a blast from the past and if the current cooling tends continue expect to see headlines proclaiming that CO2 causes global cooling. Or maybe they will get a dose of honesty and say "screw it just give us money, something is going to happen" http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ss-and-mild-winters-blamed-on-global-cooling/ for extra credit Fire and Ice: Executive Summary and http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12024&page=55
Another day, another climate denier myth ... and another denier myth busted. Even in the 70's, there were six times more scientists predicting warming than cooling.
what is ridiculous is the claim that there were only 68 studies on climate during the 60's and 70's. Just more cherry picking by skeptical not really science but really political propaganda for the low info sheep who need to be spoon fed their talking points for your reading pleasure the intro for this http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm a good read and a large section on the 60's and 70's please keep C&P ing sceptical , I love debunking their cherry picked BS
You can find more than 68? Citations, please. Nice job, jackdog, posting a bunch of stuff that doesn't refute Peterson 2008 in the slightest. You were wrong at the beginning. And you're still wrong. And oddly enough, you don't have any evidence to show you're right.
it is fun to sit here and watch you try and cherry pick while looking less and less informed with every post. This one took about me about three minutes. These are just the CRU's papers, start counting and figuring out which ones back up your 68 count and which ones do not. I can easily look up another University's as soon as you finish with these http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/...list.pdf/a4af44b3-4a4d-4b96-bdf7-9dceaef8c472 long list of magazine and news articles predicting global cooling in the 1970's at the end of this link, board thinks it is images and won't let me quote it http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
Complete fallacy, deceptively presented. Any statistician will tell you that trying to put together such a graph of different individual studies is completely meaningless. If I write two studies, and you only write one, does that make my point of view somehow more valid?
funny how the warmists go into panic and denial when it is pointed out that just 40 years ago they were beating the polar opposite drum was on Goddard's site and saw he had a section on 70's ice age articles http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/ link to a pdf of a old Science Week article which had this graph http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES
Please explain what position the paper “The role of science and technology in Environmental Management” takes on global warming. Please explain what position the paper "Diffusion of Nuclear clouds in the troposphere" takes on global warming. Please explain what position the paper "Birds and the weather of 1784" takes on climate change. It's pretty clear that your list is full of irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Nice job of smoke and mirrors, though. Watts has taught you well. Wow, newspaper articles. What a great indicator of scientific consensus that is. NOT! - - - Updated - - - It's not a test of validity, it's a test of consensus at a past time in history. Which was clearly in favor of warming.
prove it, I have proved that the 68 papers number in your previous post was a fallacy, your turn to fetch see if you can find more evidence at skeptical propaganda, I love exposing their idiocy
You have proven no such thing, other than there were a lot more than 68 papers published in total, most of which were completely off-topic. You have not yet shown that there were more than 68 papers published that addressed future trends. And you have not even come close to showing that there were more than 7 papers published 1965-79 that predicted global cooling. So you're still losing.
you keep moving goal posts every time I prove you wrong, that's a pretty poor debate technique used by the ones losing and the only losers here are the progressives who think that the elite politicians give a crap about the lapdogs who shill for them
No, it's not. Another logical fallacy. Number of published studies does not necessarily indicate a connection to consensus. And furthermore, even if such a "consensus" existed, that in itself is not necessarily meaningful. Many of these "scientists" are just taking someone else's word for it and never bothered to independently and non-biasedly look through the available evidence themselves and come to their own conclusions. There is something called publication bias. If you form all your beliefs based on the evidence that is handed to you on a silver plate, that's not really independent thinking.
Try telling that to any polling organization. Or anyone with a background in statistics. You will be laughed out of the room. It is when deniers continually and falsely claim that the reverse consensus existed. In that case, it is very meaningful that there was a consensus, because it's yet-another indicator that climate deniers have lost touch with reality. Except for the pro-cooling scientists, who were 100% thinking on their own? What a load of crap you invent, and what a lack of evidence you have to support it.
I think the point is scientists are not infallible and consensus is just a false argument. In the 1800's getting rd of the bad blood was thought to cure disease 100 years from now people will wonder why we devastated our economies and made our citizens suffer over a insignificant trace gas
living up to your name again, got any thing besides diversions ? Still waiting on your grand plan to get CO2 down to 270 PPM without wiping out the human race and waiting a few hundred years
I thought that was his entire point? Pretend to have a solution, hope no one notices that it signifies nothing but impotence and hide the true anti-human bias behind it?
