Re: The doom and gloom liberals of the 70's....
This is too good . . from the article:
" in any case, climatologists now are mostly agreed that human impacts will swamp the effects of the Milankovitch cycles"
Those "cycles" being the Earth's tendency to transition between colder and warmer periods on it's own. (See #4 above)
"increased agriculture and burning of coal in power plants, lower the Earth's temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. Ironically, clean-air laws in North America and Europe had the effect of reducing aerosols (which cause acid rain), so the predominant influence on climate now is the buildup of carbon dioxidewhich traps the Earth's heat in the lower atmosphere and contributes to global warming."
Oh, I get it. First we spewed a bunch of stuff up there that cooled the planet, and then when we fixed that we screwed up and started heating it . . . again see #4 above. Hello, Bueller, Bueller, are you paying attention?
"As late as 1992, in a story that for some reason has gotten far less attention, NEWSWEEK revisited the Ice Age threat, this time posing it as a perverse consequence of the greenhouse effect."
Oh this is just getting silly . . . Now we're gonna cool it off, after we warmed it up , after we screwed up cooling it off in the first place. Man, I am telling you, we are (in my best Cousin Eddie) gooooooood, good, goood.
"that particular scenario hasn't gotten much attention in the last decade."
Oh, never mind. We kinda shanked it on that one . . . :=
"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today."
but, but, we really mean it this time. No, seriously, we do . . .
"And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal nowvastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical modelsrender any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative"
Sorry Aldo, I forgot # 7 above. We are simply smarter now . . . one of my favorites. Who is gonna dispute that?
"Astronomers have been warning for decades that life on Earth could be wiped out by a collision with a giant meteorite; it hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean that journalists have been dupes or alarmists "
Oh, I am sorry. I just can't stop. It blows my mind that somebody could read this and conclude: "yeah get that in the next issue, great stuff". :}
"All in all, it's probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt."
This is just precious. Remember, we were stupid then. All of the ideas today are a result of our superior smarts . . . Where's that rolleyes guy again? . . . Oh here he is:
