Sunday, March 26, 2006

Global warming or global cooling?

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

Here is the actual article from 1972

That is why is to so hard to believe anything the environmentalist say...they have no idea what they are talking about.

We will be back to global cooling in twenty years. I can't believe people who are supposed to be scientists take a very small and insignificant amount of data and form theories based on that flawed data..

Mabye some scientist of people who fund research have an agenda...

6 comments:

Jason H. Bowden said...

game--

Here's the form of your argument. "Scientists are fallible, therefore anything they say is wrong."

It doesn't follow. A proposition put forth by a scientist can be wrong. But it isn't wrong on the basis of scientists making errors in the past.

Take plate tectonics, for instance. Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift in 1915, but most scientists rejected the theory until the 1960s, when evidence of things like magnetic striping, seafloor spreading, seismic activity and so forth came to light.

The right, which was very pro-science during the time of Eisenhower, has developed an incoherent habit of liking scientists when we develop military hardware, even putting too much faith in farfetched projects like a missile shield, and rejecting science when it doesn't suit their ideological needs, like stem cell research, informing schoolchildren about the theory of evolution by natural selection, and global warming. Meanwhile the left accuses science of being a social construct that is racist, sexist, and promotes the ends of evil capitalists.

Have people gone mad?

The Game said...

science should not be political, but it clearly is.

the rhyno said...

Plus, there is way too much coorelary evidence to support a need in reduction of greenhouse gases, or there WONT be a cooling shift in the future, or as cool.

Jim said...

Good response Jason, except that I would qualify your segment descriptions to supporters of the military/industrial complex and some religious groups (on the right) and radical fringe groups (on the left).

"Accusing science of being a social construct that is racist, sexist, and promotes the ends of evil capitalists" is in no way representative of the overwhelming majority of those on the left.

More than ever, science is being politicized (read "ignored") by this administration.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Jim--

You're familiar with what happened to Lawrence Summers over at Harvard, right? He mentioned the possibility that the low representation of women in highly mathematized and scientific fields may have a biological basis, and the PC Nazis ran him out of town. Summers's comments were reasonable and within the academic spirit of free inquiry, but the left will have none of it if science puts one of their sacred idols at risk.

Another example of left hostility to science would be the observatory built at Mount Graham in 1998 -- environmentalists protested it since its contruction would lower a squirrel population. People working at the facility have faced threats of physical violence and sabotage from the eco-terrorists. Again, this is a specifically leftist behavior.

And don't get me started on how the left wants to replace scientific merit with affirmative action bullshit.

Jim said...

Yes, there are people on either side that are radical in their actions and ideas, but I don't believe it's fair to characterize the "left" by the actions of a radical few anymore than it's fair to character the "right" by the actions of the Phelps bunch.

Do you?