Time magazine cover 1975: "HOW TO SURVIVE THE COMING ICE AGE"

Coevett wrote:

You even have this weird 16 year old Danish girl becoming the 'messiah' of the faith, or rather maybe a Virgin Mary figure, telling world leaders to repent their sins and believe in her, or they and the world will (literally) burn in hell.

I have no idea who you are talking about, and even if such a person does exist, they have no influence on the scientific community and the preponderance of evidence pointing to human caused global warming (in ADDITION to whatever else might be contributing, sunspots, etc.). And virtually no one in the scientific community is referring to what will happen if global warming continues unabated as "the end times", so please try to separate informed comments from the wackos. (For example, that would be like claiming that liberals are all anti-vaxxers because of a vocal minority, or that all conservatives are, when it is also a small, but vocal minority.)

And no matter how you try to twist it, Galileo was the scientist, and the Church refused to believe the scientific facts he presented, just like you denying the facts presented by climate scientists because they don't fit your faith.

Tourism Bill wrote:

You guys been duped!!! Global warming is a expertly crafted hoax and you fell for it!!! In 20 years Time magazine 2033 will again have: "HOW TO SURVIVE THE COMING ICE AGE" - and you will again be idiots and fall for it again!!! Wake up! Global warming a huge manufactured hoax!! The leading scientists already admitted they lied about the evidence because they evidence did not support their false claims!! Wake up now?!

It's the mensheviks and their ongoing war against the West. Including the destruction of businesses and industry. They're also behind all the refugees who aren't really refugees flooding the West.

I'll say again that I have no position on climate change.

I just think it's amusing to think that human beings ever have or ever will be able to let go of religious thinking, even cloaking it now in the guise of 'science'.

The scientific community certainly doesn't seem to be trustworthy these days. When nobel prize winners and leading CERN scientists get ostracized and condemned for 'wrong think' when they say something politically incorrect about race or gender, I have trouble having complete faith in what scientists tell us, at least when it comes wrapped in an agenda like climate change. I don't pretend to understand the complex science needed to form a rational position on climate change, and I expect you don't either, or anyone on this forum. It's no different to a medieval peasant putting his faith in the the word of the Catholic priest, reading to him from a book in Latin - a language he couldn't understand even if he could read.

In my view, if climate change is real, instead of costing the world economy trillions in lost productivity due to 'emission caps' and the like, we should put billions into providing a technological solution. The climate change lobby are like the Malthusians of the early Industrial age. Imagine if the entire world had enforced a one or two child policy in the 18th century in order to 'save the planet'. We might not even of had an industrial revolution (I know eco-warrior morons would have liked that, and dream of the world being put back to a pre-modern state while they sip their caffe lattes in Starbucks posting selfies from their demos on Instagram.)

Coevett wrote:

I have no position on climate change. I just think . . .

Coevett wrote:

I'll say again that I have no position on climate change. I just think it's amusing to think . . .

Nothing says "I have no position on climate change" quite like posting to a six year old thread "I have no position on climate change" immediately followed by a position on climate change.

Quick, which prediction was the wrong one and which the right one?

You have to choose. Choose wisely. Humanity will suffer from the wrong choice.

If you choose the 1975 prediction was wrong, then you accept that the earth is not cooling but warming. What should we do about that? A lot, because the predictions show the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Look at Venus to see the fate of a planet with an overabundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The surface is hot enough to melt lead at 740 degrees K, of which 400 degrees are due to the greenhouse effect of large levels of CO2 (lots of S02 also in the atmosphere). Venus probably once had large quantities of water but it all boiled away.

https://nineplanets.org/venus.html

If you choose the predictions of the last 43 years are wrong, then you assert that the earth is not warming but cooling. What should we do about that? Nothing, because there's zero evidence to that effect.

Which prediction to choose? Easy. The one based on the most up to date scientific evidence. It's so very telling that the deniers try to obfuscate the issue by bringing up a magazine article from so long ago.

zxcvzcxv wrote:

Quick, which prediction was the wrong one and which the right one?

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? --- Wallace S. Broecker - Science 08 Aug 1975:

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

Full article:

fair enough wrote:

Pop science /= scientific consensus

It's weird how scientists deny this though. Or accuse others of pseudoscience and don't see their own ignorance.

NJ Possible wrote:

The article is real but the cover he referenced is a photoshop fake. it's called reading comprehension.

pics or shens