change very fast: the last ice age may have taken hold within as little as a century. So the cooling in the mid-20th century might not have been a short-term blip but the start of a rapid slide into the next global freeze. The cooling caused by aerosols could kick-start the process, argued Kulka.

It is often claimed today that the fad for cooling was a brief interlude propagated by a few renegade researchers or even that the story is a myth invented by today's climate sceptics. It wasn't. There was good science behind the fears of global cooling. So why did the prognosis prove so wrong?

Short memories were partly to blame. MOZZA A generation of researchers had virtually forgotten the work of Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who predicted at the end of the 19th century that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would cause significant warming. This meant few took much notice when in the 1960s Charles Keeling began to show that concentrations of the gas had been rising since at least the mid-1950s.


OH DEAR...  KISS MY ASS GUYS...  ;D ;D ;D

Was that a pirouette?

You forgot to chuck in the insults.

Nope, my mistake, you did chuck in the insults.

It is a shame that you cannot bring the same degree of thought and concern to this issue, as you do to the debates on multiculturalism.

The sad thing is seeing someone who is perfectly able to digest the scientific information available, discounting it out of hand, because of pride.
Having wed yourself to the denialist cause, you avoid all evidence which contradicts your chosen stance.
The only time you even look at any current science is after some denialist blog has found some minor inconsistency, to try and blow up into something greater than it is, but that is what they do, and I expected you would recognise that.

I do bring it Mozz...  you refuse to see it.
And that is very disappointing to me.
I expect stupidity from Skippy.
I expect lies from Bozo.
You have been the biggest disappointment though.

"There is probably no" global warming. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 7:09pm:

So your saying that every word from an article is mine.  Even though I didn't write it eh. I posted Fire and Ice for your education Bozo... and only in regards to what we were discussing...  ie the Global Cooling part particularly the media section.  oh dear me.  What a wicked web we weave eh Bozo. Like I said... QUOTE ME...

But of course you'd apply the same standards to Fire and Ice as you would to me - right?

Are they 'idiots' too? After all, they are saying that there was a Scientific Consensus, whereas you said otherwise.

Or is it ok if they lie because they support confusing the issue?

I'm still waiting to hear which Green groups were pushing such an esoteric issue as it was in the 70's.

You're still evading the answers.

I'm not concerned about winning a debating position. All I want to do is make the truth obvious, by exposing lies in the confusionalist arguments.

Once somebody starts lying, they have to keep track of the lies or else they contradict themselves.  I don't. I'm going back to basic science every time.

If you think you're so secure in your position on this, watch the videos. They are mostly well reasoned, and comfortable to listen to for the non-scientist.

Is it all important for you that you're secure in your position?

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."


The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AT ALL.

ALSO NO GREEN CAMPAIN.

You want me to remember back to the 70s and tell you what Green groups or ngo environmentalists or members of...  Willesee had on his show?  Hmmm  now that'd be a big stretch Bozo...   Where were you on July the 4th 1973?

Or perhaps who those people were outside the supermarkets or school who were giving out leaflets.

Wait I can give you one name...  Lee Finch, he was in one of my classes at high school, I think he was certain we were bringing on an Ice Age.

Perhaps it was someone from the Sydney Greens or someone from the Sierra Club.  Or maybe another 70s green group.  Sorry can't remember right off the top of my head.

Oh Skippy, never said there was a Scientific Concensus...  your inference is a lie.

BOZO
Quote:

Is it all important for you that you're secure in your position?

Well Bozo...  what is my position?
I hardly think you'll get that right either considering your misquoting and misrepresentation so far.  but hey...  give it a go.. I'm interested.

What it proves is that you are wrong or intentionally lying.
There was no scientific consensus which you now admit.
You said there was a GREEN push in the 70s for global cooling ,that is also wrong.
So, what we have established is that you are wrong on all accounts.

So, after all your abuse it seems mozz was right, there was no global cooling belief in the 1970s, not from scientists nor the GREEN movement.

Duplicate post by Grendel (or was it triplicate post?) removed.

Grendel wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 12:38pm:

You want me to remember back to the 70s and tell you what Green groups or ngo environmentalists or members of...  Willesee had on his show?  Hmmm  now that'd be a big stretch Bozo...   Where were you on July the 4th 1973? Or perhaps who those people were outside the supermarkets or school who were giving out leaflets. Wait I can give you one name...  Lee Finch, he was in one of my classes at high school, I think he was certain we were bringing on an Ice Age. Perhaps it was someone from the Sydney Greens or someone from the Sierra Club.  Or maybe another 70s green group.  Sorry can't remember right off the top of my head.

I remember that mini ice age we had very well. My hands turned blue one winter and the teacher had to put them under a hot tap to thaw out.

As far as Green groups go - they weren't really acknowledged as anything but drug induced hippies until the mid to late 80's, so no-one took much notice of them - but I do remember the name Lee Finch. Wasn't he the boy who stabbed you Grendel?  

mantra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 1:27pm:

... but I do remember the name Lee Finch. Wasn't he the boy who stabbed you Grendel?

Did you and Grendel go to school together? :o

No - but I remember the name from another forum - although I might have got it wrong. He stabbed Grendel with a compass.

mantra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 1:33pm:

No - but I remember the name from another forum - although I might have got it wrong. He stabbed Grendel with a compass.

Ha ha ha , with a compass, he must have been trying to find boofys heart.

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 1:36pm:

mantra wrote on Jul 14th, 2009 at 1:33pm: No - but I remember the name from another forum - although I might have got it wrong. He stabbed Grendel with a compass. Ha ha ha , with a compass, he must have been trying to find boofys heart.

;D

No - I think it was in the hand. They were probably arguing about this very subject.

Did you remove all your multiple posts too Bozo...  you know the ones with the same stupid questions about stuff I never said.  The ones about what you reinterpreted for everyone.

