PDA

View Full Version : Environment Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming


SNR
09-15-2011, 01:57 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214181/20110915/ivar-giaever-global-warming-climate-change-al-gore-ipcc-hoax-dissent-nobel-prize-winner-physicist-re.htm


Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on Sept. 13, 2011, condemning the group's official stand on global warming.

In 2007, the APS adopted an official statement that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities were changing the atmosphere in ways that affected the Earth's climate.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring," the APS stated. "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

Giaever, an 82-year-old Norwegian, sent an e-mail to APS official Kate Kirby announcing his abrupt resignation. He said he "cannot live with the statement" on global warming, and said that global temperature had been "amazingly stable."

Climate Depot, a site that questions manmade global warming, said it has obtained a copy of the letter.

In his resignation note, Giaever wrote: "In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Giaever, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., a professor at large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied BioPhysics Inc.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Giaever declared himself a dissenter in 2008, "I am a skeptic... Global warming has become a new religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.

"Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money," he added.

Giaever is one of the most prominent scientists named in the 2007 Minority Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (updated in 2009) originally citing support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and growing to 700. He was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009, letter to President Barack Obama which criticized his stance on global warming.

mlyonsd
09-15-2011, 02:18 PM
Probably walks around with a pocketful of these....http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/public/DsMk4JRKiCIn8VhuxinBnc270CsAVwo2SKgIdnA_33tUHXuQM1LRMZOiQUP_2KVPdj07lxcI6uUe0PVbQ8voVSpLCfCWrKAHQ3L2 qCwHkoeMvNijn3n7i9kNq_L5Q-3dS-lCd7ncSyzQ5QJOoqNLIC1ZIX4Q_GWC4MxuHZuP-ydiU2VaB0XRl9evGg (http://www.google.com/products?q=brachs+butterscotch+candy&hl=en) /believers

KILLER_CLOWN
09-15-2011, 02:19 PM
Crackaz' be shakin'

Donger
09-15-2011, 02:29 PM
Why isn't this easy?

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to pull up some of the dire predictions from the 1990s and see if they were accurate or not, right?

Huffmeister
09-15-2011, 05:11 PM
I had almost forgotten all about the hole in the ozone layer. With all of the hype and dire predictions surrounding it in the late 80s and early 90s, how come we never hear about it anymore? Maybe Kurt Cobain fixed it on his way to heaven. Thanks Kurt!

Dave Lane
09-15-2011, 05:23 PM
I think even the biggest simpleton in the world must realize that the masses of carbon and other pollutants humans are pumping into the atmosphere MAY have consequences down the road. I think its odd the article is 1 guy leaves instead of 55,000 stay, but whatever. I'm concerned about it and think it deserves to be studied but I think short term there won't be anything drastic to be concerned with.

mikey23545
09-15-2011, 05:57 PM
Hey Al, is that the sound of consensus I hear?

mikey23545
09-15-2011, 05:58 PM
I think even the biggest simpleton in the world...

I don't think it's sound reasoning to use yourself as proof...

SNR
09-15-2011, 06:04 PM
I think even the biggest simpleton in the world must realize that the masses of carbon and other pollutants humans are pumping into the atmosphere MAY have consequences down the road. I think its odd the article is 1 guy leaves instead of 55,000 stay, but whatever. I'm concerned about it and think it deserves to be studied but I think short term there won't be anything drastic to be concerned with.
In his resignation note, Giaever wrote: "In the APS, it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"I think his biggest beef is the fact that the organization makes statements like this about conclusions, and not about data and evidence. He's pissed that the organization has already deemed man-made global warming as incontrovertible.

jjjayb
09-15-2011, 06:10 PM
Am I the only one who remembers being scared to death as a kid in the 70's that we were all going to die because of the "next Ice age" that man was causing? Have we all forgotten this so quickly?

And for those of you who weren't born yet, yes, that's what we were taught in the 70's. That the earth was cooling because of pollution and we were going to have a man made Ice age.

orange
09-15-2011, 06:29 PM
We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago...

... And we acted on them.

History of acid rain in the United States
Since 1998, Harvard University wraps some of the bronze and marble statues on its campus, such as this "Chinese stele", with waterproof covers every winter, in order to protect them from erosion caused by acid rain (or, actually, acid snow)[16]In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed an Acid Deposition Act. This Act established a 18-year research program under the direction of the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). NAPAP looked at the entire problem. It enlarged a network of monitoring sites to determine how acidic the precipitation actually was, and to determine long term trends, and established a network for dry deposition. It looked at the effects of acid rain and funded research on the effects of acid precipitation on freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, historical buildings, monuments, and building materials. It also funded extensive studies on atmospheric processes and potential control programs.

In 1991, DENR provided its first assessment of acid rain in the United States. It reported that 5% of New England Lakes were acidic, with sulfates being the most common problem. They noted that 2% of the lakes could no longer support Brook Trout, and 6% of the lakes were unsuitable for the survival of many species of minnow. Subsequent Reports to Congress have documented chemical changes in soil and freshwater ecosystems, nitrogen saturation, decreases in amounts of nutrients in soil, episodic acidification, regional haze, and damage to historical monuments.

Meanwhile, in 1989, the US Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide. One power plant in New England (Merrimack) was in Phase I. Four other plants (Newington, Mount Tom, Brayton Point, and Salem Harbor) were added under other provisions of the program. Phase II began in 2000, and affects most of the power plants in the country.

During the 1990s, research continued. On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This rule provides states with a solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern United States. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70 percent and NOx emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels.[17]

Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[18][19] However, this was significantly less successful than conventional regulation in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.[20]

In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[21]

The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_in_the_United_States

That's why we don't hear so much about it anymore.

... and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.

... And we acted on those warnings, too.

First Signs of Ozone-Hole Recovery Spotted
Antarctic ozone layer bouncing back after the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons.

| May 16, 2011 | 4

By James Mitchell Crow of Nature magazine

The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is starting to heal, say researchers in Australia. The team is the first to detect a recovery in baseline average springtime ozone levels in the region, 22 years after the Montreal Protocol to ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related ozone-destroying chemicals came into force.

Each spring, those chlorine- and bromine-releasing chemicals eat a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic. Thanks to the Montreal agreement, levels of anthropogenic ozone depleters detected in the region's stratosphere have been falling since around the turn of the millennium. However, detecting any corresponding ozone recovery has been difficult.


That difficulty is down to significant natural variations in average Antarctic stratospheric springtime ozone levels from year to year, which mean that the hole can be small one year and large the next. Scientists did not expect to be able to detect the gradual recovery of ozone for decades, masked as it is by these dramatic swings.


However, Murry Salby, an environmental scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues have now shown how this annual fluctuation can be accounted for -- and so removed from the data. They are left with the underlying systematic change in Antarctic ozone levels. Salby's calculations reveal that the levels are now rising; the findings are published in Geophysical Research Letters.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-signs-of-ozone-hole-recovery-spotted

That's why the ozone hole isn't the problem it was.


"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man.

No, you're becoming an old crank, is what you are.

Hopefully, fifty years from now some old crank CPers will be griping about the global warming catastrophe that never came about - ignoring that we acted on the warnings to forestall it.

orange
09-15-2011, 06:32 PM
Am I the only one who remembers being scared to death as a kid in the 70's that we were all going to die because of the "next Ice age" that man was causing? Have we all forgotten this so quickly?


Yeah, I bet you remember those.

What an amazing coincidence that some denialist has a ready-to-wear photoshop just for you.

And speaking of amazing coincidences and nostalgia - what do eugenics and climate denialism have in common? Anyone?

SNR
09-15-2011, 07:16 PM
Hopefully, fifty years from now some old crank CPers will be griping about the global warming catastrophe that never came about - ignoring that we acted on the warnings to forestall it."We acted on the warnings"

Is China included in that "we"? Because they don't seem to be doing shit about their air pollution and green energy production. They pose a far greater threat than we do if it's true that humans are causing the climate to do funny things

Saul Good
09-15-2011, 08:37 PM
"We" must have solved global warming too, then. Good work all around.

Saul Good
09-15-2011, 08:39 PM
I think even the biggest simpleton in the world must realize that the masses of carbon and other pollutants humans are pumping into the atmosphere MAY have consequences down the road. I think its odd the article is 1 guy leaves instead of 55,000 stay, but whatever. I'm concerned about it and think it deserves to be studied but I think short term there won't be anything drastic to be concerned with.

Maybe the 55,000 have to stay for their own credibility. This guy isn't just another member. He's a Nobel Laureate, and he's old. He can leave without facing any real repercussions because his work stands on its own. The rest can't break ranks without ramifications.

mikey23545
09-15-2011, 08:50 PM
Yeah, I bet you remember those.

