Login



Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Im confused?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Moderator: Pops

Im confused?

Unread postby Econ101 » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 11:07:46

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 yrs from now.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it. (This statement is followed by “conclusive” evidence of shortening growing seasons worldwide). To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advanced signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather condition. But they are almost unanimous in the view the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the northern hemisphere between 1945 – 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-1972. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental US diminished by 1.3% between 1964-1972.

Climatologists are pessimistic politicians will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change or even ally its effects. Some of the more spectacular solutions include melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with soot or diverting arctic rivers. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.

Newsweek, April 28, 1975


Politicians did something to stop global cooling. They invented global warming and made it the all pervasive lie.
Econ101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 06:47:56

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby careinke » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 11:35:07

And yet, people would rather have the scientist try geo-engineering the world, instead of cutting consumption. What could possibly go wrong?
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby ian807 » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 11:37:45

Econ101 wrote:
There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 yrs from now.

Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. Even the desert gets rain now and then. It changes nothing about the probabilities or trend lines.

Seriously, if you think that most politicians and the overwhelming majority the world's scientists are all in on the conspiracy but you, might it just mean that you're clueless?
User avatar
ian807
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby vision-master » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 11:59:11

Is 2012 the galactic marker for things to come?

NASA say's........ drumroll

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
vision-master
 

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 12:05:37

Econ101 wrote:Politicians did something to stop global cooling. They invented global warming and made it the all pervasive lie.
They passed anti-pollution laws that reduced the sunlight reflecting smog over industrialized countries.

You will find some articles about that when you get to your 1980s Newsweeks.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

– Voltaire
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5516
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby dorlomin » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 12:28:20

Econ101 wrote:Newsweek, April 28, 1975
Understandable that you are confused when you get your 'science' from the media.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/down ... report.pdf

8)

See Science.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009 ... ming75.pdf
And more science.

Poor child.
User avatar
dorlomin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby dorlomin » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 12:29:54

Could the moderators please merge this with one of the many many threads of the exact same nature?
User avatar
dorlomin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 12:49:21

This reminds me of the "Climate Wars" docu. Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggbkmFIt6o
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby dissident » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 13:52:45

Holy Newsweek couldn't possibly be sensationalizing the news and feeding its readers BS, oh no. The precious media would never try to hoodwink its dear readers.

Here we see one of the primary causes of the current lack of effort on the looming climate disaster facing us. Suckers believing every piece of crap they read in the good-for-nothing media.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby ian807 » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 14:15:06

dissident wrote:Holy Newsweek couldn't possibly be sensationalizing the news and feeding its readers BS, oh no. The precious media would never try to hoodwink its dear readers.

Here we see one of the primary causes of the current lack of effort on the looming climate disaster facing us. Suckers believing every piece of crap they read in the good-for-nothing media.

Yup. Journalists. Always the sharpest knives in the drawer. Right up there with economists.
User avatar
ian807
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby Beery1 » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 16:39:03

Econ101 wrote:Im [sic] confused?


Yes. Yes you are.

Wow! Econ101 just wrote a sentence I can agree with.
Last edited by Beery1 on Wed 19 Dec 2012, 17:46:55, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
User avatar
Beery1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 20:31:15

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby Econ101 » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 16:47:53

I believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources many of the global warming folks use while spinning their fairy tail. Many of the responses above to the evidence that global warming is simply politics and not science reminds me of the old spock response: "does not compute"! 8)

The 1974 newsweek article was an alarmist propaganda article. It is written excactly like many of the alarmist propaganda warming articles are written today.

Here is an insight on the "science" of global warming:

The general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.

He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.

http://on.wsj.com/URIh9K


For all of you folks that care the article was in the WSJ. It didnt have a graph, although the graph in the 1974 newsweek alarmist article can be turned upside down by global warming enthusiasts so the future global temperature projection is pointing up, not down. :lol:

Ps. I guess the evidence meteorologists were being overwhelmed with concerning global cooling was just a little blip in the overwhelming historical evidence now "in-place" for global warming? 8O

There is again talk about soot on the arctic ice but I forget, is it good or bad for the global warming agenda? :roll:
Last edited by Econ101 on Wed 19 Dec 2012, 16:54:56, edited 1 time in total.
Econ101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 06:47:56

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby ian807 » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 16:51:28

Econ101 wrote:I believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources many of the global warming folks use while spinning their fairy tail.

OK, you got some facts and numbers to back up your position? Cough 'em up.
User avatar
ian807
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby Econ101 » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 16:59:53

ian807 wrote:
Econ101 wrote:I believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources many of the global warming folks use while spinning their fairy tail.

OK, you got some facts and numbers to back up your position? Cough 'em up.


They were supplied in overwhelming amounts by scientists in the orginal newsweek presentation back in 1974. Didn't you read that?

Plus, what do you mean by "my" position, global warming is a political tactic not a scientific reality?

I have only presented a vast scientific body of conflicting evidence to global warming through the newsweek article, enough to cause scientists and social activists alike to lament how unlikely it would be for government to save them from the certain death of imminent global cooling. I presume they meant save them by a whole bunch of new laws, taxes and environmental policies, all representing political power and favor?

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the northern hemisphere between 1945 – 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-1972. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental US diminished by 1.3% between 1964-1972.
Econ101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 06:47:56

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby dorlomin » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 17:18:19

Econ101 wrote:I believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources
You are blustering and confused.

I have shown that even in the 1970s, the National Academy of Science was saying warming was a very real issue. This was at the end of a 30 year cooling phase so the position was to run against the observed trend. Moreover warming has been mainstream for decades before that.

You article has no direct quote of any scientist making predictions of an ice age. The only named organisations are giving observational data and that is pretty much what we still accept was happening in the 70s, a long term cooling trend. It is a classic journalistic practice of interweaving statements by credible authorities with conclusions they have not drawn.

Now we have the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, NOAA, the WMO and almost every major relevant science body saying the same.

That you cannot distinguish between the statements and evidence presented by those bodies and an article in a popular press outlet with minimal attribution tells us all you are more likely to be the dancing monkey to the spin doctoring organ grinders. And like all dutiful dancing monkeys you will try to defend your gullibility.
User avatar
dorlomin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby dorlomin » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 17:23:49

Econ101 wrote:They were supplied in overwhelming amounts by scientists in the orginal newsweek presentation back in 1974. Didn't you read that?
Let me take you by the hand and teach you how too read.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the northern hemisphere between 1945 – 1968.
No statement on ice ages, just an observation we still agree with. It was cooling then.
According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-1972.
No statement on ice ages, just an observation we still agree with. There was an increase in snow pack then.
And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental US diminished by 1.3% between 1964-1972.
No statement on ice ages, just an observation we still agree with. There was a long term global dimming trend then.

You have been played like a kipper by an article I would expect a high school student to be able to dissect.
User avatar
dorlomin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby vision-master » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 17:34:34

Image

Image

BIG stone - 1st world

Closely fitted smaller stones - 2cd world (surrounded by big stone)


3rd world - ill fitted stones....

Image

Now the 4th world is ending..........
vision-master
 

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby dorlomin » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 17:52:23

Rasool and Schieder 1971 is one of the credible cooling papers.

They knew CO2 would cause warming but not how much and how much cooling would come from aerosols. This was 71 and as the decade went on, the science became clearer.

I am posting this because there was a small amount of cooling papers by science. But far more in favor of warming during the same time period.
User avatar
dorlomin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 17:59:53

Econ101 could start be reading the links provided by Union of Concerned Scientists, in particular the link on the causes of global warming FAQ (4th link down under heading of basics of global warming science).

There is no longer any doubt in the expert scientific community that the Earth is warming—and it’s now clear that human activity has a significant part in it. UCS continues to support and communicate vital research on climate change, including the human “fingerprints” of its cause, the impending consequences, and the urgent need for realistic solutions.

In the articles listed below explore the latest climate science, the evidence of global warming, and the expert scientific consensus that human activity is the major cause of—and therefore solution to—this urgent global crisis.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Im confused?

Unread postby dbruning » Wed 19 Dec 2012, 18:11:55

"Yup. Journalists. Always the sharpest knives in the drawer. Right up there with economists."

*snort* That is so awesome.

He's made his position clear, not really any point in arguing, and besides, 48 hours until we all get toasted by "Mayan Imaginary Flaming Death Balls"™ or something.
User avatar
dbruning
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed 13 Sep 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Vancouver Island

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests