• 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!

Climate Alarmism in the 1970's

PoS said:
Argument from authority - Wikipedia

Passersbys unable to think for themselves engages in their usual lefty partisanship proving that they are just sheep.
Click to expand...

Oh dear... Sheep? Is still a thing? People still say that?

Sorry, I know it's off topic, but I thought the whole sheep / sheeple thing died out some time ago. I like to be up on my current disses, is it making a comeback? :)

To bring it back to the topic...climate change is a tricky thing to predict precisely. But it feels like one of those "better safe than sorry" kind of things, no? Maybe we should just adopt the boy scout motto, and always be prepared, for both scenarios. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably take global warming, honestly. We already get enough snow up here.
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. Dr. S.H. Schneider, Dr. Gordon F. MacDonald.
One anecdote disproves a point made without citing supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

I've given you the list of papers published in that period, and a majority predicted warming.
 
Deuce said:
I've given you the list of papers published in that period, and a majority predicted warming.
Click to expand...

That was not the point you made. Your point was to center "ice age" talk on journalists not scientists. In discussing that claim, papers on other topics are not really on point.
In addition, this thread has included links to numerous papers predicting cooling.
And we may never know the whole truth because of William Connelley's strenuous efforts to erase the past.
 
OlNate said:
Oh dear... Sheep? Is still a thing? People still say that?

Sorry, I know it's off topic, but I thought the whole sheep / sheeple thing died out some time ago. I like to be up on my current disses, is it making a comeback? :)

To bring it back to the topic...climate change is a tricky thing to predict precisely. But it feels like one of those "better safe than sorry" kind of things, no? Maybe we should just adopt the boy scout motto, and always be prepared, for both scenarios. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably take global warming, honestly. We already get enough snow up here.
Click to expand...

I wish you had it right.

Today 40% of US arible production is diverted to biofuel. A similar amount of EU food is used. The largest consumer of wheat in the UK is an industrial plant on the North Sea which buys Russian grain to convert into biofuel. ALl this is done at no net CO2 benefit.

What it does do is rase the price of food, doubling it. For us rich people we hardly notice but for the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day it changes their life expectancy from around 60 to something in the 40's. So about 20 million deaths per year. That is asside from the devastating effect on the capacity for the poor of the world to get out of poverty.

The Arab spring and the Syrian civil war happened due to changes in US Biofuel policy.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I wish you had it right.

Today 40% of US arible production is diverted to biofuel. A similar amount of EU food is used. The largest consumer of wheat in the UK is an industrial plant on the North Sea which buys Russian grain to convert into biofuel. ALl this is done at no net CO2 benefit.

What it does do is rase the price of food, doubling it. For us rich people we hardly notice but for the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day it changes their life expectancy from around 60 to something in the 40's. So about 20 million deaths per year. That is asside from the devastating effect on the capacity for the poor of the world to get out of poverty.

The Arab spring and the Syrian civil war happened due to changes in US Biofuel policy.
Click to expand...

I find your claim that 40% of US arable production is diverted to biofuel hard to believe, especially given your habit of inventing figures. Do you have any data to support this assertion?
 
Jack Hays said:
That was not the point you made. Your point was to center "ice age" talk on journalists not scientists. In discussing that claim, papers on other topics are not really on point.
In addition, this thread has included links to numerous papers predicting cooling.
And we may never know the whole truth because of William Connelley's strenuous efforts to erase the past.
Click to expand...

It’s accurate to attribute the ice age talk to journalists because the scientists promoting that notion were in the minority, even as climate science was in its infancy.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I wish you had it right.

Today 40% of US arible production is diverted to biofuel. A similar amount of EU food is used. The largest consumer of wheat in the UK is an industrial plant on the North Sea which buys Russian grain to convert into biofuel. ALl this is done at no net CO2 benefit.

What it does do is rase the price of food, doubling it. For us rich people we hardly notice but for the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day it changes their life expectancy from around 60 to something in the 40's. So about 20 million deaths per year. That is asside from the devastating effect on the capacity for the poor of the world to get out of poverty.

The Arab spring and the Syrian civil war happened due to changes in US Biofuel policy.
Click to expand...

This made up number again...
 
Deuce said:
It’s accurate to attribute the ice age talk to journalists because the scientists promoting that notion were in the minority, even as climate science was in its infancy.
Click to expand...

There's actually no evidence that warming-predictors outnumbered cooling-predictors among climate scientists.
 
Jack Hays said:
William Connolley, banned from Wikipedia for "disappearing" papers. Nothing with his name on it is credible. That link is tainted.
Click to expand...

Everything from WUWT is tainted.
 
Deuce said:
It’s accurate to attribute the ice age talk to journalists because the scientists promoting that notion were in the minority, even as climate science was in its infancy.
Click to expand...

Even those few scientists who thought the Earth might soon cool again (based, not unreasonably, on the evidence of past ice age conditions) quickly changed their minds as soon as it became evident, even in those early days of climate study, that human greenhouse emissions would warm the planet. By the end of the 1970s, the potential for AGW was almost universally accepted.
 
Surface Detail said:
Even those few scientists who thought the Earth might soon cool again (based, not unreasonably, on the evidence of past ice age conditions) quickly changed their minds as soon as it became evident, even in those early days of climate study, that human greenhouse emissions would warm the planet. By the end of the 1970s, the potential for AGW was almost universally accepted.
Click to expand...

