Quoted post unavailable.
Were many scientists insisting that global cooling was a problem?
not as far as the rest of the world or the scientists at the time were concerned. From what i read it was mostly a US news-media thing.
For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
61–70 of 120 posts
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's important to you, then you should also be aware that many of the greens and various anti-nuke groups from the 1980s and onwards were funded by the Soviets. Some of these details can be found in books like "The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest Espionage Story of the Cold War".
Come on.. lol. References please.
The post you're responding to literally refers to a book.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#63It was very eye opening to see how many groups and individuals who "just want to have a debate" on the reality of climate change are funded by fossil fuel companies[1][2][3][4]. We are being lied to, and it's working. Just see the first few comments in reply to this article. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-d... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUST... [3] http…
If that's important to you, then you should also be aware that many of the greens and various anti-nuke groups from the 1980s and onwards were funded by the Soviets. Some of these details can be found in books like "The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest Espionage Story of the Cold War".
I think nuclear power is great and would go a long way to solving our energy needs, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Moreover, the soviets stopped existing in 1992, so their influence 30 years later is limited.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#64If there are solutions that don't involve authoritarian communism, I'm all ears. Encouraging nuclear seems like a really good idea.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congrats on unearthing a 1970s example of O&G disinfomation and propaganda disseminated via the pop media. You assert it represents what scientists of the time were saying, it clearly misrepresents J. Murray Mitchell: > Mitchell was a pioneer in investigation and understanding of climate change, and from the 1960s onwards sought to alert the public to issues of global warming. > In 1976 he described the conjecture of…
The part I quoted isn't about Mitchell, and the article doesn't even quote Mitchell at all. It just reports what one of his studies concludes about temperature trends. I think you've yourself been misled. Mitchell accepted global cooling was really happening and the world was indeed cooling since 1940. See for yourself, here's one of his papers published in 1975: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1…
> In balance, the net thermal impact of all global-scale pollution (including thermal pollution) is likely to be one of warming, perhaps increasingly so after 2000 A.D
So Mitchell was right all along! What is this so called "contradiction" that you are talking about?
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your first link claims Koch Industries is "a little-known, privately owned US oil company". That's the sort of lie you've got to expect from the Guardian. Quoting Wikipedia: "Koch Industries, Inc. (/ˈkoʊk/) is an American privately held multinational conglomerate corporation based in Wichita, Kansas and is the second-largest privately held company in the United States, after Cargill.[2] Its subsidiaries are involved…
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. When you look at the people who actually study this stuff for a living there is very little disagreement about the nature of the problem and the direction things are headed. Most of the controversy and the oft-regurgitated talking points about "solar cycles", "ice age", "but everyone thought it was global cooling in the 70s", etc seem to originate from the same few sou…
People keep forgetting how science works when it's convenient for them to do so. In the 70s Time reported scientists concerned with global cooling. Yes, some scientists were concerned about global cooling, but there was no scientific consensus. It was a scientific discussion. Now of course people say "scientists said" something back then and "scientists are saying something different" today - you just can't trust those darned scientists! Which of course simply isn't true but even if it were - so what? The evidence is the evidence.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#67It’s striking to me that Hacker News has a significant audience of flat earthers. Don’t look up, right? Let’s be clear, human caused climate change is very real. Rigorous science confirms this and CO2 + methane levels are now driving very visible and catastrophic weather all over the world.
You realise the nuance is in blaming where the methane production is coming from as well as the c02. There's a huge amount of shifting the "who is going to take any responsibility" which has made this pointlessly political and just wastes time and effort. This isn't helped by certain parties "reviewing" scientific data until it's massaged into narratives that they can push. (Again on all sides of whatever political s…
> has made this pointlessly political and just wastes time and effort
No, making the topical "political" really mean partisan and it's not pointless.
It's a deliberate tactic to stifle conversation and delay changes of policy.
There are enormous financial benefits for many companies in delaying the adoption of sustainable economy.
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#68What is not being posted in news often enough are the options that we have to mitigate the effects. the only thing i read is that we need yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. hence, we must start preparing to mitigate effects. instead we are caught by climate catastrophies like the current draught in europe, us and china and we are running around like headless chic…
> yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. The solution to climate change is very cheap and simple. It is a carbon tax. It is also not difficult to implement at all and will cause only modest inflation. However, the oil industry is a huge influence on governments all over the world and will throw everything at preventing this from happening. Imagine for a moment that a…
Wondering what your approach is to convince Nigerians and Indians on including a carbon tax and making their struggle into the middle class even more expensive :)
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact is that oil companies have been knowingly sabotaging the discourse and scientific process about this in a similar way that the tobacco companies kept 'having the debate' for as long as possible to not change their business model, externalities be damned. To downplay this is the real historical revisionism and lie
Quoted post unavailable.
Nobody is demanding anything be taken away. Scientists are reporting the results of their computer models.
The fix is cheap, easy and will only have a very mild inflationary effect. A carbon tax. The only losers are the oil industry, everyone else gains. This will actually reduce future inflation from crop failures, famines and climate refugee riots.
Who are these "intellectuals". Commentors on internet forums like yourself? Or are you one of the proud "ignorants"?
Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news
#70It was very eye opening to see how many groups and individuals who "just want to have a debate" on the reality of climate change are funded by fossil fuel companies[1][2][3][4]. We are being lied to, and it's working. Just see the first few comments in reply to this article. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-d... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUST... [3] http…
I'd really like a debate to be possible, but it doesn't seem so. On one side, you have the idiots who don't "believe in science", as if facts were something to believe in rather than acknowledge. On the other side, you have too many people confusing science with politics. Yes, the temperature is going up. Yes, we are guilty. Yes, fossil fuels play a fundamental role. No, the only answer is not "let's reduce fossil fu…
> No, the only answer is not "let's reduce fossil fuel consumption".
There's really no other option though, there are pretty solid reasons rooted in basic physics why CO2 capture/scrubbing are not feasible at a large enough scale to really matter, geoengineering proposals are unproven, expensive and high risk, and the cost of attempting to adapt to the sorts of temperature and sea level changes expected to take place over the next few 100 years if we don't reduce emissions would be measured in innumerable human and non- human lives. Actually we'll likely need all 4 strategies, but replacing fossil-fuel energy sources with largely carbon neutral ones is almost certainly the simplest and cheapest, and if we'd started doing so 30 or 40 years ago there'd probably be little to worry about by now.