I do hope you deleted them too.
I'd hate to think you were a hypocrite.

yes mantra good memory.

Grendel wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 1:49pm:

Did you remove all your multiple posts too Bozo...  you know the ones with the same stupid questions about stuff I never said.  The ones about what you reinterpreted for everyone. I do hope you deleted them too. I'd hate to think you were a hypocrite. yes mantra good memory.

Quote:

Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s

Look at your posts boof, muso has been asking you for days if it was scientists or the GREEN movement who pushed a campaign on global cooling in the 70s,as your post shows you said it was the GREEN movement, which you have been proved to be wrong.

Muso's been lying about what I said and you seem to be too dumb to notice.

BTW I like how no proof in your opinion proves something.  ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 3:43pm:

Muso's been lying about what I said and you seem to be too dumb to notice. BTW I like how no proof in your opinion proves something.  ;D ;D ;D

I didn't think it was possible to lie about what you said by using a direct unedited quote from you.  :o

For example:


Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

ROTFLMAO...  oh dear more misrepresentation eh  how unusual. I don't recall anyone saying there was SCIENTIFIC "CONCENSUS" Bozo. Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s.

(In the absence of further data, the Green movement was presumable the infamous Grendel Stabber) or was he an 'other'

(Imagine Grendel on the couch)

The following text should be read in a Sigmund Freud type Austrian Accent:

Hmmmmm Zo tell me - Did you have any traumatische events in your childhood, such as stabbings.....and did you ever accidentally see your parents making l......

mantra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 1:44pm:

wrote on Jul 14th, 2009 at 1:36pm: mantra wrote on Jul 14th, 2009 at 1:33pm: No - but I remember the name from another forum - although I might have got it wrong. He stabbed Grendel with a compass. Ha ha ha , with a compass, he must have been trying to find boofys heart. ;D No - I think it was in the hand. They were probably arguing about this very subject.

and here was I thinking he was just a grumpy old man.  So he was always like that?

Quote:

BTW I like how no proof in your opinion proves something.

Hows this.


Quote:

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

Now where is your proof that it was a GREEN campaign?

What did I say skippy?  are you quoting me?
or are you making it up as you go along?

I've already given enough anecdotal evidence to "prove" what I said.
And anyone but you and Mozz who was alive at the time and had a working memory will remember "greenies" commenting on and using the scientific claims as proof we were bringing on another Ice Age.

Ah Bozo...  if only you would use MY WORDS...  instead of misuse them and misquote them.

No use lying now.

I never said it was the greenies then changed course and said it was the scientists...  that's just another of your lies... a total confabulation.

Quote:

And anyone but you and Mozz who was alive at the time and had a working memory will remember "greenies" commenting on and using the scientific claims as proof we were bringing on another Ice Age.

You have no proof, none exists or you would have posted it, the reason none exists is that it is not true.
The whole story is a scam, as I've posted for you. the scientific community did not say it was happening, it is a confusionalist beat up that has been proven to be wrong, cant you read boof, I'll post it again with just the important words for you. There was no scientific belief ,nor Green belief boof, its here in black and white old son.


Quote:

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era

I posted plenty of proof.

I cant bring back tv shows and old composted newspapers for you.

Grendel wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 4:40pm:

I posted plenty of proof. I cant bring back tv shows and old composted newspapers for you.

If it were in the press you could find it, try google.
I know you wont as it doesn't exist.I've already tried.

Oh dear you think...  you think I can get papers online from 1970?

Ok be my guest.

Oh wait you already tried...  and what did you find Skippy papers without mention of anything about global cooling or just no papers?

Ah skippy what time/year do you think the internet took off?

Grendel wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 5:42pm:

Oh dear you think...  you think I can get papers online from 1970? Ok be my guest. Oh wait you already tried...  and what did you find Skippy papers without mention of anything about global cooling or just no papers? Ah skippy what time/year do you think the internet took off?

One of the other confusionalists managed to find an article in Time magazine from the 70s, even tho its been proven wrong if what you said were true there would be some evidence.
Its up to you , you can post evidence or we'll all just assume you are a liar, oh wait, most people already think that.

Well Skip what can I say...  we're both too dumb to find any.

I'd post the TRUTH again but BOZO would just delete it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

Contrary to your spurious assertions, I have not fallen prey to dementia, just yet, Grendel, and I have never denied that some,"VERY FEW", did report of the possibility of a new Ice Age.

What I object to, is the absolute, and utterly deceitful way in which denialists use this fact to try and indicate a pattern of hysteria which seeks to demean the real threat we face today, as just more sensationalist media hype, when it is so much more than that.

Now if you continue to misrepresent the facts, while steadfastly, maintaining YOU remember how serious an issue it was, while all others who even remember it at all, do so in the context of it being just another opinion piece topic from the print media of the day, then I would ask how important an issue it was compared to the predictions of NOSTRADAMUS?

I would contend, that if we were to analyse the amount of media space devoted to each subject from the period concerned, we would find far more TV, radio, and print stories, regarding Nostradamus, than your historically insignificant Ice Age stories, and that puts it into the true perspective of just how big an issue it was.

If you disagree with my contention, then I will have to assume that it is you whose memory may not be all that you claim.

Well personally I think you are confused.

You seem to lump me and the things I said in with some group of denialists.
I merely stated the facts as I lived them.

My memory is pretty good thanks.

I already posted what I consider a most unbiased if not complete report on it.  And if you people would bother to read things and not just assume and skim you'd see I was right.

RIGHT, you were too craven to even attempt to answer muso's straight forward, and simple question of you.

You just ignored what I asked, if you DO remember that period, what issue gathered far more media, and public interest, a coming Ice Age, or the predictions of nostradamus?

