• 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!

When did Climate Change Acceptance/Denial become a partisan issue?

Steve Case said:
In the '70s it was "Global Cooling" which by the '80s morphed into "Nuclear Winter" which by the late '80s and early '90s was running at the same time in the popular press with "Global Warming" which for the last 20 years has been "Climate Change" So when did I decide it was a crock of crap? Probably when I realized that left-wing liberal Democrats were really serious about cow farts contributing to "Global Warming".

When did that ridiculous story first hit the "Main Stream" news?
Click to expand...

Why do you care so much what the media is hyping up? Why wouldn't you just pay attention to the actual science? Did you know both "climate change" and "global warming" are terms that have been around for 40 years? No. You didn't know that, did you?

Carbon dioxide doesn't care who you voted for.

Raising livestock increases methane emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Which of these two facts do you find to be ridiculous and inaccurate?
 
Deuce said:
Why do you care so much what the media is hyping up?
Click to expand...
Because that's what most of us see and that includes our legislators.
Oh they get expert testimony but most if not all of them have their
minds made up all ready. Do I have proof of that? No, so sue me.


Deuce said:
Why wouldn't you just pay attention to the actual science?
Click to expand...
I pay attention to data.


Deuce said:
Did you know both "climate change" and "global warming" are terms
that have been around for 40 years?
Click to expand...
Well duh! 2017-40=1977 Global Cooling was in the news during the '70s
just like I said.


Deuce said:
No. You didn't know that, did you?
Click to expand...
See above.


Deuce said:
Carbon dioxide doesn't care who you voted for.
Click to expand...
You can guess who I voted for and you'd probably be right.
Otherwise I have no idea what your point is.


Deuce said:
Raising livestock increases methane emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas.
Which of these two facts do you find to be ridiculous and inaccurate?
Click to expand...
Methane is a product of anaerobic respiration. And methane is probably
produced by every living organism on the planet. Pretending that cattle
are some sort of a special producer of the gas requiring regulation is
ridiculous.
 
Deuce said:
You were actually duped by publications like Time magazine, not actual science. Exaggeration is their game. Are you not aware of this? Same with the ozone layer. Are you really under the impression your teenage mind accurately assessed real scientific beliefs on "baking the planet?"

When science says "this ozone issue could cause elevated skin cancer rates," the media says "YOU WILL ALL DIE."

Your teenage "into science" ass never read a single actual scientific paper, did he?
Click to expand...


Lots of them actually, at least what was available back when research = library... and don't be a smart ass.
 
Deuce said:
You were actually duped by publications like Time magazine,
Click to expand...

Wow an awful lot of people must have read this then because it was big news for the entire decade. I didn;t but I certainly saw a lot of the documentaries with the scientific experts of the day warning of our impending doom. There were a vast number of articles in the media and scientific press too. Here are just some of them

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
 
Steve Case said:
Because that's what most of us see and that includes our legislators.
Oh they get expert testimony but most if not all of them have their
minds made up all ready. Do I have proof of that? No, so sue me.



I pay attention to data.



Well duh! 2017-40=1977 Global Cooling was in the news during the '70s
just like I said.



See above.



You can guess who I voted for and you'd probably be right.
Otherwise I have no idea what your point is.



Methane is a product of anaerobic respiration. And methane is probably
produced by every living organism on the planet. Pretending that cattle
are some sort of a special producer of the gas requiring regulation is
ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Got it. So you're claiming raising livestock doesn't increase methane emissions. Good to know.
 
flogger said:
Wow an awful lot of people must have read this then because it was big news for the entire decade. I didn;t but I certainly saw a lot of the documentaries with the scientific experts of the day warning of our impending doom. There were a vast number of articles in the media and scientific press too. Here are just some of them

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
Click to expand...

Yes, the media certainly ran with that one.

But in the actual scientific literature, cooling predictions were always in the minority.
 
Goshin said:
Lots of them actually, at least what was available back when research = library... and don't be a smart ass.
Click to expand...

And you just didn't notice that the number of papers predicting cooling was much smaller than the number of papers predicting warming?
 
Deuce said:
Yes, the media certainly ran with that one.

But in the actual scientific literature, cooling predictions were always in the minority.
Click to expand...

The scientific literature of the time alluded to cooling not warming

The CIA even did a report on it in 1974 on how to deal with the coming famines and political unrest that would be a consequence of it. It went all the way to the US president

Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-?80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ?Consensus?

papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).

Alarmists have been desperately trying to airbrush this out of history ever since. Are you a 70s global cooling 'denier' then ? :wink:
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
And you just didn't notice that the number of papers predicting cooling was much smaller than the number of papers predicting warming?
Click to expand...



In the 70's? No. Earliest science article I read predicting warming was probably '79 or 80, IIRC.

Of course, there was no internet then. It's not as if I could just Google and compare how many papers said this vs that.
 
Deuce said:
Got it. So you're claiming raising livestock doesn't increase methane emissions.
Good to know.
Click to expand...

