[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'T')hat was a good dozen years after the period I was in JHS, which was 1963-64. Which was when the popular media was reporting it, when Walter Cronkite commented on it, and when it made the rounds as dinner party conversation.

Which period is not even covered in the document you linked. Nor were any of the papers referenced even written then.

Clear miss on your part.

[Dybbuk]

Seems like the premise being argued here is "since scientists were wrong in the past, you can disregard anything that scientists say today". If that's the case, should we just throw all research findings in the trash, disband all institutes related to science, and cancel all science classes in school?

[KaiserJeep]

Nope, clear miss there. The message was that some of the same scientists that insist that AGW is real now, were equally insistent that an Anthropogenic Ice Age was upon us in the early '60's, and being a naive teenager and them being "scientists", I believed and was frightened then.

That is in fact exactly what I said before, no need to interpret anything. No need to make over the top conclusions. No need to take away anything other than some of the same people were wrong in the opposite direction before. "Before" they declared climate to be a "science" in the 1970's.

As if labelling something changed it's nature.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') am going to say this once. I was born in 1951, and I was in Junior High School when the great majority of Climate Scientists were screaming that we were about to induce an Ice Age. They were blaming a wide variety of causes, everything from paving over grasslands to acid rain to algae blooms caused by fertilizer runoffs. Some were even talking about the then new technology high altitude jets - the Boeing 707 was the popular target - destroying the ozone layer and causing the planet to first cloud up worse than Venus, and then freeze.

[KaiserJeep]

I'm very curious, what do YOU mean by "proof"?

If by any chance, you mean that I should provide links to online information that backs up what I said about the life I personally lived, then THANK YOU VERY MUCH for making the exact point I was arguing, which is that for people such as yourself, the virtual reality of the internet trumps actual reality, the personal experiences of yourself and others. Nothing is quite real for you until you read about it online, is it? That is one f*cked up way to live your life, and one in which you are practically guaranteed to deceive yourself.

For the record, I have not paid for online access to any of the four Scientific American archives. At the time, I was reading the publication in hardcopy, from the JHS Library. Nor do I feel the need to fill some of the emptiness in your head - that is in fact your job.

Have a nice day.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'N')ope, clear miss there. The message was that some of the same scientists that insist that AGW is real now, were equally insistent that an Anthropogenic Ice Age was upon us in the early '60's, and being a naive teenager and them being "scientists", I believed and was frightened then.

That is in fact exactly what I said before, no need to interpret anything. No need to make over the top conclusions. No need to take away anything other than some of the same people were wrong in the opposite direction before. "Before" they declared climate to be a "science" in the 1970's.

As if labelling something changed it's nature.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I')'m very curious, what do YOU mean by "proof"?

If by any chance, you mean that I should provide links to online information that backs up what I said about the life I personally lived, then THANK YOU VERY MUCH for making the exact point I was arguing, which is that for people such as yourself, the virtual reality of the internet trumps actual reality, the personal experiences of yourself and others. Nothing is quite real for you until you read about it online, is it? That is one f*cked up way to live your life, and one in which you are practically guaranteed to deceive yourself.

For the record, I have not paid for online access to any of the four Scientific American archives. At the time, I was reading the publication in hardcopy, from the JHS Library. Nor do I feel the need to fill some of the emptiness in your head - that is in fact your job.

Have a nice day.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I')'m very curious, what do YOU mean by "proof"?

If by any chance, you mean that I should provide links to online information that backs up what I said about the life I personally lived, then THANK YOU VERY MUCH for making the exact point I was arguing, which is that for people such as yourself, the virtual reality of the internet trumps actual reality, the personal experiences of yourself and others. Nothing is quite real for you until you read about it online, is it? That is one f*cked up way to live your life, and one in which you are practically guaranteed to deceive yourself.

For the record, I have not paid for online access to any of the four Scientific American archives. At the time, I was reading the publication in hardcopy, from the JHS Library. Nor do I feel the need to fill some of the emptiness in your head - that is in fact your job.

Have a nice day.

[KaiserJeep]

It rose above pop sci, and it was selected by my exceptionally talented Science instructor as a week-long topic when we studied climate and weather. Walter Cronkite discussed it on CBS Evening News, when they called him the "most trusted man in America".

It was almost as real as nuclear war, in a time when a lot of people had Fallout Shelters, like the one in our backyard. Four years after that, discussing Moby Dick in a sweltering "temporary classroom" in Virginia, I was wishing for some Ice Age, and beginning to realize we might still have a few years of life before the ice came.

The take-away life lesson: Be wary of men in white lab coats, prophesying climate changes.

Thank you, Lore, for confirming my opinion about you. Nothing is real but the Internet, and you have your head entirely within it.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'T')hat was a good dozen years after the period I was in JHS, which was 1963-64. Which was when the popular media was reporting it, when Walter Cronkite commented on it, and when it made the rounds as dinner party conversation.

Which period is not even covered in the document you linked. Nor were any of the papers referenced even written then.

Clear miss on your part.

[Tanada]

People need to take a step back from the accusatory language on this thread.

Human memory is an imperfect resource to draw upon. Often when a trusted source tells us something and a lot of time passes our memory puts that knowledge in the 'Trusted' file and refiles it as something known for as long as we can remember ever hearing about whatever the topic is.

When the human later discusses the topic their personal memory says X happened at Y time. Usually they are wrong, but their memory tells them they are correct. For myself I first got exposed to the environmental movement around single digit age because one of my older teen age sisters had environmentalist posters on the walls of her bedroom that I saw frequently. Later in life, in High School or College, I saw a short movie based on the book Silent Spring. I looked it up once and I could not have seen the movie any earlier because it had not been made yet. However in my memory I think I saw it in elementary school. My memory is faulty because it links a long held belief with a later event that supports that belief. That does not make me a liar or a deceiver, it makes me a normal human being.

When discussing personal memories we should always presume the person speaking fully believes their own memory is correct. Sometimes pointing out an error of date will cause them to realize they are not remembering facts correctly, but more often you will just cause them to dig in their heels and conclude you are a nasty person because you are challenging their personal memory experience.

In the end accusations of ly8ing about memory accomplish nothing and waste your time. I urge all participants to keep this in mind in the future.

[Lore]

That's why I always check and recheck my sources.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'T')he message was that some of the same scientists that insist that AGW is real now, were equally insistent that an Anthropogenic Ice Age was upon us in the early '60's

[KaiserJeep]

Look, I have a distinct memory of discussing this topic in Junior High School in 1963-64. I remember my lab partner Stephanie's amazing blue eyes. I remember the Science instructor Mr. Riley, smiling because he had found a subject with some traction to hang his lessons on. I remember discussing with my parents how untenable life in Southern Illinois might become when the glaciers came - and they knew what the issue was, it had widespread publicity at that time.

I am not wrong about this. The fact that the rest of you doubt this, because you cannot find corroborating evidence online, is simply another indicator of how sick our popular online culture is. It is now possible to edit reality online and even if that online reality diverges from the printed texts, you are all ready to accept the online version and declare that to be your reality.

I remember a time not so long ago, when the internet could not be used as a reference, the only acceptable sources were written and printed journals. Well, the truth to BS ratio has declined since that time, and for some of you, the BS online world is the only true reality that you will acknowledge.

The online world is a better opiate for the masses than even television.

Right now, I will make a prediction. Within two decades, there will be more reporting of virtual news than real news describing real events in the real world. Shortly after that, it will become possible to synthesize a political candidate digitally, and optimize that candidate for each local market, and the best online synthesist will see his virtual candidate win. If there is any public face put forward, that person will be an actor.

The direct election of candidates, taking the Electoral College and unpredictable people out of the equation, was already proposed last time around. Oregon tried an online election, even. See how much further it goes this time.

Clearly, humans are now organizing into a cybernetic hive mind. There are times when I think, OMG, what have I done.

[Lore]

I have a clear memory on this as well and the fact that we only have your word with no references does not bode well for your argument. I've pointed to mine. Sorry if you want to ignore them. Yours on the other hand is essentially a disjointed spread out mishmash of personal experiences. Which is fine, but if you want to make a definitive case for why we should ignore today's science based on the distend past, you'll have to do better.

Rambling off into talk about cybernetic hive minds doesn't help the discussion either.

[Dybbuk]

Back in the early 60's, there wasn't the glut of "information" bombarding us that we see today. So something that wasn't a big deal might seem like a big deal in retrospect, because it didn't have as much other stuff to compete against for the typical person's attention span, unlike today.

But regardless, a better question is, why does it matter? What's the relevance to today's topics whether a few scientists and media outlets were wrong about something 50 years ago?

[KaiserJeep]

Well, the biggest reason I can think of, is that those same scientists - and others who are younger but just as fallible, might be just as wrong today.

The history of science is replete with examples of where the majority of scientists - even in some cases everybody except one man - were completely and totally wrong about a topic.

It's nothing more than in another few years we will know so much more than we know now, that a new understanding will unfold, something we cannot conceive of today.

I am convinced that the day will come - within the short lifetime remaining to an old fart like me, that the present controversy over AGW will be resolved - and that the present crop of true believers will be revealed to be fools.

An amusing lot, mind you - but still fools.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'L')ook, I have a distinct memory of discussing this topic in Junior High School in 1963-64. I remember my lab partner Stephanie's amazing blue eyes. I remember the Science instructor Mr. Riley, smiling because he had found a subject with some traction to hang his lessons on.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'T')he history of science is replete with examples of where the majority of scientists - even in some cases everybody except one man - were completely and totally wrong about a topic.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'W')ell, the biggest reason I can think of, is that those same scientists - and others who are younger but just as fallible, might be just as wrong today.

The history of science is replete with examples of where the majority of scientists - even in some cases everybody except one man - were completely and totally wrong about a topic.

It's nothing more than in another few years we will know so much more than we know now, that a new understanding will unfold, something we cannot conceive of today.

I am convinced that the day will come - within the short lifetime remaining to an old fart like me, that the present controversy over AGW will be resolved - and that the present crop of true believers will be revealed to be fools.

An amusing lot, mind you - but still fools.