Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Well, those were my gallivanting years Waldo and my recollection is different than what you describe. To my memory, it was NOT just a fringe opinion! So, the question is really how popular was this idea with the public. Even as such, you have to admit that global warming as a popular idea has been in the popular mindset for much longer and with more impact than the ice age idea ever was. By your own 'time magazine' metric, here are covers devoted to global warming - after only a quick Google search: http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/europe/2000/20000904_400.jpg http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2006/1101060403_400.jpg http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2001/1101010409_400.jpg http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/asia/2005/20051003_400.jpg http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/time-mag-gw-cover-001.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FC8gINNkL._SL500_AA300_.jpg http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4012/4595793174_c4beef86a6_z.jpg Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 If we're talking about the last 15 or so years, why is their graph in 50 year increments? Oh that's right, because it wouldn't show what they want it to show. It's not in 50 year increments. The X axis is marked for 50 years, with hash marks for every decade but that's just the label on the graph. You can see that the lines move up and down within the decades, they appear to be annual averages. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Keepitsimple Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Huh ? There is a graph on that page. MET site Huh? As I said.....the graph goes from 1850 to current......you can't really see what's happened in the last 15 years - but to look at it, you can imagine that it hasn't moved much. Why not rerbut by providing the actual data for the last 15 years - which was the argument? Edited February 4, 2012 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Huh? As I said.....the graph goes from 1850 to current......you can't really see what's happened in the last 15 years - but to look at it, you can imagine that it hasn't moved much. Why not rerbut by providing the actual data for the last 15 years - which was the argument? You can see it here pretty easily. Looks like a slight increase. When you say 'actual data' do you mean source data from NOAA, NASA and the Met office ? Let me see if that's easy to find. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Looks like you can get the NASA data on this page... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 But there wasn't any political push at all after the so-called 1970s ice age scare. Strange, that.Not strange at all. There was no money to be made or ideological agenda to push. This is not true when it comes to CO2 mitigation since the pushed policies are invariably schemes for massive redistribution of wealth - all of which happen to align very nicely with some political agendas. The fact is a lot of this so called data is a like a ink blot test. It can mean whatever the "consensus" decides it means so if there is an incentive to believe in a certain interpretation you will find the scientists will adopt that interpretation. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Not strange at all. There was no money to be made or ideological agenda to push. This is not true when it comes to CO2 mitigation since the pushed policies are invariably schemes for massive redistribution of wealth - all of which happen to align very nicely with some political agendas. Separate to the ideology, the criticism I hear with regards to warming is that scientists have to chime in to group-think in order to get funding. Why wouldn't this have happened with cooling ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) So, the question is really how popular was this idea with the public. Even as such, you have to admit that global warming as a popular idea has been in the popular mindset for much longer and with more impact than the ice age idea ever was. By your own 'time magazine' metric, here are covers devoted to global warming - after only a quick Google search: Sorry Micheal but the resolution of my screen or perhaps my old eyes is simply not good enough to show the dates on these Time covers. You say that the warming idea is older and pre-dates the Ice Age idea of the 70's. I never heard of global warming until well into the 80's! Perhaps I missed it but I truly have no recollection of it at all. That's not to say there wasn't the occasional voice from one corner or the other trumpeting global warming but certainly they couldn't have formed a very large choir or it would have been common enough in popular culture that I think I would have heard of it. These covers themselves represent only the fact that there is popular interest for media to exploit. If you could give me some of the dates of these covers it would make your point clearer to me, assuming that they are indeed covers of issues published in the 1970's. Edited February 4, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Sorry Micheal but the resolution of my screen or perhaps my old eyes is simply not good enough to show the dates on these Time covers. Bill, you are always a gentleman so I will do you the favour and inspect them myself... they all appear to be from the 2000s... You say that the warming idea is older and pre-dates the Ice Age idea of the 70's. I never heard of global warming until well into the 80's! Perhaps I missed it but I truly have no recollection of it at all. Right- the 80s were from 22 to 32 years ago. The ice age thing was strictly a mid-70s idea as far as I know. These covers themselves represent only the fact that there is popular interest for media to exploit. If you could give me some of the dates of these covers it would make your point clearer to me, assuming that they are indeed covers of issues published in the 1970's. No - they're not. I'm just saying that if the ice age was a popular idea with the public in the mid 70s, global warming has been more popular with the public by far... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 No - they're not. I'm just saying that if the ice age was a popular idea with the public in the mid 70s, global warming has been more popular with the public by far... This is all in response to my understanding of what we're talking about - the popularity of the topic. Global Warming is more popular hands down... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) No - they're not. I'm just saying that if the ice age was a popular idea with the public in the mid 70s, global warming has been more popular with the public by far... Might be true...but citing Time Magazine covers over the past dozen years is not reflective of "popular", as this medium was in rapid (desparate) decline. Edited February 4, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Might be true...but citing Time Magazine covers over the past dozen years is not reflective of "popular", as this medium was in rapid (desparate) decline. I'm using the metric that the original poster (Wild Bill) put forward, it's not mine. And it's an apples to apples comparison - we're comparing Time covers on one topic vs. another... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 I'm using the metric that the original poster (Wild Bill) put forward, it's not mine. And it's an apples to apples comparison - we're comparing Time covers on one topic vs. another... No, that's my point..a Time cover in 2005 is much less significant than a Time cover in 1975. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 No, that's my point..a Time cover in 2005 is much less significant than a Time cover in 1975. Maybe... current circulation is about 3.4 million... my cursory search found 7 covers as opposed to one... still seems to stack up, unless they were selling more than 25 million or so issues back then. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Forgive me for being so simple but I navigated to the Met Office "rebuttal" and expected to find a graph and supporting information that zeroed in on the last 15 years - but all I saw was the regular retort that it has been warming since 1850 (duh!). The comments that were submitted to the Met article are also interesting. The general thrust of Rose's article appears to hold true: CO2 continues to rise but global temperatures have been pretty well stayed the same. Couldn't help but notice that Waldo's been in there like a dog on a bone. If we're talking about the last 15 or so years, why is their graph in 50 year increments? Oh that's right, because it wouldn't show what they want it to show. whoa, hey now! Let's start over here... just where is any data/graphs to substantiate the BS your favoured British tabloid miscreant "journalist" provides to substantiate his... and only his... claim. Where's the support to back up your own purposeful misrepresentation? Really, c'mon - what's to rebut other than an unsubstantiated statement by a serial misinformer? c'mon Shady, do the right thing... change the thread title to show you were once again blowing air out your backside. Do the right thing Shady! Show some intellectual honesty, for a change... do the right thing, Shady. Change the thread title! no self-respecting fake skeptic even challenges warming - clearly you guys are both in the fringe of the fringe... well done! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Maybe... current circulation is about 3.4 million... my cursory search found 7 covers as opposed to one... still seems to stack up, unless they were selling more than 25 million or so issues back then. No, one would have to scale for population and markets between then and now. Using this flawed approach, the rest of the world's news magazine content and circulation would also have to be considered. The general argument(s) here at MLW are very biased and incestuous from the same sources and perspectives (usual suspects). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Well, those were my gallivanting years Waldo and my recollection is different than what you describe. To my memory, it was NOT just a fringe opinion! yes, most definitely, FRINGE!... that's exactly why it's called the "70s global cooling myth". We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling: An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests. Quote
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 If we're talking about the last 15 or so years, why is their graph in 50 year increments? Oh that's right, because it wouldn't show what they want it to show. how fake skeptics make deliberate misinterpretations of temperature data Quote
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Huh? As I said.....the graph goes from 1850 to current......you can't really see what's happened in the last 15 years - but to look at it, you can imagine that it hasn't moved much. Why not rerbut by providing the actual data for the last 15 years - which was the argument? what argument? Present that actual argument of serial misinformer, British tabloid hack "journalist, David Rose... where does he provide any data... any graphics... anything at all, to support his fallacious claims? Quote
TimG Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Separate to the ideology, the criticism I hear with regards to warming is that scientists have to chime in to group-think in order to get funding. Why wouldn't this have happened with cooling ?Basically if comes down to a question of whether a group of politicians/activists decide that they can use a particular scientific notion for political gain. If they can, they ensure funding is provided to promote that scientific notion. Scientists that want that funding and then motivated to provide research that attracts even more funding. This did not happen with the ice age scare but it has happened with CO2 scare. Quote
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 The fact is a lot of this so called data is a like a ink blot test. It can mean whatever the "consensus" decides it means so if there is an incentive to believe in a certain interpretation you will find the scientists will adopt that interpretation. is this you now back-peddling on your earlier claims that you actually accept global warming? Say it ain't so! By the way, you appear to have glossed right over our last exchange... is there a problem? C'mon, TimG... just say it. Say it! Sure you can. Or you could step up and provide your alternative principal causal link to CC/GW; alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2. just say it! Say it! What makes you think I have fundemental disagreements with the physical science as described in the WG1 report? I disagree with the endless alarmist spin in the SPM and feel the certainties are way overstated. I l also have issues with how teh IPCC refuses to follow its own rules. duh! I will quite readily quote, at length, the brazillion posts where you adamantly refuse to accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 emission is the principal cause of accelerated warming... where you challenge this premise, at length, ad nauseaum, while refusing to ever offer your alternative principal causal link/tie. Of course, in my junkyard dog best, I have repeatedly asked you to state your alternative and support it. Still waiting... now, if you have suddenly had a reawakening, if you have seen the light, if you have been reborn, if you now accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 emission is the principal cause of accelerated warming, just say it. Say it! Quote
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Basically if comes down to a question of whether a group of politicians/activists decide that they can use a particular scientific notion for political gain. If they can, they ensure funding is provided to promote that scientific notion. Scientists that want that funding and then motivated to provide research that attracts even more funding. yes, we're all well acquainted with your denial premise that holds to themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, etc., etc., etc. Quote
TimG Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Waldo, you are a text book example of someone who sees science as a means to push your ideologically driven agenda instead of a vehicle to learn about how the world works. Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 yes, most definitely, FRINGE!... that's exactly why it's called the "70s global cooling myth". Maybe Waldo but you haven't given me reason to change my opinion. Frankly, it looks to me like some people today are trying to rewrite history to support their present premises. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Waldo, you are a text book example of someone who sees science as a means to push your ideologically driven agenda instead of a vehicle to learn about how the world works. TimG, you are a text book example of someone who ignores denies science as a means to push your ideologically driven agenda instead of a vehicle to learn about how the world works. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.