• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Earliest mention of Climate Change in the media

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,556
Reaction score
28,921
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Didn't Humboldt note climate change and predict global warming many years ago?
 
Threegoofs said:
This is impressive.

We know AGW had been discussed in the 80s, and even (despite denier confusion) in the 60s and 70s, and I believe I posted a TV clip here from the late 50s.

But Andrew Revkin found a great one... going back to 1912.

News Coverage of Coal’s Link to Global Warming, in 1912 - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

I like this post because the "They changed from calling it Global Warming to Climate Change." argument is only sort of true,
and besides, so what? The "CC" in "IPCC" stands for Climate Change. The whole thing is based on the warming effect from CO2,
and after nearly 30 years of argument, it's difficult to say how much that effect has been let alone make the case for a catastrophic
climate disaster.
 
I guess we're going to pretend there was no talk of global cooling. LOL.
 
Steve Case said:
I like this post because the "They changed from calling it Global Warming to Climate Change." argument is only sort of true,
and besides, so what? The "CC" in "IPCC" stands for Climate Change. The whole thing is based on the warming effect from CO2,
and after nearly 30 years of argument, it's difficult to say how much that effect has been let alone make the case for a catastrophic
climate disaster.
Click to expand...

As the scientific consensus says, virtually all of the warming has been anthropogenic - up to 120% of it. Its quite clear to the scientists who study this. Only the deniers seem to be confused.
 
Threegoofs said:
As the scientific consensus says, virtually all of the warming has been anthropogenic - up to 120% of it. Its quite clear to the scientists who study this. Only the deniers seem to be confused.
Click to expand...

Its quite clear to the scientists who study this.​

Government funded scientists that is.
 
Steve Case said:
Its quite clear to the scientists who study this.​

Government funded scientists that is.
Click to expand...

Well, you know what they say.

You get what you pay for!
 
KLATTU said:
I guess we're going to pretend there was no talk of global cooling. LOL.
Click to expand...

There were 2 guys that published one paper. A paper that was attacked vigorously and withdrawn.

The reality is that by the time the press ran with global cooling, it was gone.

But it's good to see people pretending they have something relevant. Entertaining, anyway.
 
Last edited:
KLATTU said:
I guess we're going to pretend there was no talk of global cooling. LOL.
Click to expand...

Why , except for some media sensationalism, the concept of 'Global Cooling' was never taken seriously. However, do to the precession of the earth's access, if it wasn't for the countering effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere, we would have started a cooling cycle in the 70's.
 
RAMOSS said:
Why , except for some media sensationalism, the concept of 'Global Cooling' was never taken seriously. However, do to the precession of the earth's access, if it wasn't for the countering effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere, we would have started a cooling cycle in the 70's.
Click to expand...

There wasn't tons on tax payer dollars funding such research then. If there was, I'm pretty sure the research on cooling would have been so much greater.

Today... funding global warming papers is for political power!
 
Lord of Planar said:
There wasn't tons on tax payer dollars funding such research then. If there was, I'm pretty sure the research on cooling would have been so much greater.

Today... funding global warming papers is for political power!
Click to expand...

And I am sure that it is just a coincidence that all the papers that are from climate skeptics are tied up with libertarian think tanks that are funded by the Koch oil company and Exxon Mobile.
 
RAMOSS said:
And I am sure that it is just a coincidence that all the papers that are from climate skeptics are tied up with libertarian think tanks that are funded by the Koch oil company and Exxon Mobile.
Click to expand...

What is that funding? Maybe $2.00 for every $100.00 paying for alarmist papers?

Is one science any more accurate than the other?

I just addressed that in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...in-schmidt-post1066470684.html#post1066470684

last part:


I have read several studies. What most have in common is starting the study with wording like "If we assume..." The science itself is pretty good, except researchers write for what a grant will pay them.

Follow the money... who controls it... The warmers will cite corporations like Exxon on the good papers, but ignore the fact that the government agencies spends (grants) 50 times or more money for alarmist research.

Now these papers almost always incorporate the RCP 8.5 modelling, to get dramatic results. The pundits then report in a skewed manner as to what it all means.

The "If we assume" is almost always unrealistic, but the results are the reported as alarmist fact by the pundits.
​
 
RAMOSS said:
And I am sure that it is just a coincidence that all the papers that are from climate skeptics are tied up with libertarian think tanks that are funded by the Koch oil company and Exxon Mobile.
Click to expand...

Remember when they were going through retirement homes looking for over the hill scientists?

Loved it when Koch paid the Climate Sceptic to review climate science, and the physicist wound up agreeing with the climate scientists. Woopsie!
 
Lord of Planar said:
There wasn't tons on tax payer dollars funding such research then. If there was, I'm pretty sure the research on cooling would have been so much greater.
Click to expand...

You really shouldn't make things up.

There was one paper, and the 2 scientists had to retract it, and got a lot of grief for their mistake.

About the same time, oil company research found that the warming was AGW, but never published the results.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What is that funding? Maybe $2.00 for every $100.00 paying for alarmist papers?

Is one science any more accurate than the other?

I just addressed that in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...in-schmidt-post1066470684.html#post1066470684

last part:


I have read several studies. What most have in common is starting the study with wording like "If we assume..." The science itself is pretty good, except researchers write for what a grant will pay them.

Follow the money... who controls it... The warmers will cite corporations like Exxon on the good papers, but ignore the fact that the government agencies spends (grants) 50 times or more money for alarmist research.

Now these papers almost always incorporate the RCP 8.5 modelling, to get dramatic results. The pundits then report in a skewed manner as to what it all means.

The "If we assume" is almost always unrealistic, but the results are the reported as alarmist fact by the pundits.
​
Click to expand...

It seems you don't understand how scientists write papers, and love to cherry pick phrases, take it out of context, and well, not bother to understand how the scientific method actually works.

That seems to be the reason you bring politics into it.
 
late said:
You really shouldn't make things up.
Click to expand...
I don't.

late said:
There was one paper, and the 2 scientists had to retract it, and got a lot of grief for their mistake.
Click to expand...
It happens.

late said:
About the same time, oil company research found that the warming was AGW, but never published the results.
Click to expand...
Internal documents are seldom made public. The papers conformed AGW was real. Not that the warming was all caused by AGW. But then, I'll lay odds, you never read the actual research available like I have.

You should stop letting the pundits tell you what to believe.

Again, how many climate papers have you read. I have read hundreds, maybe thousands over the years and subscribe to science journals.

You are very, very ignorant to accuse me of making things up.
 
RAMOSS said:
It seems you don't understand how scientists write papers, and love to cherry pick phrases, take it out of context, and well, not bother to understand how the scientific method actually works.

That seems to be the reason you bring politics into it.
Click to expand...

I do understand, and it's the pundits and politicians that make it a political matter.

The cherry picking is so the paper will make the cut, and the funders will be happy, and pay again, and again, and again, for more papers.

We need to take the politics out of funding.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I do understand, and it's the pundits and politicians that make it a political matter.

The cherry picking is so the paper will make the cut, and the funders will be happy, and pay again, and again, and again, for more papers.

We need to take the politics out of funding.
Click to expand...

The thing is... when it comes to the science.. those people who better models and can accurately predicts trends tend to get more money.
 
Steve Case said:
Its quite clear to the scientists who study this.​

Government funded scientists that is.
Click to expand...

Again, it's quite clear.

The people who don't think it's clear have not studied this, they're either paid industry shills or fat dudes in their pajamas typing on message boards about librul conspiracies.
 
Lord of Planar said:
1) I don't.


2) It happens.


Internal documents are seldom made public. The papers conformed AGW was real. Not that the warming was all caused by AGW. But then, I'll lay odds, you never read the actual research available like I have.

You should stop letting the pundits tell you what to believe.

Again, how many climate papers have you read. I have read hundreds, maybe thousands over the years and subscribe to science journals.

You are very, very ignorant to accuse me of making things up.
Click to expand...

1) Unwarranted conjecture, also known as fiction.

2) Yeah, that's what happens in the real world.

3) Saying 'Not all the warming was caused by AGW' is a distinction without a difference. We still have to deal with it.

4) I stumbled across climate research in the early 80s when I was trying to learn math modeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom