Posted on 08/17/2007 7:18:52 PM PDT by Reform Canada
JEFF JACOBY Hot tempers on global warming By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | August 15, 2007 First of two parts INTRODUCING Newsweek's Aug. 13 cover story on global warming "denial," editor Jon Meacham brings up an embarrassing blast from his magazine's past: an April 1975 story about global cooling, and the coming ice age that scientists then were predicting. Meacham concedes that "those who doubt that greenhouse gases are causing significant climate change have long pointed to the 1975 Newsweek piece as an example of how wrong journalists and researchers can be." But rather than acknowledge that the skeptics may have a point, Meacham dismisses it. "On global cooling," he writes, "there was never anything even remotely approaching the current scientific consensus that the world is growing warmer because of the emission of greenhouse gases." Really? Newsweek took rather a different line in 1975. Then, the magazine reported that scientists were "almost unanimous" in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that "the resulting famines could be catastrophic." Moreover, it said, "the evidence in support of these predictions" -- everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover -- had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Yet Meacham, quoting none of this, simply brushes aside the 1975 report as "alarmist" and "discredited." Today, he assures his readers, Newsweek's climate-change anxieties rest "on the safest of scientific ground." Do they?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
ping
bump
***”On global cooling,” he writes, “there was never anything even remotely approaching the current scientific consensus that the world is growing warmer because of the emission of greenhouse gases.” ***
If it’s concensus, it ain’t scientific. Science deals with FACT, not concensus.
Very hard to be consistent and faithful when your religion (global warming) has no God.
The truth is that global warming would be far more benevolent to mankind than global cooling.
we are talking about 1.8 degrees over 100 years...
does anyone else find that to be remarkably stable?
I sure as hell do.
It’s about a Fabian Socialist agenda. Evidence and facts mean nothing. Mis-leading the Sheeple means everything.
Global warming enthusiasts are "nen of zeal", to be sure. And clearly "without understanding".
But "well-meaning"? I'm not so sure...
There are the power-trippers, the crooks and the dupes. Which, do you suppose, is Algore...???
I agree with you...smart point.
Global warming caused by humans is not universally accepted among qualified scientists. And if Al Hore thinks we can do anything about it, well, he should have said that in 1900 because the world is based on oil, and that isn’t gonna change for a long time.
Even the worst characterizations of McCarthy by the Left are minimal compared to the fundamentalist, jihad like religious fervor of the warm-mongers. In rhetoric at least, and thankfully not action, they are rapidly approaching demanding adherence to dogma unseen since the Spanish Inquisition.
Before that it was wood and coal heating the American home. How much pollution do you think that caused?
NOT ONE MENTION of the NASA temperature manipulation and coverup scandal.
[does anyone else find that to be remarkably stable?]
Especially when the temperature range in our science ranges from Abaolute zero (-273 deg. C- -459F) to a hot coffee temp on the sun of a few million degrees F/C, who’s counting?
Our earths temperature ranges from -100F or so at pole extremes to +140F or so in equatorial climes. So 1.8 degrees is a pimple on Algores sizeable butt!
I am so tired of this fake “issue”.
am I wrong?
There's far too much reliance on what "scientists" say or think.
What matters is what scientifically-gathered data show.
And the MSM does not report data, only opinion.
I read the article and it’s BIG theme was that “DENIERS” based their argument on the validity of scientific data.
WHATTA SHAME! The article must have been written before NASA was forced to revise its data to show that the 1930’s was the hottest decade.
ANYTHING that depends on a model depends on assumptions.
The assumptions of the modellers has been consistently OFF.
This is such a CROCK!
And all the assumptions are biased towards worst case scenarios. These assumptions compound and make the models grossly overestimate future impacts. They are a joke. The worst thing is modellers don't even have a grip on the impact of more cloud cover. They could actually help cool the earth, but the models assume cloud cover will add to the warming.
He usually warms up after a first date... Oh, Kelvin. Not Kevin. Never mind.
By the way, who voted for these guys to be able to set the temps and climate for the whole world? I must have missed that election.
As opposed to today's hysteria??? Anyone here an echo of "WOLF!" ???
Exactly. How far is it from "consensus" to "popular opinion" and how far from there to simply "fad" ???
It was just so funny because he could have made a simple argument that scientific instruments with such capabilities were just not available then like they are now...
It is interesting that this article appeared in the Boston Globe.
RFK, Jr. is knee deep in the fraudulent “cap and trade” proposals.
"On global cooling," he writes, "there was never anything even remotely approaching the current scientific consensus that the world is growing warmer because of the emission of greenhouse gases." ...in 1975... the magazine reported that scientists were "almost unanimous" in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that "the resulting famines could be catastrophic." Moreover, it said, "the evidence in support of these predictions" -- everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover -- had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Yet Meacham, quoting none of this, simply brushes aside the 1975 report as "alarmist" and "discredited."Meachum is discredited, Newsweek is (twice) discredited, and -- you guessed it -- The Debate Is Over. ;') Thanks RC.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Wow! Thanks!!!
I thought that was the position AlGore was running for?
How can there be a consensus when they cannot get the correct temperature data on which to base it. NASA and NOAA can’t agree as to which was the warmest year in the contiguous 48 states.
-273 C = 0 Kelvin.
Like the scientists at NCI or FDA. No scientist has found a cure for any cancer yet. Yet we have spent BILLIONS on that.
Maybe we need to agree on what a scientist is or does. Maybe set a standard. Can you get a certificate or something?
Although I think you can become a scientologist... but that is another liberal scam too.
Reminds me of the mantra of the sixties...........we WILL overpopulate the WORLD and we will not have enough water and food for all....blah, blah, blah. They attempted to scare the school children with this hooo-ha. It accomplished one thing..........to support abortion which soon became legal.
Me and you both. We’re having a major heatwave in the South. A coworker came in to work the other morning and said, “this global warming is terrible.” (she’s a big lib who voted for Sharpton in last election to make a point??)
I laughed and told her it was August.
Silly silly people.
I remember being told in college in the mid 70s that we were going to run out of food and fuel by 1990 and we would have to evacuate the northern half of North America because glaciers would cover it. This is the same class in which I pissed off Linus Pauling who said we were all going to die from nuclear war because Edward Teller was promoting a first strike on the soviets.
It was 1971, me and two other GIs (Larry and Jack) were watching TV in the barracks when they announced the global freeze. “Oh no! If the VC don’t get us we’re gonna freeze to death”. We couldn’t stop laughing.
BUMP
Hypocrisy and liberal spin do not get any worse than Newsweak.
I’ve printed it out and handed copies to my lib friends. It’s fun to see the looks on their faces and then listen to the string of “yeah-buts”.
As they say each yeah-but, I quietly repeat the yeah-but so they can JUST hear it.
Yes!
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Thanks for the ping. Newsweak will try to downplay the global cooling thing but they have promoted every trend that has been seemingly upheld by science if it also could be used to bash capitalism.
RFK, Jr. has all the restraint of your average drunk.
He's the kind of guy who ends up provoking bar fights. And gets the crap beaten out of him in the parking lot.
Unfortunately, he has the office and title of United States Representative -- which is due solely to his name, not his intellect nor his temperament.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.