[Econ101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 yrs from now.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it. (This statement is followed by “conclusive” evidence of shortening growing seasons worldwide). To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advanced signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather condition. But they are almost unanimous in the view the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the northern hemisphere between 1945 – 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-1972. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental US diminished by 1.3% between 1964-1972.

Climatologists are pessimistic politicians will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change or even ally its effects. Some of the more spectacular solutions include melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with soot or diverting arctic rivers. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

[careinke]

And yet, people would rather have the scientist try geo-engineering the world, instead of cutting consumption. What could possibly go wrong?

[ian807]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 yrs from now.

[vision-master]

Is 2012 the galactic marker for things to come?

NASA say's........ drumroll

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'P')oliticians did something to stop global cooling. They invented global warming and made it the all pervasive lie.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', '
')Newsweek, April 28, 1975

[dorlomin]

Could the moderators please merge this with one of the many many threads of the exact same nature?

[ralfy]

This reminds me of the "Climate Wars" docu. Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggbkmFIt6o

[dissident]

Holy Newsweek couldn't possibly be sensationalizing the news and feeding its readers BS, oh no. The precious media would never try to hoodwink its dear readers.

Here we see one of the primary causes of the current lack of effort on the looming climate disaster facing us. Suckers believing every piece of crap they read in the good-for-nothing media.

[ian807]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'H')oly Newsweek couldn't possibly be sensationalizing the news and feeding its readers BS, oh no. The precious media would never try to hoodwink its dear readers.

Here we see one of the primary causes of the current lack of effort on the looming climate disaster facing us. Suckers believing every piece of crap they read in the good-for-nothing media.

[Beery1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'I')m [sic] confused?

[Econ101]

I believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources many of the global warming folks use while spinning their fairy tail. Many of the responses above to the evidence that global warming is simply politics and not science reminds me of the old spock response: "does not compute"!

The 1974 newsweek article was an alarmist propaganda article. It is written excactly like many of the alarmist propaganda warming articles are written today.

Here is an insight on the "science" of global warming:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.

He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.

http://on.wsj.com/URIh9K

[ian807]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'I') believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources many of the global warming folks use while spinning their fairy tail.

[Econ101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'I') believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources many of the global warming folks use while spinning their fairy tail.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'I') believe you are forgetting that these jouralist, who prepared this article, were using information from the same sources

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'T')hey were supplied in overwhelming amounts by scientists in the orginal newsweek presentation back in 1974. Didn't you read that?

[dorlomin]

Rasool and Schieder 1971 is one of the credible cooling papers.

They knew CO2 would cause warming but not how much and how much cooling would come from aerosols. This was 71 and as the decade went on, the science became clearer.

I am posting this because there was a small amount of cooling papers by science. But far more in favor of warming during the same time period.

[Graeme]

Econ101 could start be reading the links provided by Union of Concerned Scientists, in particular the link on the causes of global warming FAQ (4th link down under heading of basics of global warming science).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no longer any doubt in the expert scientific community that the Earth is warming—and it’s now clear that human activity has a significant part in it. UCS continues to support and communicate vital research on climate change, including the human “fingerprints” of its cause, the impending consequences, and the urgent need for realistic solutions.

In the articles listed below explore the latest climate science, the evidence of global warming, and the expert scientific consensus that human activity is the major cause of—and therefore solution to—this urgent global crisis.

[dbruning]

"Yup. Journalists. Always the sharpest knives in the drawer. Right up there with economists."

*snort* That is so awesome.

He's made his position clear, not really any point in arguing, and besides, 48 hours until we all get toasted by "Mayan Imaginary Flaming Death Balls"™ or something.

[Econ101]

A flock of empty suits, all buckle no belt, all hat no cattle, all belly no oil, with their usual denegrating answers for those that dont agree, resist the truth in favor of their emotional dogma of the crack pot theories of global warming and peak oil. Both are heavily subsidized propaganda programs put in place by political forces harnessing the support of the easily led. Show a picture of a polar bear by water and arctic ice is disappearing bringing certain doom. Show a pic of a duck in oil and we have a global catasrophe, show a phony graph or list of "scientists" funded by global warming and you have "proof". Hang your hat on something as rediculous and meaningless to the world as eroei. The proof of what I say is in the pudding and I see a lot of heads full of pudding. Your dogma is politics not science.