Because of William Connolley's strenuous efforts to "disappear" cooling papers from the record, it's quite difficult to credibly make that case.

[h=2]Before 1960s-’70s Global Cooling Was Erased, It Caused Droughts, Crop Failures, Glacier Advance, Ice Age Threats[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 27. November 2017
Changing Scientific Consensus 1970s: Global Cooling A Serious Threat Today: Global Cooling Never Happened Until the mid-1980s, it was widely accepted in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that there was an abrupt global cooling trend between the 1940s and 1970s. The amplitude of the climate change amounted to more than -0.5°C of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, as […]
 
Tim the plumber said:

I wish you had it right.

Today 40% of US arible production is diverted to biofuel. A similar amount of EU food is used. The largest consumer of wheat in the UK is an industrial plant on the North Sea which buys Russian grain to convert into biofuel. ALl this is done at no net CO2 benefit.

What it does do is rase the price of food, doubling it. For us rich people we hardly notice but for the 3 billion people who live on less than $2.50 a day it changes their life expectancy from around 60 to something in the 40's. So about 20 million deaths per year. That is asside from the devastating effect on the capacity for the poor of the world to get out of poverty.

The Arab spring and the Syrian civil war happened due to changes in US Biofuel policy.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting perspective, Tim...could I get any links, to learn further?
 
Jack Hays said:
Because of William Connolley's strenuous efforts to "disappear" cooling papers from the record, it's quite difficult to credibly make that case.

[h=2]Before 1960s-’70s Global Cooling Was Erased, It Caused Droughts, Crop Failures, Glacier Advance, Ice Age Threats[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 27. November 2017
Changing Scientific Consensus 1970s: Global Cooling A Serious Threat Today: Global Cooling Never Happened Until the mid-1980s, it was widely accepted in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that there was an abrupt global cooling trend between the 1940s and 1970s. The amplitude of the climate change amounted to more than -0.5°C of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, as […]
Click to expand...

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what "cooling papers" even means in this context. Historical temperature reconstructions or records are not a prediction of a future ice age.
 
Surface Detail said:
I find your claim that 40% of US arable production is diverted to biofuel hard to believe, especially given your habit of inventing figures. Do you have any data to support this assertion?
Click to expand...

One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars - not people, new figures show | Environment | The Guardian

2010, 25% and increaing.

The rapid rise in food prices has been a burden on the poor in developing countries, who spend roughly half of their household incomes on food. This paper examines the factors behind the rapid increase in internationally traded food prices since 2002 and estimates the contribution of various factors such as the increased production of biofuels from food grains and oilseeds, the weak dollar, and the increase in food production costs due to higher energy prices. It concludes that the most important factor was the large increase in biofuels production in the U.S. and the EU. Without these increases, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably, oilseed prices would not have tripled, and price increases due to other factors, such as droughts, would have been more moderate. Recent export bans and speculative activities would probably not have occurred because they were largely responses to rising prices. While it is difficult to compare the results of this study with those of other studies due to differences in methodologies, time periods and prices considered, many other studies have also recognized biofuels production as a major driver of food prices. The contribution of biofuels to the rise in food prices raises an important policy issue, since much of the increase was due to EU and U.S. government policies that provided incentives to biofuels production, and biofuels policies which subsidize production need to be reconsidered in light of their impact on food prices.
Click to expand...

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/229961468140943023/pdf/WP4682.pdf

World Bank July 2008.

It has got much worse since then.

It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System - Scientific American

Although U.S. corn is a highly productive crop, with typical yields between 140 and 160 bushels per acre, the resulting delivery of food by the corn system is far lower. Today’s corn crop is mainly used for biofuels (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol)
Click to expand...

This is why there is a mass migration of desperate people leaving the lands of hunger and taking any risk to get to the places where you can eat all you can out of the bins on the streets.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Because of William Connolley's strenuous efforts to "disappear" cooling papers from the record, it's quite difficult to credibly make that case.

[h=2]Before 1960s-’70s Global Cooling Was Erased, It Caused Droughts, Crop Failures, Glacier Advance, Ice Age Threats[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 27. November 2017
Changing Scientific Consensus 1970s: Global Cooling A Serious Threat Today: Global Cooling Never Happened Until the mid-1980s, it was widely accepted in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that there was an abrupt global cooling trend between the 1940s and 1970s. The amplitude of the climate change amounted to more than -0.5°C of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, as […]
Click to expand...
IMOHO, The cooling seen from the 1940's to the 1970's could have been from aerosol pollution.
The founding of the EPA, and global efforts to curb aerosol pollution, resulted several decades of warming from the skies clearing.
 
Tim the plumber said:
One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars - not people, new figures show | Environment | The Guardian

2010, 25% and increaing.



http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/229961468140943023/pdf/WP4682.pdf

World Bank July 2008.

It has got much worse since then.

It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System - Scientific American



This is why there is a mass migration of desperate people leaving the lands of hunger and taking any risk to get to the places where you can eat all you can out of the bins on the streets.
Click to expand...

40% of the corn crop is not 40% of arable production. The US does grow crops other than corn, you know!
 
Surface Detail said:
40% of the corn crop is not 40% of arable production. The US does grow crops other than corn, you know!
Click to expand...

Yes, the biggest crop used is soya. Not exactly gain. Neither is sugar.

What other arible crops are you talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom