How Texas Lawmakers Failed To Plan For Climate Change And Harvey Floods
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-texas-lawmakers-failed-plan-climate-change-harvey-floods-2583983
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Atrevido1 · 61-69, M
This is junk science.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Atrevido1 No, not at all. This isn't even referring to the more controversial research that shows mankind's industry having a hand in things - but simple fact that yes, earth is warming up.
Regardless of causes, climate is changing, and spending some effort preparing is just common sense.
Regardless of causes, climate is changing, and spending some effort preparing is just common sense.
Atrevido1 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul the eThs climate has always changed, and will always change. I believe prognosticators have been wrong about 100% of the time. I dont know if you are old enough to remember, in the 70s they were predicting an ice age and the end of the waywe live.
A hurricane is weather,constantly changing, and evolving, unpredictable
A hurricane is weather,constantly changing, and evolving, unpredictable
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Atrevido1 No, the prognosticators have not been wrong about it 100% of the time. When you examine their track record objectively, they've been surprisingly accurate, if a bit conservative.
The global cooling conjecture of the 70s really did happen. But it never got very much traction in the scientific community. Pop sci outlets probably had a field day with it like they usually do with these things, which is why people tend to cite the 1975 Newsweek article instead of any actual papers. But even at the time, scientific papers predicting global warming were far more abundant.
It's been almost half a century, and this situation has been studied increasingly more rigorously, with constantly improving equipment, models, and computing power. Confidence in the consensus has been steadily gaining as well. Science is a process, and nothing is certain. But this is our best current understanding of the situation, backed up by decades of steady research, and to ignore it is not particularly rational.
The global cooling conjecture of the 70s really did happen. But it never got very much traction in the scientific community. Pop sci outlets probably had a field day with it like they usually do with these things, which is why people tend to cite the 1975 Newsweek article instead of any actual papers. But even at the time, scientific papers predicting global warming were far more abundant.
It's been almost half a century, and this situation has been studied increasingly more rigorously, with constantly improving equipment, models, and computing power. Confidence in the consensus has been steadily gaining as well. Science is a process, and nothing is certain. But this is our best current understanding of the situation, backed up by decades of steady research, and to ignore it is not particularly rational.
Atrevido1 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul look it was not just one news source. They taught it in school. There werr a few differing opinions, but it was the global warming of the times.I was there,the ice age ever happened. Well, maybe it will, not like if anyone can predict things.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Atrevido1 It's extremely strange that anyone would teach that in school. There wasn't a single year that even ten papers came out supporting that conjecture. Maybe your teacher was doing some kind of a speculative science thing, or someone brought in a newsweek article or something. I doubt anything with so little support ever made it into the textbooks.
It was not the global warming of the times, by any means. Hell, global warming had tons more support even at the time - but that theory too, shouldn't have made it down to high school, etc. It too was too new.
It was not the global warming of the times, by any means. Hell, global warming had tons more support even at the time - but that theory too, shouldn't have made it down to high school, etc. It too was too new.
Atrevido1 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul 1974 earth and space science. West high school. We made a big joke because it is so hot in Phoenix. One kid wore a parka to school the next day. Mr Howl explained it wouldn't happen for a long long time
Atrevido1 · 61-69, M
You know. History is often revised. Even scientists are not above doing this
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Atrevido1 It's hard to revise history, when every single university has a complete archive of the relevant scientific journals.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
There's the most comprehensive survey of 70s scientific literature on the two topics. I actually read the original graph wrong. Between '65-'79 a total of 7 papers were published that predicted global cooling. Seven. That's not any kind of consensus, that's a conjecture in its infancy.
I have no idea how that made it into your classroom. Are you sure someone didn't get it out of some pop-sci article? There was some sensational Time article put out in '74.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
There's the most comprehensive survey of 70s scientific literature on the two topics. I actually read the original graph wrong. Between '65-'79 a total of 7 papers were published that predicted global cooling. Seven. That's not any kind of consensus, that's a conjecture in its infancy.
I have no idea how that made it into your classroom. Are you sure someone didn't get it out of some pop-sci article? There was some sensational Time article put out in '74.
Atrevido1 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul maybe MrHowell was mad man. Hahaha
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Atrevido1 Wouldn't surprise me. I've had some science teachers in high school that were probably less scientifically literate than I was at the time. And a pot-smoking hippie of a government teacher. All kinds out there.
Pop-sci articles are dangerous too, they are catchy, present speculative research in sensational terms, and aren't written by scientists. Clickbait in printed form. On the flipside, they often get people interested in the various fields, so who knows.
Pop-sci articles are dangerous too, they are catchy, present speculative research in sensational terms, and aren't written by scientists. Clickbait in printed form. On the flipside, they often get people interested in the various fields, so who knows.