You pretend that if the land wasn't used to produce livestock that there wouldn't
be any methane emissions. Well really, were there millions of buffalo on the
pre-Columbian North American great plains? Maybe you think buffalo didn't fart
and burp.

You left-wing liberals live in a let's pretend fairy-land.
 
I rarely ever read Time, btw. National Geographic and Scientific American. Some others I can't recall the name of now.
 
Goshin said:
I rarely ever read Time, btw. National Geographic and Scientific American. Some others I can't recall the name of now.
Click to expand...

As my earlier post illustrated the great bulk of climate scientific literature of that period alluded to cooling not warming. It most certainly wasn't just some media sensation concocted by bored editors looking to sell magazines.

Anyone old enough to remember the 70s know that this happened so all the retrospective alarmist airbrushing in the world can,t change that. Its when I saw stuff like this going on it just confirmed that my skepticism was entirely justified
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
The "settled science" aspect should set every objective thinker's alarm bells off.

On the monetary point, I see the enrichment being far beyond the DC system, and far more slanted than you suggest.

Part of the climate change agenda involves the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. I don't see the right in the crosshairs of that enrichment.

Further, I see a massive conflict of interest on the part of the people who are receiving the billions in research dollars to support and "confirm" the agenda.
Click to expand...

Because you and others of your "persuasion" are not just a climate change deniers you deny much more than that. Besides science you also deny facts and even the truth. It is the ultimate "group hypnosis" as far as I can see. You live in another world and don't even know it. Hopefully some day you will wake up and it will be just a very bad dream
 
iguanaman said:
Because you and others of your "persuasion" are not just a climate change deniers you deny much more than that.

Besides science you also deny facts and even the truth. It is the ultimate "group hypnosis" as far as I can see. You live in another world and don't even know it. Hopefully some day you will wake up and it will be just a very bad dream
Click to expand...

I'm sure there isn't a single poster here that denies climate change :roll:
 
flogger said:
As my earlier post illustrated the great bulk of climate scientific literature of that period alluded to cooling not warming. It most certainly wasn't just some media sensation concocted by bored editors looking to sell magazines.

Anyone old enough to remember the 70s know that this happened so all the retrospective alarmist airbrushing in the world can,t change that. Its when I saw stuff like this going on it just confirmed that my skepticism was entirely justified
Click to expand...

And any one old enough to remember the 70's should certainly know how far computers and climate science has come since those days. Though they knew about warming from CO2 they felt aerosols might drive cooling instead. Here's a very good take on that "ice age" prediction. It was not all media but they did sensationalize it as media always does.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
 
flogger said:
I'm sure there isn't a single poster here that denies climate change :roll:
Click to expand...

They deny that most important part of it . That it is human caused and only humans can stop it before we create a disaster. We cannot keep burning fossil fuel until it runs out. That is what you deny and you curse your progeny to hell for it.
 
iguanaman said:
And any one old enough to remember the 70's should certainly know how far computers and climate science has come since those days. Though they knew about warming from CO2 they felt aerosols might drive cooling instead. Here's a very good take on that "ice age" prediction. It was not all media but they did sensationalize it as media always does.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
Click to expand...

As I illustrated the great bulk of scientific literature at the time alluded to cooling not warming and this was borne out by observations since 1940 (subsequently airbrushed out) showing a three decade decline. It was a big story at the time and I remember watching a number of documentaries with climate scientists just as earnest as those today making prophecies of doom if we didn't change our ways.

I have to say their theory that particulate pollution blocking out sunlight seems a darned sight more credible at the time than the current CO2 bogeyman does today
 
iguanaman said:
They deny that most important part of it . That it is human caused and only humans can stop it before we create a disaster. We cannot keep burning fossil fuel until it runs out. That is what you deny and you curse your progeny to hell for it.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you aren't overreacting then :lamo

Eco panics come and go and the current one is almost done. Don't worry though there is always another one in the pipeline
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
As I illustrated the great bulk of scientific literature at the time alluded to cooling not warming and this was borne out by observations since 1940 (subsequently airbrushed out) showing a three decade decline. It was a big story at the time and I remember watching a number of documentaries with climate scientists just as earnest as those today making prophecies of doom if we didn't change our ways.

I have to say their theory that particulate pollution blocking out sunlight seems a darned sight more credible at the time than the current CO2 bogeyman does today
Click to expand...

Scientists disagree with you.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

As usual!
 
Still wondering why it's a conservative position to deny climate change...

Could it have anything to do with this?

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01++

Excuse me, ahem, to be climate change skeptics.. I didn't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities, with regards to hurt feelings and mean names.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
flogger said:
And this is just the sort of retrospective airbrushing of history I addrssed earlier.

I KNOW what happened back then as I lived through it
Click to expand...

You lived through the....Time article?

Poor thing. It must have scared you to death.

If only they had some mechanism in the old days to have written this information down and put it into scientific journals like we do in modern times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom