That Newsweek article is certainly a favorite of the "no problems" crowd. But it's a Newsweek article, not a scientific publication. As for the "authorities" you extracted out of it, well, one at a time:
National Academy of Sciences
“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
Ok, but there's no prediction there, just stating the obvious. Then there's NOAA
And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
Hard to put much stock in one sentence summaries. I'd guess this measure had something to aerosols in the atmosphere, but it's impossible to make anything out of a vague reference like that. Then there's McQuigg:
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”
Maybe, maybe not. It's true that scientists should be careful about talking off the top of their heads like that, but that particular statement says nothing about a coming ice age, and the sentence preceding it just talked about increasing extremes in weather, not a coming ice age.
We're still missing any hint of the books that greenspirit hypothesized or your forced-viewing movie. |
