marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,882
- Reaction score
- 2,091
Uh-Oh(bama)
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
fucking sheeple
awaken
Well-known member
Not another doomsday global warming prediction! They're really, really, really "serial" this time. This is totally different than the previous predictions made in the last 40 years.
Uh-oh....hahahahaha hahahaha ... and another door opens. Oh God Love ya, grand Marquis! 
Oh where to begin? Hahahaha
How about 'at the beginning' with a History of Hot Air that is sometimes cold.
Excerpts from climate and it's scientologists through the years and lens of NY and LA's Times':
Memory lane beckons all the young stooges to look back and learn caution--
Some of the most highly regarded news publications have been warning us about disastrous global climate change for more than 100 years. The problem, unfortunately for the media, is they can't seem to decide exactly what's going to happen to the weather. Sometimes the media warns that we're heading into an ice age, while other times we're on the cusp of melting all the glaciers and flooding everything. It's a yo-yo!
And it's cyclical. From roughly 1895-1930, the impending disaster was global cooling. That's right... global cooling. In fact, some scientists were so panicked they feared that North America, as far south as the Great Lakes, would be buried under glaciers! Of course, that hysteria didn't last too long, and starting in 1930 or so, and lasting until 1960, the biggest threat to our safety, food, and indeed the entire planet, was global warming. Ah... good old global warming. We're familiar with that. Unfortunately, at least for the media, anyway, that scare only lasted until around 1960, or so, although some publications kept pushing until as late as 1969. But sometime around the mid 1950s, a new trend popped onto the scene. Except, it wasn't exactly a "new" trend at all. It was just the same-old, rehashed threat of global cooling! Fortunately, at least for Al Gore, the whole global cooling thing kind of... erm... cooled off... if you'll excuse the expression. That's right, sometime around 1980 or so we were well on our way to our latest disaster-in-the-making... global warming 2.0!
But let's talk about the freezing times ahead, shall we? Because admit it, a nice cool day has to feel good after all this global warming we've been experiencing... right? So... let's look at a little history, taken from media quotes:
February 24, 1895: The New York Times warns us that "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again." The article debated whether "recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period." They decided that the signs did indeed point to a second glacial period. The worry seemed to be how severe Scandinavia's climate was, combined with advancing northern glaciers.
October 7, 1912: A page one report in the Times tells us that "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." This was the same day the Los Angeles Times ran a similar article, subtitled "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."
June 10, 1923: This time the New York Times reported on Robert Peary, who was traveling to Greenland to ascertain the "Menace of a new ice age."
August 9, 1923: Citizens of Chicago were warned of impending doom: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada," read the headline. This was because of Professor Gregory of Yale University, who had declared that "another world ice-epoch is due." He also warned that North America would disappear as far as the Great Lakes, and much of Asia and Europe would be "wiped out." The good news? "Australia has nothing to fear." Well... thank goodness for small favors.
April 6, 1924: Rutger Sernander, a Swedish scientist, claimed in the Los Angeles Times that there was "scientific ground for believing" that the time when "all winds will bring snow, the sun cannot prevail against the clouds and three winters will come in one, with no summer between," had already arrived. Brrrrr!
By the 1930s, talk of impending doom from a glacier run amok had run its course, but not before The Atlantic had the last say. W.J. Humphries, in comparing the state of the earth in 1932, to the state of the earth before previous ice ages, came to the conclusion that "if these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on the edge of an ice age."
The Atlantic, however, was a bit behind the times. Because even as they were spreading gloom and doom about global cooling and an upcoming ice age, lo and behold, something amazing happened.
March 11, 1929: In an article titled, "Is another ice age coming?" the Los Angeles Times answered its own question: "Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer."
May 15, 1932: The New York Times jumps on the "hot" new bandwagon, crowing that "the earth is steadily growing warmer."
March 27, 1933: According to The New York Times, the country was facing the "longest warm spell since 1776." The article began, "That next ice age, if one is coming ... is still a long way off."
September 1933: A meteorologist, J.B. Kincer, of the federal weather bureau, did an extensive study in order to document this new-fangled heat wave. Between 1912-1933, in Washington, D.C., eighteen winters were warmer than was to be expected, and from 1921 to 1933, all winters were mild. Even New Haven, Connecticut (home of Yale's Professor Gregory and his ice age that would wipe out Canada), was experiencing warmer weather, and there was evidence taken from records that dated "back to near the close of the Revolutionary War," that showed the world was heating up.
But the real stroke of genius was still to come. In 1938, an amateur meteorologist from Great Britain, named G.S. Callendar, first argued that man was responsible for the increase in earth's temperature because of all the carbon dioxide humans were emitting. This was in 1938. In an article published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, he wrote, "In the following paper I hope to show that such influence is not only possible, but is actually occurring at the present time." But, unlike Al Gore, Callendar didn't end his essay with gloom and doom. On the contrary, Callendar felt the change was "likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power." Callendar thought it would allow for more food production, in addition to holding off those pesky glaciers "indefinitely."
November 6, 1939: The Chicago Daily Tribune must not have gotten the memo that global cooling was old news, because they seemed stunned that the world was heating up. "Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades." Mysterious, sure, when you're looking over your shoulder for an incoming glacier attack.
August 10, 1952: Again from the New York Times: "We have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century." According to the Times, the iron-clad proof of this was the introduction of cod into the Eskimo's diet. Before 1920 or so, cod was unknown to the Eskimos. In addition, the Times warned the following year that reports proved that summers and winters were getting warmer.
February 15, 1959: Here come the Eskimos again. The New York Times announced that glaciers were melting in Alaska, the "ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century," all of which supported the "theory of rising global temperatures."
February 20, 1969: One of the last gasps in the first global warming panic. The Times once again showed off its global warming credentials by warning that "the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two," according to Colonel Bernt Bachen, a polar explorer.
Thankfully for us, that wasn't the case. In fact, the Times, with its last two articles, was almost too late to the next big crisis... Global Cooling!
1954: Fortune Magazine had started emphasizing a new trend in planetary weather. It ran the article centering on the idea of a frozen earth and titled it, "Climate - The Heat May Be Off." This story debunked the idea that the earth was about to be plunged into a hot spell. "Despite all you may have read, heard, or imagined, it's been growing cooler - not warmer - since the Thirties."
November 15, 1969: It seems to have taken a while for other publications catch on that global warming wasn't "cool" anymore. But finally "Science News" quoted meteorologist J. Murray Mitchell Jr. about global worries. "How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization," he said. Six years later, the same periodical reported that "the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." This article was illustrated with a snow globe showing a city obliterated by wintry weather.
January 11, 1970: The Washington Post told its readers to "get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters - the worst may be yet to come." The article, titled "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age," quoted Reid Bryson, a climatologist who opined that there was "no relief in sight," from the current cooling trend.
February 1974: Fortune Magazine won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the threat of global cooling. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed," the magazine wrote.
January 19, 1975: The New York Times seems to have finally gotten the idea that global warming was so... passé, and marched headfirst into the cold new world. "There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate."
May 21, 1975: It didn't take the Times too long to jump headfirst into the global cooling frenzy, as the produced an article that discussed scientists who wondered "why world's climate is changing; a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable."
The impending ice age seems to have disappeared sometime in the 1980s, only to be replaced by our new scary climate change - global warming. Again. So what does today's media have to say about global warming? Pretty much what I've already quoted, because they've said it all before, back in the 1920s and 1930s.
So, what does all this mean? Nothing, really. Because this time, we're assured, there is scientific consensus. It's agreed. Everybody knows what's going on. It's global warming, don't you know! Even the media is sure of it this time.
Of course, consensus can be a funny thing. In a speech he gave at the California Institute of Technology in 2003, Michael Crichton had a bit to say about scientific consensus.
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "
So when you hear Al Gore tell you that there is consensus in the scientific community that man (and not the Sun, or Earth's normal periods of heating and cooling), is responsible for global warming, pause for a moment. Remember what ABC reporter Bill Blakemore has to say about things. In his opinion, the media should not portray the debate on whether man is responsible for climate change. "I don't like the word 'balance' much at all," he said in 2006.
And remember Grist Magazine staff writer David Roberts, who said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg." Who were those "bastards" that Roberts wanted to put on trial? Just people brave enough to question the company line about man-made global warming.
And then consider the 60 scientists who in 2006 sent a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister, demanding to open up the debate on the Kyoto Protocol. They are one of those groups fighting against the scientific "consensus" that Al Gore trumpets in his slide show presentations. These scientists say the science behind man-made global warming is not accurate. They say the "confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines," but that "they are no basis for mature policy formulation." They continue to say that if "we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist."
But in spite of this, global warming alarmists and the media claim that there is scientific consensus. In spite of scientists around the world disagreeing with them, they claim there is consensus. They claim that there is just no question about what's going to happen. There's no question about why it's going to happen. They're positive.
Just like they were last time. Just like they will be again, the next time the winters get colder and the glaciers start advancing.
Note: All newspaper quotes were taken from a pdf available here: www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf
The quotes from Michael Crichton's speech were taken from the text of the speech hosted here: www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote
Oh where to begin? Hahahaha
How about 'at the beginning' with a History of Hot Air that is sometimes cold.
Excerpts from climate and it's scientologists through the years and lens of NY and LA's Times':
Memory lane beckons all the young stooges to look back and learn caution--
Some of the most highly regarded news publications have been warning us about disastrous global climate change for more than 100 years. The problem, unfortunately for the media, is they can't seem to decide exactly what's going to happen to the weather. Sometimes the media warns that we're heading into an ice age, while other times we're on the cusp of melting all the glaciers and flooding everything. It's a yo-yo!
And it's cyclical. From roughly 1895-1930, the impending disaster was global cooling. That's right... global cooling. In fact, some scientists were so panicked they feared that North America, as far south as the Great Lakes, would be buried under glaciers! Of course, that hysteria didn't last too long, and starting in 1930 or so, and lasting until 1960, the biggest threat to our safety, food, and indeed the entire planet, was global warming. Ah... good old global warming. We're familiar with that. Unfortunately, at least for the media, anyway, that scare only lasted until around 1960, or so, although some publications kept pushing until as late as 1969. But sometime around the mid 1950s, a new trend popped onto the scene. Except, it wasn't exactly a "new" trend at all. It was just the same-old, rehashed threat of global cooling! Fortunately, at least for Al Gore, the whole global cooling thing kind of... erm... cooled off... if you'll excuse the expression. That's right, sometime around 1980 or so we were well on our way to our latest disaster-in-the-making... global warming 2.0!
But let's talk about the freezing times ahead, shall we? Because admit it, a nice cool day has to feel good after all this global warming we've been experiencing... right? So... let's look at a little history, taken from media quotes:
February 24, 1895: The New York Times warns us that "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again." The article debated whether "recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period." They decided that the signs did indeed point to a second glacial period. The worry seemed to be how severe Scandinavia's climate was, combined with advancing northern glaciers.
October 7, 1912: A page one report in the Times tells us that "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." This was the same day the Los Angeles Times ran a similar article, subtitled "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."
June 10, 1923: This time the New York Times reported on Robert Peary, who was traveling to Greenland to ascertain the "Menace of a new ice age."
August 9, 1923: Citizens of Chicago were warned of impending doom: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada," read the headline. This was because of Professor Gregory of Yale University, who had declared that "another world ice-epoch is due." He also warned that North America would disappear as far as the Great Lakes, and much of Asia and Europe would be "wiped out." The good news? "Australia has nothing to fear." Well... thank goodness for small favors.
April 6, 1924: Rutger Sernander, a Swedish scientist, claimed in the Los Angeles Times that there was "scientific ground for believing" that the time when "all winds will bring snow, the sun cannot prevail against the clouds and three winters will come in one, with no summer between," had already arrived. Brrrrr!
By the 1930s, talk of impending doom from a glacier run amok had run its course, but not before The Atlantic had the last say. W.J. Humphries, in comparing the state of the earth in 1932, to the state of the earth before previous ice ages, came to the conclusion that "if these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on the edge of an ice age."
The Atlantic, however, was a bit behind the times. Because even as they were spreading gloom and doom about global cooling and an upcoming ice age, lo and behold, something amazing happened.
March 11, 1929: In an article titled, "Is another ice age coming?" the Los Angeles Times answered its own question: "Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer."
May 15, 1932: The New York Times jumps on the "hot" new bandwagon, crowing that "the earth is steadily growing warmer."
March 27, 1933: According to The New York Times, the country was facing the "longest warm spell since 1776." The article began, "That next ice age, if one is coming ... is still a long way off."
September 1933: A meteorologist, J.B. Kincer, of the federal weather bureau, did an extensive study in order to document this new-fangled heat wave. Between 1912-1933, in Washington, D.C., eighteen winters were warmer than was to be expected, and from 1921 to 1933, all winters were mild. Even New Haven, Connecticut (home of Yale's Professor Gregory and his ice age that would wipe out Canada), was experiencing warmer weather, and there was evidence taken from records that dated "back to near the close of the Revolutionary War," that showed the world was heating up.
But the real stroke of genius was still to come. In 1938, an amateur meteorologist from Great Britain, named G.S. Callendar, first argued that man was responsible for the increase in earth's temperature because of all the carbon dioxide humans were emitting. This was in 1938. In an article published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, he wrote, "In the following paper I hope to show that such influence is not only possible, but is actually occurring at the present time." But, unlike Al Gore, Callendar didn't end his essay with gloom and doom. On the contrary, Callendar felt the change was "likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power." Callendar thought it would allow for more food production, in addition to holding off those pesky glaciers "indefinitely."
November 6, 1939: The Chicago Daily Tribune must not have gotten the memo that global cooling was old news, because they seemed stunned that the world was heating up. "Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades." Mysterious, sure, when you're looking over your shoulder for an incoming glacier attack.
August 10, 1952: Again from the New York Times: "We have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century." According to the Times, the iron-clad proof of this was the introduction of cod into the Eskimo's diet. Before 1920 or so, cod was unknown to the Eskimos. In addition, the Times warned the following year that reports proved that summers and winters were getting warmer.
February 15, 1959: Here come the Eskimos again. The New York Times announced that glaciers were melting in Alaska, the "ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century," all of which supported the "theory of rising global temperatures."
February 20, 1969: One of the last gasps in the first global warming panic. The Times once again showed off its global warming credentials by warning that "the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two," according to Colonel Bernt Bachen, a polar explorer.
Thankfully for us, that wasn't the case. In fact, the Times, with its last two articles, was almost too late to the next big crisis... Global Cooling!
1954: Fortune Magazine had started emphasizing a new trend in planetary weather. It ran the article centering on the idea of a frozen earth and titled it, "Climate - The Heat May Be Off." This story debunked the idea that the earth was about to be plunged into a hot spell. "Despite all you may have read, heard, or imagined, it's been growing cooler - not warmer - since the Thirties."
November 15, 1969: It seems to have taken a while for other publications catch on that global warming wasn't "cool" anymore. But finally "Science News" quoted meteorologist J. Murray Mitchell Jr. about global worries. "How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization," he said. Six years later, the same periodical reported that "the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." This article was illustrated with a snow globe showing a city obliterated by wintry weather.
January 11, 1970: The Washington Post told its readers to "get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters - the worst may be yet to come." The article, titled "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age," quoted Reid Bryson, a climatologist who opined that there was "no relief in sight," from the current cooling trend.
February 1974: Fortune Magazine won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the threat of global cooling. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed," the magazine wrote.
January 19, 1975: The New York Times seems to have finally gotten the idea that global warming was so... passé, and marched headfirst into the cold new world. "There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate."
May 21, 1975: It didn't take the Times too long to jump headfirst into the global cooling frenzy, as the produced an article that discussed scientists who wondered "why world's climate is changing; a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable."
The impending ice age seems to have disappeared sometime in the 1980s, only to be replaced by our new scary climate change - global warming. Again. So what does today's media have to say about global warming? Pretty much what I've already quoted, because they've said it all before, back in the 1920s and 1930s.
So, what does all this mean? Nothing, really. Because this time, we're assured, there is scientific consensus. It's agreed. Everybody knows what's going on. It's global warming, don't you know! Even the media is sure of it this time.
Of course, consensus can be a funny thing. In a speech he gave at the California Institute of Technology in 2003, Michael Crichton had a bit to say about scientific consensus.
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "
So when you hear Al Gore tell you that there is consensus in the scientific community that man (and not the Sun, or Earth's normal periods of heating and cooling), is responsible for global warming, pause for a moment. Remember what ABC reporter Bill Blakemore has to say about things. In his opinion, the media should not portray the debate on whether man is responsible for climate change. "I don't like the word 'balance' much at all," he said in 2006.
And remember Grist Magazine staff writer David Roberts, who said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg." Who were those "bastards" that Roberts wanted to put on trial? Just people brave enough to question the company line about man-made global warming.
And then consider the 60 scientists who in 2006 sent a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister, demanding to open up the debate on the Kyoto Protocol. They are one of those groups fighting against the scientific "consensus" that Al Gore trumpets in his slide show presentations. These scientists say the science behind man-made global warming is not accurate. They say the "confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines," but that "they are no basis for mature policy formulation." They continue to say that if "we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist."
But in spite of this, global warming alarmists and the media claim that there is scientific consensus. In spite of scientists around the world disagreeing with them, they claim there is consensus. They claim that there is just no question about what's going to happen. There's no question about why it's going to happen. They're positive.
Just like they were last time. Just like they will be again, the next time the winters get colder and the glaciers start advancing.
Note: All newspaper quotes were taken from a pdf available here: www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf
The quotes from Michael Crichton's speech were taken from the text of the speech hosted here: www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote
Last edited:
WFFaithful
Well-known member
You know, Lec, if you copy and paste the same stuff in multiple threads, more people will read your gospel.
pourdeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reaction score
- 136
True, but he has a long way to go if he wants to catch up to the opposing view. The believers act more religious than the critics anyways...the "gospel of CO2" certainly reigns supreme and must not be questioned.
The funny thing about this Obama report is the recent IPCC report specifically says they can no longer say with any certainty that extreme weather is tied to CO2 changes. If the IPCC report is the consensus view, then this Obama report contradicts it. Can any "CO2 will ruin the earth" believers square that? Probably not.
You are spot on with the IPCC assessment. The consistent drumbeat of "changers" attempting to tie independent weather events to "climate change" is taking the last shred of dignity from the "alarmists".
As we predicted a couple months back, the shrill pronouncements will flow from here on out as Podesta gets to play his chips - Clime change and Keystone.