Global climate change became a "thing" around 1975, 48 years ago. So now we have according to some less than 10 years left to reverse course and save the planet. A little math exercise for us.
The earth is 4,543,000,000 years old (4.543 billion) per the American Museum of Natural History. So the time frame we're analyzing the threat is based on .000001056% of the existence of the planet.
A little more math fun. Think about a full week. There's 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day times 7 equals 604,800 seconds in a week. So, if the planet was one week old, we're analyzing the threat based on .0064 of a second. Blinking your eyes takes between .1 and .4 of a second per Healthline.
Still more fun. About 12,000 years ago, where I am sitting was covered in a 1 mile thick glacier of ice.
Is the planet's climate changing? Yes. It has been for 4.5 billion years. Can you change it by paying loads of $$ to the government? What do you think?
started off as cooling.. that didnt happen so they switched to heating... that didnt happen so now they split the difference and call it climate change.. and destroy any body who points out the stupidity
@Heartlander it still can happen. If enough water from the melting ice caps switches off the Gulf Stream, expect average temperatures in Europe/America to plummet
@MrBrownstone There's a photo of a bunch of these environmental elites gathered at some seaside spot to warn us of the growing disaster. So somebody showed a photo of the same seaside spot 100 years ago - with the water level exactly the same as now. Oops!
"Global elites took 150+ private jets to fight climate change in Davos" If these elites believed this nonsense, there wouldn't be any such thing as private jets, or Obama moving into a seaside mansion. It's all about the elites stripping us of all our liberties under the guise of "save the environment!" One good thing is the environmental fanatics don't reproduce, since kids are bad for the environment, you know.
Yes. In the 60s and 70s, the narrative was that air pollution would block the sun, causing the next ice age. Crops would fail. People would starve and freeze to death. Then, the warmer trend began and the narrative shifted to global warming.
@PatKirby good point about the polar bears. Years ago, Al Gore was giving a talk and shilling for global warming $$. Someone in the audience pointed out how the polar bear population was increasing. Conman Al nearly blew a fuse.
@BizSuitStacy The envirofanatics will show a photo of a polar bear floating on a block of ice as proof that "We're all gonna die!! Ahhh!!" They don't mention that polar bears can swim hundreds of miles.
Can anyone argue that we cannot rely on fossil fuel indefinitely, so it makes sense to begin the transition to green energy right now, not in five or ten years. Better for us, better for our children and grandchildren. People are arguing over the truth about climate change, which is a distraction. The real point is that fossil fuels won't last forever. The time to change is now.
@graphite you keep posting pointless articles that have nothing to do with my question. What do YOU think, what's YOUR answer to my question? Why do you keep posting straw man arguments?
I'm not interested in what rich Dems think or what wealthy people on Cape Cod do. I just want to know if you think we should pursue new, more efficient and cleaner forms of energy for when fossil fuels eventually deplete (in 30+ years as you say). Can you just answer that?
@graphite so, you ask if we have to live in the cold darkness to save the environment, but then you think we should just continue basing our lives on fossil fuels and not pursue different forms of energy until fossil fuels deplete in 30 years - leaving us in the cold darkness.... 😒
@graphite I'll explain why you won't give me a straight answer. Climate activists and scientists effectively all have one goal - to wean society off fossil fuels and pursue greener forms of energy and develop new technology to power future generations.
You and your ilk ridicule the climate change community, posting memes and articles denigrating the science and suggesting climate change is a hoax.
However, as an intelligent adult, you too DO agree that fossil fuels will deplete and that the human race must pursue new, more efficient technology and greener fuels in order to power future generations.
QED; you are in agreement with the climate change community that new, greener, more efficient forms of energy have to be developed to power the world when fossil fuels eventually deplete. You both desire the same ends (because if you didn't, you'd either be an entitled moron who didn't care about his grandchildren or future family members or a complete idiot).
You can post your laughing emoji now, but you'll only be laughing at yourself.
@Willyp063 they know a substantial % will believe anything labeled "climate change." The rest are ridiculed as deniers, and then gaslighted with the lie that 98% of all scientists agree or that the science is settled.
"What scientists are telling us now is the threat of an ice age is not as remote as they once thought..." Leonard Nimoy, 1979. Oops! [media=https://youtu.be/NQSBn50o_8M]
A few did; never the majority. Here are the facts about scientific cooling predictions:
BTW, greenhouse effect warming predictions go back over 100 years.
[sep][sep][sep]
UPDATE
[sep][sep][sep]
@SW-User asks
How many were subject to peer review?
Fair question. Here's the source: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml And here's an excerpt:
S U R V E Y O F T H E P E E R - R E V I E W E D L I T E R A T U R E . One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. "Collectively," the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey "tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling" (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978). However, given that an opinion survey does not capture the full state of the science of the time, we conducted a rigorous literature review of the American Meteorological Society's electronic archives as well as those of Nature and the scholarly journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). To capture the relevant topics, we used global temperature, global warming, and global cooling, as well as a variety of other less directly relevant search terms. Additionally, in order to make the survey more complete,...
In short, that article ONLY covered peer reviewed literature (it should be noted that climate science as we know it today didn't really exist in the 1970s). There is a lot more history discussed in that article; one influential cooling paper
J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s.
However, Mitchell's data was biased towards the northern hemisphere.
It was not long, however, before scientists teasing apart the details of Mitchell's trend found that it was not necessarily a global phenomenon. Yes, globally averaged temperatures were cooling, but this was largely due to changes in the Northern Hemisphere. A closer examination of Southern Hemisphere data revealed thermometers heading in the opposite direction (Damon and Kunen 1976).
Meanwhile, other scientists were collecting much better data on prior ice ages. Climate science as an independent discipline was beginning to emerge.
SW-User
@ElwoodBlues How many were subject to peer review?
@SW-User A fair question. Short answer is all of the ones in the graph. Long answer is important enough that I updated the above answer to keep all the info together.
I'd heard of it in the mid 80s but honestly the buzz words then were around acid rain.
Here's the thing. I was an environmental program manager for a couple of years...you would not believe the tons of crap combustion engines, fossil fuels, and even digging put into the atmosphere. You can deny climate change all you want....no problem, Mr. Trump, but the number of deaths caused by these processes through other means, like cancer is undeniable.
@AthrillatheHunt Sorry....I didn't mean it as a dig really. My point is that you can be a denier of climate change and still pursue the need for clean air....as Trump has said himself....
If you notice, most of the global warming graphs start in 1979 which was coldest since about 1830. Everything is up from there. Also note the scale of the graphs make it appear much more extreme
No. The claims of global cooling were done by people who weren't scientists and were often criticized by the actual scientists who, even back then, were talking about global warming.
@CestManan Earth orbiting satellites have confirmed global warming is caused by man-made sources. Thousands of scientists and hundreds of studies have confirmed climate change is a FACT. Deal with it.
Al Gores movie...An Inconvenient Truth....but thar was made I think in 2006....He started talking about global warming in 1993....Should have listened to him then...
@graphite notice how the left is notorious for that? It's always "according to top experts/professionals/scientists/etc.", never anyone in specific; and when they do mention a name, it's some obscure researcher that no one's ever heard of.
they never cite any credible source (it's always a news article) or irrefutable evidence (there isn't any).
@wildbill83 Yep. "Critics say..." "Experts say..." and who can forget this steaming pile of bullsh**?
"More than 50 former intelligence officials said emails alleged to have been found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden show signs of a Russian disinformation operation."
@graphite they keep saying "intelligence officials" like that actually means something... like, are these the same intelligence officials that prevented 9/11, prevented a chinese surveillance balloon from flying over the country, etc.?
and whom do they define as a "intelligence official"? I know plenty of people that worked in government/military/etc. intel at some point; and many of them are pencil pushers that are dumber than a box of rocks... 🤔
SW-User
Nothing to do with American Right wing politicians. It was where the Science was leading. In papers stored in University libraries. Remember, no INTERNET then.
But he also warned that if those same levels increased by 50%, the planet would experience a warming of between 5 and 6°C, which, as Arrhenius pointed out, meant, among other things, that Scandinavia would enjoy a more benign and pleasant climate. In addition, the article also identified human industrial activity as the main source of new CO2 into the atmosphere. Although he estimated that, at the rate of emissions at that moment, this concentration would take about 3,000 years to reach, we now know that this forecast was very moderate and optimistic.
Svante Arrhenius, the Man Who Foresaw Climate Change https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/leading-figures/svante-arrhenius-the-man-who-foresaw-climate-change/
@Emosaur I am part of a group of people who are collapse aware like yourself.
Something I find especially disheartening is that since the late 50s environmentalist workers of all kinds have been sounding the alarm. So many have dedicated their lives and careers to stopping climate change and it has done nothing.
Some did. Even decades ago some understood the consequences of putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere with petrol-burning vehicle engines.
That was very few, less than 10 science papers, that were throwing that around. It was enough for the right wing and climate deniers to cling to for over 50 yrs now.
Global cooling can still happen if global warming melts enough ice to lower the salinization of sea water to the point it weakens the Gulf stream and it collapses. Resulting in a cooling of the northern hemisphere. Warming AND cooling can both take place in different areas at different times. That's why they had to start saying climate change because people were too stupid to think it was just one or the other exclusively.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
@Emosaur I get it. Or more like, “climate change isn’t real because scientists were wrong more than 50 years ago. Now that I see the results of climate change, I’m going to pretend the scientists are still wrong and go into complete denial, because I’m terrified.”
