• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

114 years of Scientists Warnings about climate

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    114 years of Scientists Warnings about climate

    Time to cry WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!

    There is most certainly a pattern to climate change... …but it’s not what you may think:

    For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

    1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

    1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times

    1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

    1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune

    1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

    1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

    1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?

    1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

    1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933

    1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

    1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

    1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune

    1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

    1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962

    1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report

    1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine

    1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times

    1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969

    1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

    1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

    1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine

    1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post

    1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

    1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
    Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,
    for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the
    harbinger of another ice age

    1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975

    1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine

    1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report

    1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times

    1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context

    1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989

    1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

    1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report

    1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

    2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001

    2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003

    2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

    ** and so on, and so on...

    Etc...Analysis of the sun has revealed that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of sunspots this year.

    Sunspots release solar flares and vast amounts of magnetic energy.

    For the fourth time this year, the sun has gone blank, which has led some experts to believe that a new Ice Age is on the horizon and could hit us by 2019.

    According to Space Weather.com, the occurrence of a spotless sun is going to become more regular.

    Meteorologist Paul Dorian believes that this is indicative behaviour of an approaching Ice Age.

    He told the Daily Star: “If history is any guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom most layer of Earth’s atmosphere — and where we all live.”

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/634631/Global-warming-and-rising-CO2-levels-may-be-SAVING-humanity-from-a-devastating-ICE-AGE?_ga=1.39365028.666602943.1475773513
    Last edited by fjlip; Oct 9, 2016, 12:38.

    #2
    Have heard the cooling scenario aswell fj. Sounds like it could last quite a few years. These experts cant seem to figure out that the climate is always changing beyond our ability to effect it.

    Comment


      #3
      No!

      I bet I couldn't find any other scientific theory that's changed at all in the last 114 years :roll eyes:

      Cycle of the Earth, warming periods of climate eventually lead to things changing that lead into a cooling climate. Then the cold period eventually has changes that lead to a warming.

      The only thing that people should debate is whether they feel humans have enough of an impact to affect climate at all, not whether it's going to warm or cool. It's going to do both at some point.

      Comment


        #4
        You should post this on Agtalk - no doubt dko will be able to knock down every point with his "irrefutable science".

        Comment


          #5
          Maybe its a plot to keep people focused off the real problems.

          Comment


            #6
            Damn right Tweet

            Comment


              #7
              Great post fjlip. It demonstrates exactly why people get sucked into causes. They can easily find "facts" or "scientists" on the internet to back up their position no matter what it is. They do not even have to know who makes the claim, why they are making the claim, or even if what is written is true. If it is on the internet and agrees with their belief it has to be true.

              By the same token, this year over 100 Nobel laureates signed a letter that GMOs are safe. But over 150 "scientists" also signed a manifesto this year calling for a global ban of glyphosate. So are GMOs safe but glyphosate isn't?

              A lot of people feel farmers should not use pesticides, and organic production is better for you - including scientists, doctors, etc. So should farmers quit using pesticides?

              In the 40s and 50s doctors approved of smoking. In fact an ad was made out of a survey of over 100,000 doctors claiming that doctors preferred Camel cigarettes. Now many doctors approve the use of medical marijuana. So are you supposed to inhale or not?

              Want to read something really wild. Go to Doctors Warn Against Dangers of Vaccination (Immunisation) http://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/vaccination_doctors.html
              and read doctor after doctor, for as long as there has been vaccinations, claim not only that they do not work but are even "legally sanctioned judicial murder" (Dr. med. Steintel, 1932)

              All your post did was prove how gullible people are and how some people are willing to spread propaganda or confusion.

              Comment


                #8
                Heh, heh...looks like you got a bite Frank! Good fishing!

                Comment


                  #9
                  The climate scientists need to constantly provide evidence for warming and impending doom. That is called "job security". Drum up some bias study on man made climate change and get it published in some obscure environmentalist journal. The more they make the case for climate change the more funding they get, the more posh conferences in France, Belguim and Iceland they get to attend.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Usually the reason why "scientists" come up with these wild predictions is to obtain funding from taxpayers.
                    This one is one of my favourites:


                    1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Damn right Tweet

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The science industry has pandered to getting tax funded research grant for so long it has very little credibility left. For instance if so called scientists had been honest in the BSE crisis and said that the don't know much about it the outcome may have been very different for many cattle producers. True discoveries do stand the test of time though but have to sort out a lot of junk before we can say something is true.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Ache4Acres View Post
                          The climate scientists need to constantly provide evidence for warming and impending doom. That is called "job security". Drum up some bias study on man made climate change and get it published in some obscure environmentalist journal. The more they make the case for climate change the more funding they get, the more posh conferences in France, Belguim and Iceland they get to attend.
                          And how does that make them any less credible than the "scientist" who is receiving funding from the oil industry to refute climate change, or by the environmental lobby to protest against GMOs or glyphosate, or use of pesticides? Or even the "scientist" or "consumer" climate change denier or Monsanto or GMO or conventional farming techniques in order to flog their book or to be paid to travel around the world giving speeches about their causes?

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...