You are obviously right, because, 35 years ago, a couple of journalists misinterpreted a handful of scientific papers of the time, to make a buck by selling a story to a periodical, which more lazy journalists rehashed, and that is obviously far more reliable than the findings of the world's largest ever scientifically peer reviewed studies.

The trouble is that millions of dimwits, actually fall for this denialist bulldust, granted most you can smell coming, because they are so thick, they cannot tell sh1t from shoepolish.

Grendel wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 4:23pm:

Ah Bozo...  if only you would use MY WORDS...  instead of misuse them and misquote them. No use lying now. I never said it was the greenies then changed course and said it was the scientists...  that's just another of your lies... a total confabulation.

Ok. In that case, you won't mind clarifying for us which group were responsible. If you do mind, then something is apparently rotten in the state of ...North Ryde (whatever)

If you take the bother to check, I did not alter the post you made - I just cut and pasted it. No lies (from me at least)

There was a bit of information on the net in regard to scientific studies on this "mini ice age" in the 70's, but the scientists admitted they didn't have enough data to make foregone conclusions - and could only confirm that climate change was occurring. Their advice back then was to start planning for the future by stockpiling food etc.

The problem with any argument from the denialists is that there is a campaign out there by the oil & coal industries which distracts from the truth.

On the other hand what would be motives behind those who believe in man made climate change? Perhaps it's to introduce new taxes without actually doing anything knowing there's little they can do anyway.

I can't find the article, but this recent global conference Rudd attended - world leaders agreed to aim towards a 2% temperature reduction. This sort of stuff is ridiculous.

You have to sit in the middle on this subject. I haven't seen a definitive answer from either side, but we should certainly be adapting and preparing for any drastic climate changes just in case. Have a look at insects and animals who stockpile food for periodic climate changes and then us stupid humans in comparison. Even primitive man had the sense to move to safer areas in the event of a catastrophe.

1975

Quote:

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the little ice age conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data, concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions. Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. The world's food-producing system, warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago. Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. 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 delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html

mantra wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 8:27am:

I can't find the article, but this recent global conference Rudd attended - world leaders agreed to aim towards a 2% temperature reduction. This sort of stuff is ridiculous.

Not 2%, 2 degrees C Mantra. That is a significant achievement.

muso wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 9:24am:

mantra wrote on Jul 15th, 2009 at 8:27am: I can't find the article, but this recent global conference Rudd attended - world leaders agreed to aim towards a 2% temperature reduction. This sort of stuff is ridiculous. Not 2%, 2 degrees C Mantra. That is a significant achievement.

I think you will find the target was to limit temperature rise to 2 deg C.

It was 183 then and it is still 183. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

;D ;D ;D

muso wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 9:24am:

mantra wrote on Jul 15th, 2009 at 8:27am: I can't find the article, but this recent global conference Rudd attended - world leaders agreed to aim towards a 2% temperature reduction. This sort of stuff is ridiculous. Not 2%, 2 degrees C Mantra. That is a significant achievement.

Sorry Muso - that's what I meant - 2 degrees. It isn't a significant achievement because it hasn't happened yet, nor is it likely to. I am all for renewables and cutting down on emissions, but we do have to be realistic. These sort of "commitments" make us look like idiots, which obviously world leaders think we are.

Mozz...  I have no idea what you were on about in that last post.


Quote:

If you take the bother to check, I did not alter the post you made - I just cut and pasted it. No lies (from me at least)

Bozo...  you were the one who kept saying I changed my mind.  You lied Bozo.  It's there many times in black and white and maybe even in colour.  Just admit it.  YOU lied.


Quote:

Was it Scientists or Greenies?

Quote:

Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies?

Quote:

So, here's the deal - tell me specifically which lie you want to stick to - your lie that it wasn't scientists but it was these blasted Greenies, or their lie that it was scientists. -because it becomes very confusing unless you stick to just one lie at a time.

Quote:

So make up your mind - was it Scientists or Greenies?

And on and on and on you kept lying Bozo....
Liar liar pants on fire...  ;D ;D ;D

So you obsessive twirp... how about telling me just exactly what it is you think I think...  the invitation has already been proffered...  you refuse to take it though.  Why is that?  Because you are clueless that's why.  You are an obsessive alarmist who just likes to name-call, lie and ridicule...

Mantra has a much more balanced viewpoint than you will ever have.

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 11:00am:

Mozz...  I have no idea what you were on about in that last post. Quote: If you take the bother to check, I did not alter the post you made - I just cut and pasted it. No lies (from me at least) Bozo...  you were the one who kept saying I changed my mind.  You lied Bozo.  It's there many times in black and white and maybe even in colour.  Just admit it.  YOU lied. [quote]Was it Scientists or Greenies?

Quote:

Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies? Was it Scientists or Greenies?

[/quote]

You haven't answered yet though. You did seem to change your mind. You presented us with some of your usual cut and paste stuff that suggested a Scientific Consensus.

So is it unreasonable to ask?

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 11:00am:

So you obsessive twirp... how about telling me just exactly what it is you think I think...

Let me get this straight - You want me to tell you what I think... you think?????


Grendel - please have a think about what you write -  besides I'm not a mind reader.

How about you telling everybody what you think?  ;D Isn't that more straighforward?

I'm getting a little bit concerned about you Grendel. I won't be responsible if there are heart pills you forgot to take or something.

mantra wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 9:52am:

muso wrote on Jul 15th, 2009 at 9:24am: mantra wrote on Jul 15th, 2009 at 8:27am: I can't find the article, but this recent global conference Rudd attended - world leaders agreed to aim towards a 2% temperature reduction. This sort of stuff is ridiculous. Not 2%, 2 degrees C Mantra. That is a significant achievement. Sorry Muso - that's what I meant - 2 degrees. It isn't a significant achievement because it hasn't happened yet, nor is it likely to. I am all for renewables and cutting down on emissions, but we do have to be realistic. These sort of "commitments" make us look like idiots, which obviously world leaders think we are.

The agreement itself is significant, believe me - especially after the days of G W Bush. The roadmap to that limit has already been drawn up. The problem might be China and India though, or the BRIC countries.

Once again:


Grendel wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

ROTFLMAO...  oh dear more misrepresentation eh  how unusual. I don't recall anyone saying there was SCIENTIFIC "CONCENSUS" Bozo. Just that the Green Movement and others pushed a scare campaign based on Global Cooling in the 70s.

So above, we have Grendel implying there was no Scientific Consensus (which is perfectly correct by the way - it was a total sham based on a single cherry picked scientific paper)

On the other hand, he's suggesting that it was a scare campaign perpetrated by the "Green Movement" and "others" (the latter apparently including a boy who stabbed him in the hand with a compass)

Then, several posts later, he posts a link to an article that suggests there was Scientific Consensus. (not my lie, not Grendel's lie either)

er - Grendel - could you just clarify that - am I right in saying that the lie that there was Scientific Consensus is not one that you agree with?
(and please try to answer my questions - it just makes you look bad if you avoid answering)

Here's where Grendel (Call I call him trilobite if he calls me names? )
said:


Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

God you are an idiot....  do you actually read what people write here. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp Now go away and google any number of more articles and reports about it. Where I live it was on the TV and in the Newspapers on and off for about 3 years.

He actually said "God you are an idiot" :o then he gave us the link that said this:

"Scientists ponder why world's climate is changing - a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable - May 21 1975"

(paraphrased perhaps, but it comes pretty darned close to the Scientific Consensus lie)

So the way I see it, is that you basically called me an idiot for not reading that information which contradicted your earlier guffawing remark.  

Then when I actually read it and found that it contradicted his earlier pronouncement that actually had him rolling  and I quote "ROTFLMAO", Grendel was not a very happy camper because he had been caught.  

Grendel - I'd suggest that you've been doing so much ROTFL lately that your A is totally detached.   ;D

Rotflmao...  puhlease... just admit you are a lying hypocrite and be done with it.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Oh wait wait... there's more...  my stomach is still hurting from the laughter.

Oh great cherry picker Bozo...  were there perhaps other lines in that article linked to?  :D :D :D :D :D

You are a goose. and a hypocrite and an obsessive and a liar.
Stop wasting my time.

As for being a mindreader...  dear me you've already called me so many things I'm not I thought a personal invite was appropriate.  ;D ;D ;D

Oh and next time you lie about me and what i think and say make sure you quote me and not some line out of hundreds in some article.   :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 2:45pm:

Oh and next time you lie about me and what i think and say make sure you quote me and not some line out of hundreds in some article.   :D

Grendel,

It was very plain to everybody. We were talking about one subject only. You told me I was an idiot and you gave me the link. I scoured the article for any reference whatsoever to the "Global Cooling in the 70's" myth and that's the only part of that article that had anything relating to it.

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions. Do you believe that it was a Scientific Consensus or was it "the Green Movement and others" ?

- and is the lie that there was Scientific Consensus one that you agree with or not?

What have you got to lose? They are easy questions.

You accuse me of lying. How can a question be a lie?

Well i still think you are an idiot.

If you scoured "Fire and Ice" and didn't see anything about cooling in the 70s...  well you probably need glasses.

Yo keep asking the same dumb questions based on your own misrepresentation of what I said.

I never mentioned a concensus.
I never changed my mind about scientists to greenies or vice versa.

You just lied about me doing that.
You are a liar caught out and "everybody" with and ounce of rationality can see that.

Oh and if you want to learn about the Greens in the 70s I suggest you ask mantra she already stated what I did earlier about its organisation only she was a bit more expansive.

Oh and the cooling scare had bigger legs in the Nthrn Hemisphere for some reason and I remember that too.

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 8:53pm:

Well i still think you are an idiot. If you scoured "Fire and Ice" and didn't see anything about cooling in the 70s...  well you probably need glasses.

I did see something about the point I was asking you to clarify, which was the question of scientific consensus, and to be quite honest, I was gobsmacked and couldn't believe anybody could be so stupid. I even posted:

....and do you agree with that report?

I was giving you the opportunity back then to clarify your position.


Quote:

Yo keep asking the same dumb questions based on your own misrepresentation of what I said. I never mentioned a concensus. I never changed my mind about scientists to greenies or vice versa. You just lied about me doing that. You are a liar caught out and "everybody" with and ounce of rationality can see that.

Grendel - it was a question. I was trying to get you to tell me where you stood. How could anyone possibly lie by asking a question? If you refuse to declare your position in a debate, you can't even start the debate.



Quote:

Oh and the cooling scare had bigger legs in the Nthrn Hemisphere for some reason and I remember that too.

Now you're embellishing a lie (not yours - one that you picked up off a confusionalist site)

Grendel,

Let me put it this way, you just took a dive. Not only did you take a dive, but you tripped on your own feet, hit your chin on the diving board, did a very impressive belly flop in the water, lost your togs, then when you saw the judges' score, you jumped around like an idiot calling them liars and trying to deny that you did anything other than a perfect dive.

To make matters worse, you continually called me names, including 'idiot', and you repeatedly called me a liar for asking you a question.

Grendel (still metaphorically) you just handed me a cross and you asked me to nail you to it.

You've already proven yourself to be totally inept at any kind of rational debate, so this is my last post directed to you on this issue.

If you are going to cut and paste or link to articles by professional  liars, then at least you should have the decency to read them yourself and if you make a mistake, admit it - because you just make yourself look stupid by digging yourself a deeper hole.  

I'd normally say "quit while you're ahead", but well... it's not very appropriate in this case, is it?

Let's just say that I'm starting to feel sorry for you. I didn't set out to crucify you. You just managed to do it all by yourself.

Quote:

I did see something about the point I was asking you to clarify, which was the question of scientific consensus, and to be quite honest, I was gobsmacked and couldn't believe anybody could be so stupid. I even posted: ....and do you agree with that report? I was giving you the opportunity back then to clarify your position.

Muso - here's some tips. Pretend you're playing a game of Charades and always look for Grendel's views in his first few posts. If you follow this simple advice - you won't get frustrated. You might even find out that he's correct, although it might look like he's obfuscating.  :D

The Green movement did grasp onto the limited scientific data in the 70's and promoted it. I don't believe they intentionally tried to mislead anyone, but their ultimate goal has always been sustainability and conservation and so they took whatever lead became available even if it later turned out to be incorrect.

That's why people like Al Gore have made this issue so farcical. He is not acting in our best interests. He is a member of the Trilateral Commission and ultimately seeking an increase in profits in oil prices and associated industries under the guise of being "green".

We know there's climate change and we know that humans are destroying this planet by not cleaning up after themselves, rorting our limited resources and not replenishing that which is being depleted, but the Green movement, for the sake of credibility, has to go along with whatever government or party appears to be the lesser of two evils even though the goals of those they support are different to their own.

Mantra, unforunately you seem to have been sucked into the whole "global conspiracies, secret organisations", camp, and it just reeks of the tinfoil hat brigade extremist views, where facts are distorted, and exaggerated to the point of becoming total nonsense.
Then you fell into the, "my enemies enemies are my friends", mindset, which has even seen you supporting some of the anti-multiculturalists extremist ideas, and to some extent even fallen into accepting as credible, the views of the confusionalists on the Global Warming debate.

These guys seek to confuse people by starting with some mom and apple pie sentiments, to make themselves appear reasonable, then weave a web of deceit based on known lies, and misinformation.

If you are concerned about secret backroom groups, seeking to contro; issues, and through the misrepresentation of those issues, ultimately what actions are taken to address them, then you should look at the people behind the whole denialist campaign.

With people like Grendel, who jumped on board early, due to their healthy skepticism about the overly sensationalised hype promoted by our more extreme Global Warming advocates, we saw them lock themselves into a position, which has been totally, and thoroughly discredited, by honest, and reputable scientists from all corners of the globe, and from all points of the political compass.
Unfortunately the denialists of this type, have put themselves in the position of 'needing' to maintain their stance, to try and justify their earlier enthusiasm, which has seen them develop a pattern of blindly accepting the lies, to the point where they refuse to even look at serious scirntific opinion that does not validate their point of view.

This is the exact opposite of what the real scientists do, as they take the time to evaluate all the denialists arguments, and carefully, and with reference to valid and current scientific knowledge in the area, explain where they are wrong, and why they are wrong.

The denialist then counter this by trying to promote the idea that these serious scientists are actually all just part of an evil cabal who are falsifying data and findings in their efforts to receive more funding, for self enrichment.

So, back to the men behind the scenes, now we know that many oil companies were quite specific in their requests to PR firms, when first they approached them to instigate this denialist argument, and it would be naive to think that they do not still promote it wherever they can.

The sad fact is that many good and decent people have been so fully conned by the initial denialist PR campaign, that they are now doing the work for them, and have become zealously obsessive in repeating the debunked claims, over, and over, and over again.

This whole issue about whether their was a major scare about a looming Ice Age back in the '70's, is a case in point.

The facts are that a handful of scientists back in the late sixties, and early seventies, were studying the cooling that the northern hemisphere experienced over the previous 25 years (note that the southern hemisphere did not experience the same trend), and also at that time, we also had some scientists studying the effects of other polluting particulates that were building up, that do have the ability to reduce the amount of heat getting through the atmosphere.

Now these few scientists published their studies, and a couple did actually put forward the possibility that if certain things happened, we could see a new Ice Age.
Now the time frames they cited varied considerably, even into the tens of thousands of years ahead range, but the reporters who stumbled onto the story, did not let facts get in the way of sensationalising, and effectively misrepresenting the work of these scientists, into a new doomsday scenario.
So the blame for the misunderstanding of what these scientists actually presented, lies with the media, who jumped onto the initial newsweek story, and used that as their point of reference, rather than the actual science that was presented, and it worked in well for them, because of recent cold weather extremes that Nth America had experienced at the time.

So their was a "media" event at the time, concerning a possible coming Ice Age, which was pretty well localised to the US market, and it gained little attention from the rest of the world.

As I said to Grendel, we also had a more 'Globa'l fascination for Nostradamus' predictions in the same period, and I pointed out that the Nostradanus stories were actually far more prevalent than this reported Ice Age scare, which I think is a good way of highlighting the degree of seriousness with which the whole story was taken.

The problem lies with the denialists taking up the whole story from the time, and trying to use that as an example of scientific confusion over climate issues, which is just false, and to create the belief that scientists and governments have a habit of getting it totally wrong, as evidenced by the fact that no Ice Age developed, when the simple truth is that it was nothing more than an example of sensationalist journalism.

The denialist do not miss that point altogether, and they also try to portray the current scientific concensus as just another example of sensationalist reporting, which is also false.

mantra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2009 at 10:46am:

Quote: I did see something about the point I was asking you to clarify, which was the question of scientific consensus, and to be quite honest, I was gobsmacked and couldn't believe anybody could be so stupid. I even posted: ....and do you agree with that report? I was giving you the opportunity back then to clarify your position. Muso - here's some tips. Pretend you're playing a game of Charades and always look for Grendel's views in his first few posts. If you follow this simple advice - you won't get frustrated. You might even find out that he's correct, although it might look like he's obfuscating.  :D The Green movement did grasp onto the limited scientific data in the 70's and promoted it. I don't believe they intentionally tried to mislead anyone, but their ultimate goal has always been sustainability and conservation and so they took whatever lead became available even if it later turned out to be incorrect. That's why people like Al Gore have made this issue so farcical. He is not acting in our best interests. He is a member of the Trilateral Commission and ultimately seeking an increase in profits in oil prices and associated industries under the guise of being "green". We know there's climate change and we know that humans are destroying this planet by not cleaning up after themselves, rorting our limited resources and not replenishing that which is being depleted, but the Green movement, for the sake of credibility, has to go along with whatever government or party appears to be the lesser of two evils even though the goals of those they support are different to their own.

Mantra,

You've usually struck me as being reasonable. I come from a position of being an environmental scientist, so perhaps I don't need to take anything on faith that there is actually a genuine impending crisis.

I'm very surprised that you don't see through this facade of denial. Basically the people who are pushing this are doing it from a position of arrogance.

It's a bit like somebody caught speeding who will stop at nothing to weasel their way out of a fine, probably because they thought that speeding is no big deal.  

The arguments they come up with are more like excuses.

- your radar gun must be wrong
- I was going downhill.
- I have oversized tires.
- I was passing a truck.
- It was a rental car and I wasn't familiar with it.
- I was just keeping up with traffic.

The denialist arguments are basically a combination of these arguments. Just for the sake of it, they cling on to the radar gun being wrong, the oversized tyres and the passing a truck all at the same time.

- even though the arguments don't actually make any sense together.

'continued from above'

So the one thing that denialists have in their favour is that the sensationalist media coverage, does disaffect the more discerning person, and they rightly take umbrage at seeing stories being overblown and exaggerated,
However, should we blame the scientists for that?
Of course we shouldn't, they only try to supply the best information theu can, and lack the ability to control how the media uses that information.

So even though we get sick of hearing doomsday predictions, the fact remains that we do face an unprecented climate crisis, which does need to be addressed on a global scale, and we must not let denialists continually frustrate governments attempts to do so by creating false ideas about global warming that they hope enough people will fall for, so as to create a political environment where governments will be too afraid to act.

Their behaviour is morally reprehensible, and in the worst interest for our future, and that of the coming generations, and that is why all decent people should try and get past mainstream media hype, and get informed about the real science.

People of experience, and knowledge, like our very own Muso, on this site, are an invaluable resource in providing such good information, and if denialists would actually honestly appraise the supplied information, rather than blindly rejecting it, without even looking at it, we could put an end to this farcial situation where lies and misinformation demand equal time with the truth.

Hey Bozo...  only the obsessive and self-deluded would believe what you wrote about me.  :D :D :D :D :D

What's it like being a lying hypocrite?

I posted F&I in order to show that the media did push it and that it was a "big" issue at the time.

Your concensus crap and lies about me changing course etc came after that...  liar liar pants on fire.

Oh and adding factual points is not embellishment in a negative sense.  It's just more proof.

I don't care what alarmists like you or denialists (whomever they are) might think.  You can stuff your propaganda.  Your politics and lack of proof.

Grendel wrote on Jul 16^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:

Hey Bozo...

Hey Trilobite.....

You'll probably read this after breakfast. I already had mine, and besides, I already said that I wouldn't attempt to have a rational argument with you again.

As far as breakfast is concerned, I appreciate your offer, but you'd only give me indigestion.

- I never had much of an appetite for fossils anyway.

It is enlightening to view Grendels thought processes on display in this thread, as it demonstrates just how easily people can delude themselves, which would be a very useful trait for a denialist.

Mind you Grendel is not a denialist, just someone who promotes, and agrees with denialist lies.

A bit like his political stance, he is self proclaimed as left wing, but just happens to promote and agree with right wing policies, and champions an ultra nationalist agenda.

He is a fanatical observer, and arbiter of facts, and "truth", yet struggles to identify even the most basic factual errors, if they happen to support his contentions.

I told you what he would do when openly challenged, and true to form, he evaded, avoided,and abused, but he would not answer the challenge, as his ego would never allow him to even consider the possibility that he is not infallible, and that the definition of facts is whatever he pronounces as facts.
Pope Grendel, the wizard of oz is casting, you will be perfect for the lion role.

Sometimes it cool and other times it hot. "Don't worry and enjoy your life"  :)

I always figured you for a poor loser Bozo  :D

Mozz...  you need to take a valium.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 16^th, 2009 at 11:58am:

As I said to Grendel, we also had a more 'Globa'l fascination for Nostradamus' predictions in the same period, and I pointed out that the Nostradanus stories were actually far more prevalent than this reported Ice Age scare, which I think is a good way of highlighting the degree of seriousness with which the whole story was taken.

My elder brother bought that book I think during one of the late 70s Nostradamus crazes. I remember him discussing an interpretation of a future prediction that the Cold War would end and Russia and the US would be at peace and the next great threat would be in the east. Of course, when you read the actual quatrains which were supposed to reveal these events, you realise how creative the interpreters were in teasing out 'the truth'. But they jagged it about the Cold War and strife in the east (which most presumed meant China) at a time when all the world thought the Soviet Union was a stable economic and political force, which triggered another small wave of Nostradamus hype.

tallowood wrote on Jul 16^th, 2009 at 11:41pm:

Sometimes it cool and other times it hot. "Don't worry and enjoy your life"  :)

Tallowood,

Don't worry, and enjoy your cocoa. If it's cool sometimes, you can always heat it up in the microwave ;)

muso wrote on Jul 17^th, 2009 at 8:02am:

tallowood wrote on Jul 16th, 2009 at 11:41pm: Sometimes it cool and other times it hot. "Don't worry and enjoy your life"  :) Tallowood, Don't worry, and enjoy your cocoa. If it's cool sometimes, you can always heat it up in the microwave ;)

Muso, it isn't I who is peddling message of environmental doom and gloom  ;)

tallowood wrote on Jul 17^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

muso wrote on Jul 17th, 2009 at 8:02am: tallowood wrote on Jul 16th, 2009 at 11:41pm: Sometimes it cool and other times it hot. "Don't worry and enjoy your life"  :) Tallowood, Don't worry, and enjoy your cocoa. If it's cool sometimes, you can always heat it up in the microwave ;) Muso, it isn't I who is peddling message of environmental doom and gloom  ;)

It isn't me either. Things are starting to move. I am starting to feel more optimistic about the future. I reckon that even China will be pumping out mass produced Electric cars and thermosolar arrays before too long.

It's too good a commercial opportunity to miss.

With a bit of luck, the world will address this issue in 30 years, by which time the denialists will be long dead, and the new Energy Companies (former Oil Companies) will be able to breath easy and take what they see as their rightful places as controllers of world energy.

The confusionalists only have a purpose at this particular juncture - to make sure that it all doesn't happen too quickly. The new technology will be born, but the confusionalists are necessary to provide anaesthesia for Society, so that there are are no birth pains .

Personally I prefer to keep my eyes open through all the pain. I like to know what's going on.

muso wrote on Jul 17^th, 2009 at 9:45am:

... I reckon that even China will be pumping out mass produced Electric cars and thermosolar arrays before too long. ...

Chinese batteries don't hold charge but we still have plenty of coal so "Don't worry and enjoy your life".

I am not a denialist Mozzaok or Muso, but I’m not convinced that we can change the temperature by paying higher taxes to support the fossil fuel industry. If the govt. pumped the same amount of money into renewables – we wouldn’t have to pollute our water systems with toxins from our coal industry for a start. Every few months a new coal mine is opened up in one of our remaining few pristine areas and always on top of a water basin or beside a river.

At times I have found Grendel’s references a bit dodgy (and told him) and used other resources until I’ve found information that makes sense.

Regardless of whatever team is right – I agree we have to act now finding alternatives for future sustainability - not necessarily in regard to weather – but food, water and secure housing. Governments are only pretending to act. Man made global warming is the wrong sales pitch because there are too many holes in it and ultimately all paths lead back to the multinationals.

Scientists on both sides of the political sphere can’t be trusted completely as they serve their masters and they’ll say whatever they have to. They’re all employed or funded by a government organisation or corporation.

mantra wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 8:50am:

Scientists on both sides of the political sphere can’t be trusted completely as they serve their masters and they’ll say whatever they have to. They’re all employed or funded by a government organisation or corporation.

You don't know scientists Mantra. They are not sheep ;D I haven't met any that I could describe as 'subservient' yet.  

What about me? Do you reckon I'd just fall into line with the official line? I work for a company that depends on coal mining. I should be pushing the denialist lie perhaps?

I'd be about as typically obstinate as most scientists.

I'll have to be honest Muso - that graph you posted recently in the "Frost in the morning" thread - it made no sense whatsoever. I don't mean to be insulting - but if that's any indication of "proof" of man-made global warming - it was very ineffective.

You may not fall in with the official line, but you still aren't presenting your case clearly and I'm sorry if that sounds offensive (it's not meant to be) - it's just the way I see it.

mantra wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 10:13am:

I'll have to be honest Muso - that graph you posted recently in the "Frost in the morning" thread - it made no sense whatsoever. I don't mean to be insulting - but if that's any indication of "proof" of man-made global warming - it was very ineffective. You may not fall in with the official line, but you still aren't presenting your case clearly and I'm sorry if that sounds offensive (it's not meant to be) - it's just the way I see it.

I've worked in the Chemical Industry for the last 19 years. My qualifications are in Chemistry, Environmental Science and Business in order of degrees conferred. At one stage part of my responsibility was Radiation Safety Officer in reponse to your NP question. I also act as an advisor to Qld Emergency Services in the event of  hazardous chemical (Hazmat) accidents and I serve on various committees regarding emergency management and counter terrorism. I think that's as many details as I want to disclose.

I don't know which graph you mean, but I thank you and accept your constructive criticism. I'll try to explain everything clearly to you i simple terms, but not today. I have a higher priority LOL - (The latest Harry Potter movie.)

It's not always easy if people are cutting and pasting material they see elsewhere and requiring immediate responses to questions that have been answered many times before. Maybe I could use a locked thread and we could comment on a different thread.

Al Gore is just a front - a pretty good presenter, but he's not a climate scientist. An attack on Al Gore is about as significant as an attck on the news reader for a news story you think is incorrect.  

Quote:

I've worked in the Chemical Industry for the last 19 years. My qualifications are in Chemistry, Environmental Science and Business in order of degrees conferred. At one stage part of my responsibility was Radiation Safety Officer in reponse to your NP question. I also act as an advisor to Qld Emergency Services in the event of  hazardous chemical (Hazmat) accidents and I serve on various committees regarding emergency management and counter terrorism. I think that's as many details as I want to disclose.

Those are pretty impressive qualifications muso, they've stop boofy in his tracks I see, its not like him to not be posting here ad nauseum.

wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 3:52pm:

Quote: I've worked in the Chemical Industry for the last 19 years. My qualifications are in Chemistry, Environmental Science and Business in order of degrees conferred. At one stage part of my responsibility was Radiation Safety Officer in reponse to your NP question. I also act as an advisor to Qld Emergency Services in the event of  hazardous chemical (Hazmat) accidents and I serve on various committees regarding emergency management and counter terrorism. I think that's as many details as I want to disclose. Those are pretty impressive qualifications muso, they've stop boofy in his tracks I see, its not like him to not be posting here ad nauseum.

I didn't mean to brag. Everybody is welcome to post here. I was responding to Mantra's original question, although I can't find it now.

Quote:

I didn't mean to brag. Everybody is welcome to post here.

Oh I didn't think you were bragging muso, I"m glad at least somebody here has some idea about what they are posting. ;)

Doesn't impress me...  nice flames BTW... I was ignoring them.

I just can't be bothered to post to lying hypocrites anymore.

muso wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 11:36am:

mantra wrote on Jul 18th, 2009 at 10:13am: I'll have to be honest Muso - that graph you posted recently in the "Frost in the morning" thread - it made no sense whatsoever. I don't mean to be insulting - but if that's any indication of "proof" of man-made global warming - it was very ineffective. You may not fall in with the official line, but you still aren't presenting your case clearly and I'm sorry if that sounds offensive (it's not meant to be) - it's just the way I see it. I've worked in the Chemical Industry for the last 19 years. My qualifications are in Chemistry, Environmental Science and Business in order of degrees conferred. At one stage part of my responsibility was Radiation Safety Officer in reponse to your NP question. I also act as an advisor to Qld Emergency Services in the event of  hazardous chemical (Hazmat) accidents and I serve on various committees regarding emergency management and counter terrorism. I think that's as many details as I want to disclose. I don't know which graph you mean, but I thank you and accept your constructive criticism. I'll try to explain everything clearly to you i simple terms, but not today. I have a higher priority LOL - (The latest Harry Potter movie.) It's not always easy if people are cutting and pasting material they see elsewhere and requiring immediate responses to questions that have been answered many times before. Maybe I could use a locked thread and we could comment on a different thread. Al Gore is just a front - a pretty good presenter, but he's not a climate scientist. An attack on Al Gore is about as significant as an attck on the news reader for a news story you think is incorrect.

Yes I know Muso - you are very qualified and I didn't mean to question your judgement. I just have difficulty absorbing some of the information that so many people supply. A lot of it doesn't make sense - but that is my fault not yours.

That's why I have to sit in the middle on this subject.

Lol...  mantra...  Bozo's a Chemist who worked as an RSO...  puhlease no deference required.


Quote:

The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter; the last time it froze over was 1804). On top of the trend are oscillations that last about thirty years in each direction: 1882 – 1910    Cooling 1910 – 1944    Warming 1944 – 1975    Cooling 1975 – 2001    Warming In 2009 we are where the green arrow points, with temperature leveling off. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030. There was a cooling scare in the early 1970s at the end of the last cooling phase. The current global warming alarm is based on the last warming oscillation, from 1975 to 2001. The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever, a textbook case of alarmism. However the last warming period ended after the usual thirty years or so, and the global temperature is now definitely tracking below the IPCC predictions.

Grendel wrote on Jul 19^th, 2009 at 10:28am:

Quote: The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever

Incorrect statement. I won't ask you to provide evidence, because there is none. IPCC predictions, assuming your idol/partner in crime means AR4, were determined on a scenario basis. There were a number of possible scenarios.

How could you determine a number of outcomes based on simple extrapolation?

Where's the yawn emoticon?  :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 19^th, 2009 at 12:14pm:

Where's the yawn emoticon?  :D

I know that you find the truth boring.

Confusionalists are so much more - captivating and...sexy , and they always manage to explain everything in non-technical and non-threatening ways that don't get you all upset.

Muso - just because a person isn't convinced with either argument - it doesn't stop sensible people from wanting to clean up this planet. We want to find ways to feed the world and keep them healthy for generations to come, but both arguments are pathetic. The denialists are just as bad as the alarmists.

We've got to be practical, which is something our governments past and present have forgotten how to be.

Making a global policy to lower the world's temperature by 2 degrees is seriously pathetic. How would we ever know if we reached that goal if data is only taken over such a short period of time?

Oh no Bozo I find your alarmist spin on everything booooring or perhaps boorish is a better word for it.

You know that comment was in reference to a "graphic" extrapolation and guess what...  if you'd bothered to look anywhere except at alarmist literature you'd see that comment although an exaggeration (and clearly such - pedant) is correct right up until the IPCC graphic predictions it is talking about.

Mantra... since I'm not a denialist...  I expect honesty and a lack of hypocrisy in debate... all of which the alarmist BOZO lacks.  And once again you show that your attitude is more balanced (and closer to mine) than that Bozos will ever be.

mantra wrote on Jul 19^th, 2009 at 1:44pm:

Muso - just because a person isn't convinced with either argument - it doesn't stop sensible people from wanting to clean up this planet. We want to find ways to feed the world and keep them healthy for generations to come, but both arguments are pathetic. The denialists are just as bad as the alarmists. We've got to be practical, which is something our governments past and present have forgotten how to be. Making a global policy to lower the world's temperature by 2 degrees is seriously pathetic. How would we ever know if we reached that goal if data is only taken over such a short period of time?

Mantra,

I'm trying to put together a reasonably non-technical explanation of the science behind it on a separate sticky thread. You actually gave me the idea of doing that. In that thread, I'll explain the significance of that 2 degress C rise.

Please bear with me. There is an enormous amount of disinformation out there. You're better to stick to sites such as CSIRO:
http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change.html

or the Bureau of Meteorology:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

in the meantime.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grendel my preciousssss,

I knowsss you doesn't like thessse nasssty alarmisssst sites that these nasssty scientisssssts puts out (no we doessssn't), but Mantra is at least interested in getting a balanced view.

Your cool friendz and their "rad Climate sitez" just don't make the grade.  

Now this is cool...

http://www.cafepress.com/luciablackboard.360000026#

Remind me to buy you one in a few years to remind you just how wrong you were...  

---