Changes in Atlantic currents

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

As with most of this so-called "science" you should apply a judicious eye to what you read. It counted papers, not scientists - for all we know, one prodigious scientist wrote 44 papers.

Wrong again. You are the one lacking the judicious eye.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong again. You are the one lacking the judicious eye.

Did you notice the number of names that repeat in the warming column? No, probably not. Frankly I'm not going to tally up names and papers, but from a cursory glance it appears there was a comparative number on either side of warming or not. Schneider appears in all 3 columns, .

None of this changes the fact that the publicly-disseminated messages at the time favoured cooling.

Originally Posted by jackdale

The MSM got it wrong. And you swallowed it.

What makes you think I believed the media then? My point was that was reported predominantly in the media at the time.

Now the media is all aboard on Globalwarmingclimatechangewhatevertheycallitnow
Any you're swallowing it hook line and sinker.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Now the media is all aboard on Globalwarmingclimatechangewhatevertheycallitnow
Any you're swallowing it hook line and sinker.

It is you, not me, that got taken in by the MSM during the 1970's. It is for that reason I rely on science journals for my science.

BTW - you can thank that GOP for the attempted rebranding.

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

[ARCHIVE] 2002 Memorandum to Bush White House, by GOP Consultant Frank Luntz (17p) | Aviation Impact Reform

[Love2 boat]

So I promise to be brief - I only read the last three pages...


How do you explain dinosaurs in Alaska - 65 million years ago. Certainly before human interference - climate issues have been and still are a natural occurrence. Do humans add to this - sure you can argue that point of view. Did we cause it? Ummmnnn no - that is all complete hog wash...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Love2 boat

So I promise to be brief - I only read the last three pages...


How do you explain dinosaurs in Alaska - 65 million years ago. Certainly before human interference - climate issues have been and still are a natural occurrence. Do humans add to this - sure you can argue that point of view. Did we cause it? Ummmnnn no - that is all complete hog wash...

CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher then (see image below).

Currently natural forcings would have us continuing the 6000 year cooling trend following the Holocene Optimum. We have been warming ever since we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

[donradcliffe]

So maybe a little warming is a good thing, or maybe we are actually getting cooler. That's why the sky is falling group has changed its focus to "Climate Change".

You can blame anything on "Climate Change", and the press and politicians have. It doesn't have to make sense, because "Climate Change" has no meaning and is not measurable. "Climate Change" is now responsible for droughts, floods, hot spells, cold snaps, forest fires, hurricanes, blizzards, and the end of civilization.

Scientists are not stupid. If you write a paper that supports this, you will get published. If you write a paper that contradicts this, you will be fired.

There are posters here that say "if we don't eliminate human CO2 emissions in 12 years, we are doomed. The only way that will happen is if we all hold our breath.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

So maybe a little warming is a good thing, or maybe we are actually getting cooler. That's why the sky is falling group has changed its focus to "Climate Change".

You can blame anything on "Climate Change", and the press and politicians have. It doesn't have to make sense, because "Climate Change" has no meaning and is not measurable. "Climate Change" is now responsible for droughts, floods, hot spells, cold snaps, forest fires, hurricanes, blizzards, and the end of civilization.

We are warming, there is no cooling




You can thank that GOP for the attempted rebranding.

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

[ARCHIVE] 2002 Memorandum to Bush White House, by GOP Consultant Frank Luntz (17p) | Aviation Impact Reform

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Scientists are not stupid. If you write a paper that supports this, you will get published. If you write a paper that contradicts this, you will be fired.

Name one person who lost their job for their views on climate change.

I can actually do so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...gram-director/

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

There are posters here that say "if we don't eliminate human CO2 emissions in 12 years, we are doomed. The only way that will happen is if we all hold our breath.

No climate scientist has made that statement. Which poster made the claim?

BTW the air we exhale has nothing to do with global warming.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/en...lem-far-global

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Love2 boat

So I promise to be brief - I only read the last three pages...
How do you explain dinosaurs in Alaska - 65 million years ago...

What do you think that the presence of dinosaurs, in Alaska, suggests?

I think it may suggest that dinosaurs may have been warm blooded, and able to survive freezing winters, snow, and months of darkness.

I doubt, very much, that it has anything to do with changes in Atlantic currents.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Love2 boat

How do you explain dinosaurs in Alaska - 65 million years ago. Certainly before human interference

Conoco Philips used their time machine to go back and bury them there, so that they could pump, refine and sell them today.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher then (see image below).

Currently natural forcings would have us continuing the 6000 year cooling trend following the Holocene Optimum. We have been warming ever since we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Quoting yet more revisionist history JD?


Your rose coloured graphs "hide the decline" of past glaciation periods.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Quoting yet more revisionist history JD?


Your rose coloured graphs "hide the decline" of past glaciation periods.

That graphic is based on 692 data sets from 648 locations world-wide.

The last glaciation was prior to the start of that data set.

The 6000 year cooling from the Holocene Optimum is clearly visible as is the abrupt reversal of the cooling at the start the Industrial Revolution.

[jeanathon]

I love how this has gotten out of hand, but I must ask all of you how does me being drunk affect this thread? It doesn't!
One think I like about listening to the "news" now a days. They will proclaim it hasn't been this hot since the 1930's and that is due to global climate something. I and any one with a brain must ask why was it so hot in the 1930's before climate whatever....?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

I love how this has gotten out of hand, but I must ask all of you how does me being drunk affect this thread? It doesn't!
One think I like about listening to the "news" now a days. They will proclaim it hasn't been this hot since the 1930's and that is due to global climate something. I and any one with a brain must ask why was it so hot in the 1930's before climate whatever....?

It was hot in America - not globally.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It was hot in America - not globally.

The revisionary history lesson continues...

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Scientists are not stupid. If you write a paper that supports this, you will get published. If you write a paper that contradicts this, you will be fired.

Scientists who write papers, or do research, that reaches conclusions that are not supported by evidence that can be validated or replicated by their peers will find it hard to get employment with reputable facilities or universities... unless they are looking for employment with a media outlet that is looking for an "expert" to bolster their political opinions.