Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (187846)	5/31/2006 7:44:26 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thats why in the 1970's scientists were talking about a new ice age and now they're talking about global warming.* The science was correct in both cases. There is pollution which could lead to cooling, as well other pollution which could lead to warming.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (187846)	6/1/2006 5:56:11 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

hats why in the 1970's scientists were talking about a new ice age* and now they're talking about global warming. Whoops. Another myth. The global cooling myth Filed under: Climate Science Paleoclimate Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record FAQ— william @ 5:31 am - () Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though. I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try wmconnolley.org.uk. more realclimate.org