What an amazing coincidence that some denialist has a ready-to-wear photoshop just for you.

And speaking of amazing coincidences and nostalgia - what do eugenics and climate denialism have in common? Anyone?

I certainly remember it.

Want to challenge <i>my</i> memory?

Oh, and there is a big difference between eugenics and climate "denialism" (whatever the fuck that means)...

The idea of eugenics was advocated by progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger...

alpha_omega
09-15-2011, 08:58 PM
Of course you've got some good grillwork there to keep out the ozone. I gotta get this thing up to 95, uh, check out the fluorocarbon output.

orange
09-15-2011, 09:22 PM
I certainly remember it.

Want to challenge <i>my</i> memory?


Yes, I do. Tell me all about it. Everything you "remember."

The idea of eugenics was advocated by progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger...

... and Nobel Laureate in Physics (stepping way out of his field, just like Giaever) William Shockley. Just for those who think that a Nobel Laureate in Physics matters in unrelated fields.

orange
09-15-2011, 09:28 PM
"We" must have solved global warming too, then. Good work all around.

I can't imagine why you would think that. You have some sort of evidence that global warming has stopped? If so, the deniers need to hear from you...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

... I mean, they've acknowledged it while denying human cause. But if you can prove there isn't any, they really need to hear from you. You could break this thing wide open....

mikey23545
09-15-2011, 09:52 PM
Yes, I do. Tell me all about it. Everything you "remember."

Care to be a little more specific, liar?

I was just out of high school (1975? 76?) and I think it was after some cold-ass winter that Popular Science (which I loved years ago) had an article or two about a possible ice age in the near future. I also remember it being mentioned on tv, maybe something like CBS Evening News?

Let me guess - your parents had just received permission to plan your conception from Abbie Hoffman, right?


... and Nobel Laureate in Physics (stepping way out of his field, just like Giaever) William Shockley. Just for those who thinks that a Nobel Laureate in Physics matters in unrelated fields.

Even you aren't so ignorant that you can't see how physics and atmospheric science are far more closely related than physics and liberal-sponsored genocide.

orange
09-15-2011, 10:02 PM
Care to be a little more specific

Why don't you? I asked you for everything you remember - and that's all you can come up with? LMAO
I guess you were just staying up at nights terrified, just like jjjayb. So much that you've blanked the whole experience out.


Let me guess - your parents had just received permission to plan your conception from Abbie Hoffman, right?


I'm 53, fool. I was in college in 75-78. And if you think Abbie Hoffman was relevant in that era, you really don't remember shit - about anything - do you?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-15-2011, 10:52 PM
At 31 seconds into the video, Al Gore is claiming that Big Oil and Big Coal are spending millions of dollars to promote lies about the climate, and one of the illustrations of the "lies" is a sign at right saying "CO2 is natural". The Al Gore implication being that CO2 is NOT natural, which is absurd.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PY-mboZkhD0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PY-mboZkhD0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Jaric
09-16-2011, 07:55 AM
I think even the biggest simpleton in the world must realize that the masses of carbon and other pollutants humans are pumping into the atmosphere MAY have consequences down the road. I think its odd the article is 1 guy leaves instead of 55,000 stay, but whatever. I'm concerned about it and think it deserves to be studied but I think short term there won't be anything drastic to be concerned with.

Simply not accepting the Global warming theory (or whatever it's called now) as fact doesn't mean a person wants to just pump pollution into the air.

jjjayb
09-16-2011, 12:35 PM
Yeah, I bet you remember those.

What an amazing coincidence that some denialist has a ready-to-wear photoshop just for you.

And speaking of amazing coincidences and nostalgia - what do eugenics and climate denialism have in common? Anyone?

I do remember it. I was there and lived it. The photoshop has nothing to do with my memory. It was easily found by doing a simple search on 1970's ice age.

Your peers may try and rewrite history, "It wasn't really the consensus" all you want. But the truth is, the mainstream media was pushing it. Teachers were pushing it in school. I was there. I had it taught to me. It was hysterics then, just like it is now.

orange
09-16-2011, 12:53 PM
I had it taught to me.

Then you must have a TEXTBOOK you could reference! Again, the climate denialists NEED your information, right now. A simple modification of your search (to 1970's ice age textbook) comes up empty.

Unless your teachers were "teaching" out of Newsweek and Time.

p.s. Am I the only one who remembers being scared to death as a kid in the 70's that we were all going to die because of the "next Ice age" that man was causing? Have we all forgotten this so quickly?


"Scared to death?" That most have been some teacher!

vailpass
09-16-2011, 12:54 PM
Then you must have a TEXTBOOK you could reference! Again, the climate denialists NEED your information, right now. A simple modification of your search (to 1970's ice age textbook) comes up empty.

Unless your teachers were "teaching" out of Newsweek and Time.

LMAO You are crazier than a shit house rat.

jjjayb
09-16-2011, 12:59 PM
Why don't you? I asked you for everything you remember - and that's all you can come up with? LMAO
I guess you were just staying up at nights terrified, just like jjjayb. So much that you've blanked the whole experience out.



I'm 53, fool. I was in college in 75-78. And if you think Abbie Hoffman was relevant in that era, you really don't remember shit - about anything - do you?

Here you go Dick. This wasn't really published?

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

http://www.charlotteconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/cooling.jpg

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID31244/images/Time-Global-Cooling.png


There was no internet for the masses back then. Al Gore hadn't invented it yet. These were major sources of news. This stuff WAS discussed by my teachers in school. I suppose I need notes from them to prove it to you?

blaise
09-16-2011, 01:03 PM
First rule of orange- flood the thread with links and pastes.

vailpass
09-16-2011, 01:05 PM
First rule of orange- flood the thread with links and pastes.

1st RULE: You do not talk about ORANGE CLUB.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about ORANGE CLUB.

3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the orange is over.

4th RULE: Only two guys to a orange.

5th RULE: One orange at a time.

6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes. No FOX.

7th RULE: ORANGE will go on as long as he has to.

8th RULE: If this is your first night at ORANGE CLUB, you HAVE to orange.

orange
09-16-2011, 01:06 PM
Here you go Dick. This wasn't really published?

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

http://www.charlotteconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/cooling.jpg

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID31244/images/Time-Global-Cooling.png

There was no internet for the masses back then. Al Gore hadn't invented it yet. These were major sources of news. This stuff WAS discussed by my teachers in school. I suppose I need notes from them to prove it to you?


So I guess your teachers DID TEACH out of Newsweek and Time is what you're saying. LMAO

Radar Chief
09-16-2011, 01:15 PM
Then you must have a TEXTBOOK you could reference! Again, the climate denialists NEED your information, right now. A simple modification of your search (to 1970's ice age textbook) comes up empty.

Unless your teachers were "teaching" out of Newsweek and Time.


So I take it your teachers never discussed current events with you? How unfortunate.

blaise
09-16-2011, 01:20 PM
So, orange is mad because some guy has an issue with them saying the evidence is incontrovertible.
He's right. Let's just keep pouring billions into Solyndra.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2011, 01:20 PM
So I take it your teachers never discussed current events with you? How unfortunate.

Doesn't matter what they said then, the Gorical has speaketh and CO2 is now as evil as Emperor Palpatine.

orange
09-16-2011, 01:20 PM
So I take it your teachers never discussed current events with you? How unfortunate.

I don't know. It didn't lead me to stay awake at night "scared to death" about trumped up hysteria (across at least six years in jjjayb's case (1974-1979) judging from the dates on those links). I'd say that's a good thing.

Mizzou_8541
09-16-2011, 01:33 PM
Wow, Orange is getting owned.

patteeu
09-16-2011, 01:43 PM
Wow, Orange is getting owned.

To be fair, he's opted to defend the indefensible side of this argument which is a pretty tall task.

Baby Lee
09-16-2011, 01:43 PM
I don't know. It didn't lead me to stay awake at night "scared to death" about trumped up hysteria (across at least six years in jjjayb's case (1974-1979) judging from the dates on those links). I'd say that's a good thing.

You scared now? Plenty are, wiping with one square scared.

Donger
09-16-2011, 01:48 PM
For the life of me, I cannot ascertain precisely what orange is trying to argue in this thread.

SNR
09-16-2011, 01:55 PM
For the life of me, I cannot ascertain precisely what orange is trying to argue in this thread.He's trying to argue with jjjayb about what exactly jjjayb's teachers taught him when he went to school.

I mean, that's only if I understand it correctly. I know orange is actually trying to argue that only a small percentage of scientists pedaled the incoming ice age theory (as well as all the other doom and gloom theories about food shortages, no oil, AIDS would wipe out half the world's population, etc.). But what it's turned into is an argument about something only jjjayb could possibly know unless orange went to the exact same school and had the exact same teachers as jjjayb.

blaise
09-16-2011, 01:58 PM
For the life of me, I cannot ascertain precisely what orange is trying to argue in this thread.

When in doubt he just floods it with text and emoticons.

blaise
09-16-2011, 02:00 PM
Right now orange is scouring HuffPost to find some article about a crazy global warming skeptic, or a Republican saying something wacky about the environment.

mlyonsd
09-16-2011, 02:07 PM
For the life of me, I cannot ascertain precisely what orange is trying to argue in this thread.I think I already predicted it.


Probably walks around with a pocketful of these....http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/public/DsMk4JRKiCIn8VhuxinBnc270CsAVwo2SKgIdnA_33tUHXuQM1LRMZOiQUP_2KVPdj07lxcI6uUe0PVbQ8voVSpLCfCWrKAHQ3L2 qCwHkoeMvNijn3n7i9kNq_L5Q-3dS-lCd7ncSyzQ5QJOoqNLIC1ZIX4Q_GWC4MxuHZuP-ydiU2VaB0XRl9evGg (http://www.google.com/products?q=brachs+butterscotch+candy&hl=en) /believers
<!-- / message --><!-- / Jeff Removed Sig -->


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by SNR http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7910887#post7910887)
"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No, you're becoming an old crank, is what you are.

Dave Lane
09-16-2011, 02:11 PM
I don't think it's sound reasoning to use yourself as proof...

Sorry, I just wanted to help protect your identity. You know I always look out for you because you are special.

Dave Lane
09-16-2011, 02:15 PM
I think his biggest beef is the fact that the organization makes statements like this about conclusions, and not about data and evidence. He's pissed that the organization has already deemed man-made global warming as incontrovertible.

I think its splitting hairs. I think its fact that humans are having an impact on the environment. To what extent and the urgency of it is debatable.

Baby Lee
09-16-2011, 02:18 PM
I think its splitting hairs. I think its fact that humans are having an impact on the environment. To what extent and the urgency of it is debatable.
ROFL ROFL

SNR
09-16-2011, 02:24 PM
I think its fact that humans are having an impact on the environment.That's not very scientific

SNR
09-16-2011, 02:25 PM
By the way, I'm not actually Norwegian. Or old. I'm 31 years old. And I never claimed I was Norwegian and/or old

mlyonsd
09-16-2011, 02:26 PM
By the way, I'm not actually Norwegian. Or old. I'm 31 years old. And I never claimed I was Norwegian and/or oldYeah sorry, I figured that was evident since you started the thread. Although don't blink because 50 is right around the corner from 31. Trust me.

SNR
09-16-2011, 02:30 PM
Yeah sorry, I figured that was evident since you started the thread. Although don't blink because 50 is right around the corner from 31. Trust me.
Way ahead of you. I was doing the irrational "Where did my life go?" shit at 25.

I value the little things in life these days. Every 3.3 yard checkdown that Matt Cassel throws absorbs my attention and awe like it was a tiny baby bunny.

go bowe
09-16-2011, 02:35 PM
LMAO You are crazier than a shit house rat.

that's interesting...

what is there about a shit house that makes a rat more crazy than it already is?

Radar Chief
09-16-2011, 02:50 PM
By the way, I'm not actually Norwegian. Or old. I'm 31 years old. And I never claimed I was Norwegian and/or old

Shut up you old crank before I trip you and you break a hip.

go bowe
09-16-2011, 03:04 PM
Shut up you old crank before I trip you and you break a hip.

LMAO LMAO LMAO :skip:

Jaric
09-16-2011, 03:46 PM
I think its splitting hairs. I think its fact that humans are having an impact on the environment. To what extent and the urgency of it is debatable.

Of course we have an impact on our environement. Every animal on the planet in some way shape or form impacts it's evironment.

vailpass
09-16-2011, 05:34 PM
that's interesting...

what is there about a shit house that makes a rat more crazy than it already is?

Living conditions

orange
09-16-2011, 07:11 PM
... so I'll just make a simple catch-all response.


My meaning is that jjjayb (and mikey later) are full of shit. There was NO panic in the '70s over impending ice age. Period. And they've heard a lot more about it in the 2010's than they - or anyone else - ever heard in the 1970's.

Clear enough?

...

I will answer SNR directly, though, because he's a good poster, and it is his thread (I'm only a guest).

I mean, that's only if I understand it correctly. I know orange is actually trying to argue that only a small percentage of scientists pedaled the incoming ice age theory (as well as all the other doom and gloom theories about food shortages, no oil, AIDS would wipe out half the world's population, etc.)

Correct.

But what it's turned into is an argument about something only jjjayb could possibly know unless orange went to the exact same school and had the exact same teachers as jjjayb.

But as I said above, I'm calling him full of shit. Because nobody taught that. It was an outlier, not mainstream at all. And jjjayb - like many here - has a history of bleating right-wing talking points. For example, that picture he posted (on page 1). Can you guess what's wrong with it?

p.s. About the whole "'70s Ice Age scare": http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

orange
09-16-2011, 07:24 PM
By the way, I'm not actually Norwegian. Or old. I'm 31 years old. And I never claimed I was Norwegian and/or old

Then I'm afraid you'll have to give back the Nobel. Wrong address.

blaise
09-16-2011, 07:33 PM
Yeah, orange calling someone out for bleating talking points.

orange
09-16-2011, 07:58 PM
Now THIS is scary:

http://www.badmags.com/images/occultsex/time.jpg

SNR
09-16-2011, 08:16 PM
Then I'm afraid you'll have to give back the Nobel. Wrong address.Bet you thought I was a Nobel winner.

Nooope.

Just Chuck Testa.

go bowe
09-16-2011, 08:38 PM
Living conditions

good point... LMAO LMAO LMAO

2bikemike
09-16-2011, 11:15 PM
I remember the talk of Global Cooling and the warning of an Ice Age. Was it talked about as much as the current Hype of Global Warming, I don't think so. But then again we didn't have 200 TV Channels and the internet back then either.

Taco John
09-17-2011, 02:23 AM
My meaning is that jjjayb (and mikey later) are full of shit. There was NO panic in the '70s over impending ice age. Period. And they've heard a lot more about it in the 2010's than they - or anyone else - ever heard in the 1970's.

"The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be coolng down. Meterologists disagree about the cause and the extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

Newsweek - April 28, 1975
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

jjjayb
09-17-2011, 07:23 AM
So I guess your teachers DID TEACH out of Newsweek and Time is what you're saying. LMAO

Are you really that dense or do you just act like it? These are just examples that can be dug up on the internet 40 years later showing what was talked about in our culture in the 70's.

Global warming is taught in our schools now and IS in newsweek. Does that mean global warming is being taught because it's in newsweek? You tell me oh enlightened one.

jjjayb
09-17-2011, 07:34 AM
... so I'll just make a simple catch-all response.


My meaning is that jjjayb (and mikey later) are full of shit. There was NO panic in the '70s over impending ice age. Period. And they've heard a lot more about it in the 2010's than they - or anyone else - ever heard in the 1970's.

Clear enough?

...

I will answer SNR directly, though, because he's a good poster, and it is his thread (I'm only a guest).



Correct.



But as I said above, I'm calling him full of shit. Because nobody taught that. It was an outlier, not mainstream at all. And jjjayb - like many here - has a history of bleating right-wing talking points. For example, that picture he posted (on page 1). Can you guess what's wrong with it?

p.s. About the whole "'70s Ice Age scare": http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm


It's the exact same fear and panic that is going on now with global warming. Are people running and screaming in the streets scared? No. Is it in the textbooks in school? I have no idea, but I do know my 5 year old son comes home from PRESCHOOL talking about global warming.

The only one FULL OF SHIT here is you.

Dave Lane
09-17-2011, 08:26 AM
That's not very scientific

Fact are troubling things. Look at all the landfills and trash floating around the oceans. There are people that think that some how humans leave the environment pristine and completely untouched? Wow I thought the holocaust deniers were odd.

patteeu
09-17-2011, 08:49 AM
Fact are troubling things. Look at all the landfills and trash floating around the oceans. There are people that think that some how humans leave the environment pristine and completely untouched? Wow I thought the holocaust deniers were odd.

I agree that humans have an impact on the environment and I give you credit for acknowledging that we don't really know how substantial that impact is. I'd go a step further and say that we don't know whether our net impact is positive or negative.

Dave Lane
09-17-2011, 09:06 AM
I agree that humans have an impact on the environment and I give you credit for acknowledging that we don't really know how substantial that impact is. I'd go a step further and say that we don't know whether our net impact is positive or negative.

That is the question of course. I think in the US overall it's probably a net neutral. But China, India, Pakistan as a few are horrible polluters of air and water.

orange
09-17-2011, 03:06 PM
bunch of SHIT


Show me the TEXTBOOK, bullshitter!

And while you're at it, see if you can show me the Popular Mechanics article mikey claims he saw.

The ones NO ONE ELSE - not even the most ardent Global Cooling claimants - can find or has ever mentioned.

You claimed earlier it's all easily findable on Internet - show a link!

And one other thing ... what was in that Time story from 1977 - the one whose cover you posted from FreeperRepublic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2518608/posts? LMAOLMAOLMAO

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm (that was 2007; a lot more now)

And since "Global Cooling" was such a big deal in the '70s, name the organizations that backed it. LMAOROFLLMAO

And while you're at it ... since it was "taught to you" and kept you up at nights, WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE THEORY? ROFLLMAOROFL

And while you're at it again:

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.

Why didn't Giaever mention Global Cooling? Surely he didn't miss such a Big Deal. ROFLROFLROFL


* full 180 degree turn included for the benefit of my Denialist friends, so the thread will actually have one

orange
09-17-2011, 03:25 PM
"The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be coolng down. Meterologists disagree about the cause and the extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

Newsweek - April 28, 1975
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Where did all the Satanists go?

patteeu
09-17-2011, 03:32 PM
Where did all the Satanists go?

I think I saw them at an Obama rally back in 2008.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2011, 04:57 PM
Good Grief, orange! You trust mostly govt sources full of scientists who need or want to keep their jobs so they lobby for funding.

BmoreBills
09-17-2011, 08:10 PM
I think I saw them at an Obama rally back in 2008.

No, that was at one of 'W's coke parties back in the 70s.

jjjayb
09-18-2011, 09:51 AM
“…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970

By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

The world will be “…11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age),” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970

"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder." - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. - Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962


The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. – New York Times - July 18, 1970

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters—the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

New Ice Age Coming-—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

“There is very important climatic change (Global Cooling) going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” – Fortune Magazine February 1974

Global Cooling quotes
In 1975, the earth had been cooling since about 1940. Fears of a coming ice age were common in the media. Climate fears have included mass starvation, mass extinction, pollution that would trigger an ice age and disease, nuclear winter, global warming, and global cooling.





If you look further back, to the years before 1940, you'll find more global warming fears. We're like cave men looking out into the rain, expecting the whole earth to flood because it has rained for days on end; then fearing drought and famine when it fails to rain over the next week.





“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” – Washington Post - July 9, 1971

“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912





"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." --Newsweek, April 28, 1975
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

“…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.





Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

The world will be “…11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age),” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.





Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923





"The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age." - Time Magazine 9/10/1923

"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder." - New York Times - January 30, 1961





Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. - Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. – New York Times - July 18, 1970

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. — Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)





Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters—the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

New Ice Age Coming-—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971





“There is very important climatic change (Global Cooling) going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” – Fortune Magazine February 1974


“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Time Magazine June 24, 1974

A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times - December 29, 1974

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. - New York Times - January 5, 1978

Argue all you want about the "consensus of scientists". This was the information the average joe received. These quotes are easier to uncover because they're in print. It was in television media as well. And it was discussed in my classes as a kid.

orange
09-18-2011, 04:28 PM
... And we acted on them.

Clean Air Act

A Clean Air Act is one of a number of pieces of legislation relating to the reduction of airborne contaminants, smog and air pollution in general. The use by governments to enforce clean air standards has contributed to an improvement in human health and longer life spans. Critics argue it has also sapped corporate profits and contributed to outsourcing, while defenders counter that improved environmental air quality has generated more jobs than it has eliminated.

much more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act

Clean Air Act (United States)

The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law enacted by Congress, and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. The Act was passed in 1963 and significantly amended in 1970, 1977 and 1990.

The Clean Air Act is significant in that it was the first major environmental law in the United States to include a provision for citizen suits. Numerous state and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal programs.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 proposed emissions trading, added provisions for addressing acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic air pollution, and established a national permits program. The amendments also established new auto gasoline reformulation requirements, set Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline, and mandated that the new gasoline formulations be sold from May to September in many states.

much, much more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

orange
09-18-2011, 04:31 PM
p.s Do you have an answer for ANY of my questions in my previous post - (#68)? - about GLOBAL COOLING, by the way, NOT your expanded list on air pollution in general -

Or did you wet your panties so much you washed away all memory?