SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Tom]

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be

I have to hand it to Job, nobody else is quite so skilled at making their arse cheeks approximate human speech.

 

[Access Denied]

Samsung Galaxy s8: March 29
Going to be explosive

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Job]

accepted by the media and the people, it seems that he entire scientific community was keeping warming to themselves, releasing cooling data to the media and and asking scientists at the time to go and lie on TV.
At the exact same time that scientist and many of others were on TV and in documentaries, the published papers behind the scenes were claiming the exact opposite...wtf was that about.
These were real scientists, not hand picked bullshitters, that Gifford guy was about as relevant as it gets.

 

[Job]

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be

I have to hand it to Job, nobody else is quite so skilled at making their arse cheeks approximate human speech.

That's such bullshit, firstly it was on the front of TIME magazine, at school, we all joked about buying skis, our TEACHERS! for ffs, were telling us about it.
The scientific community now is putting out a damage limitation exercise, how it was just a few papers...no, it was THE accepted theory by everyone outside of the academics.
Do you think anyone was going to challenge it in a pre internet time, why were they pushing out cooling to the masses, and why did they do nothing to correct it.

It's not even a problem..how about..'we were wrong to do that, things have changed'.., no it's, 'you are all idiots, this is what we really meant'

If you read the wiki page, you can see the uncertainty at the time, and how many Major scientific bodies were were pushing cooling..or we don't know, to say it was a handfull, is ridiculous, it was a mainstream theory.

Global cooling - Wikipedia

 

[Raven]

it was THE accepted theory by everyone outside of the academics.

So the accepted theory from wrong people then.

Got it.

Anyway, theory changes depending on scientific research and discovery. That is the point of science. It stops being theory when it becomes provable fact.

That is not to say I agree with half the waffle they come out with relating to "climate change" nor do I agree with the all the trash science that goes on. All a scientist need to do is angle his study towards climate change ever so slightly and so long as he lines up his results with the narrative, free money!

The climate is supposed to change, if it didn't then Earth's days would be numbered. It even changes on other planets ffs.

 

[Raven]

Anyway, the only way to battle over use of resources and the decimation of plant and animal habitat is by reducing the population, so long as people insist on having 10 kids and living way past their sell-by date that problem won't go away.

 

[Tom]

Brilliant, to refute the article which quotes the person whose report was so instrumental in the propogation of the global cooling theory, you blame "the people" and "the media". And then you claim there was some kind of global conspiracy amongst the "entire scientific community". But apparently there were other climatologists (so not the entire scientific community then) doing good science that was ignored in this global conspiracy.

it was THE accepted theory by everyone outside of the academics.

Right, so academics were doing good science all along, which completely contradicts what you wrote on the last page - "which was at the time the excepted theory"

Honestly, you're such a thick fucking wanker I don't know why I bother. Fuckoff back to Britain First and Stormfront you stupid, vapid dozy cockwomble.

 

[Job]

Constructive.

They have paintbrushed over it for no reason , that wiki page shows how many major scientific establishments backed cooling at the time, now they are throwing 'fake news' at it...'urban myth'.

It quite clearly wasnt abd agreed if you get every single climate change paper from the time, there were more warmers than coolers, but the cooling got all the press, and we have no idea of the status of all these papers, they could have easily been obscure publications that sat in dusty piles on desks.

 

[Job]

Anyway, sat on the beach, carton of chips and Snowdon is as clear as a bell, completely covered in snow, I must be able to see about 300 windturbines and surprisingly they are all. turning.

 

[sayward]

Made a huge decision, life changing in fact, and life has not gone at all the way I had envisaged... I could not have thought of this in a million years... sorry chaps can't say more.I am much improved however. Let's hope that doesn't jynx things.

Shouldn't have opened my bloody mouth........

 

[Moriath]

Shouldn't have opened my bloody mouth........

Hope it works out. And jinx doesnt really happen. What has happened would have happened ifyou said ny thing or not.

 

[Scouse]

Constructive.

@Job you brought witches and wizards from the 1970s into a conversation about global warming science.

There was no rhyme or reason and you ignored everything awful and obvious about it deliberately because somewhere in it it said something you believe (that's been roundly disproved). You're just being a fucking moron about it.

 

[Job]

Gifford H. Miller | People | INSTAAR | CU-Boulder

Thats the climate scientist from that video, I presented the argument of the cover up of cooling studies from the 70s, I posted the scientific organisations of high standing at the time who promoted it, but still you just revert to literal witch calling and personal insults.
You as always chose to change the argument and ridicule any tiny bit of it rather than addressing the facts.

 

[Scouse]

@Job, you act like a fucking loon and you get treated like a loon. Your educational standard is so low that you can't see the obvious problems with almost every sentence you type and because of that you see conspiracy everywhere.

You're unconscously incompetent.

 

[Job]

OK, point proven in one post.
Not the slightest response to my totally reasoned argument, just..name calling...

 

[Raven]

But you are talking absolute, unadulterated bollocks. That kind of bullshit is just as damaging to the whole thing as that idiot that played with the data, then got found out.

Edit, I think a lot of rather large conclusions are being jumped to throughout the sience but that stuff is real head swivelry

 

[fettoken]

I don't get why this is an argument we need to have. We´ll just see which way the climate goes. Hot as fuck or cold, one side will go "ha told you so fuckers". Ice age or fiery hell, will suck either way.

 

[Job]

It's almost undoubtedly going to get warmer, the cooling theory has pretty well died a death.

 

[fettoken]

So, can we perhaps leave it at that?

 

[Raven]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWs6mI-kNpc


Have some walking handbags.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm actually with Job on this one - some fairly shocking attempts to play the man rather than the ball. Not surprising from certain contributors, but still pretty bad form imo.

Anyway - interesting read below. If you ignore his "OMG CONSPIRACYY""£! and look at his sources, there is definitely more to Global Cooling in the 1970's than the modern warmist would have you believe. There is a hell of a lot of history revision going on imo.

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

 

[Scouse]

I guess whilst you're citing conspiracy whackjobs @Bodhi I may as well push the same google-inspired crap back at ya.

Difference being I haven't actually read the link I found on google properly (but it does address what you've posted) whereas you've probably been reading Kenneth Richard's stuff for years and taking it as gospel - just like Job.

 

[Bodhi]

I guess whilst you're citing conspiracy whackjobs @Bodhi I may as well push the same google-inspired crap back at ya.

Difference being I haven't actually read the link I found on google properly (but it does address what you've posted) whereas you've probably been reading Kenneth Richard's stuff for years and taking it as gospel - just like Job.

If by addressing the points made you mean going straight for the ad-moninem attacks without looking at the reasoning behind their points too much, then yes, yes they do.

But it is strange that your evidence for him being a conspiracy whack-job seems to link to a page with lots of articles discussing scientific papers that have been released that dispute Co2's effect on Global Climate. I would have thought it would have been a page full of 9/11 Truther nonsense with a side order of why the Moon landings took place in Nevada, but no, it seems to be full of...science. I'm seeing links to papers suggesting a strong link between Solar Activity and Climate (like, duh), analysis of climate vs polar bear population (the highest on record, just fyi) and some links between climate and extreme weather events. The only thing on there I can see as remotely tin-foil hattish, is his analysis of the temperature record over time and some of the adjustments that have been made, which if he is correct, is just a little bit of a fucking issue - scientific theories live or die based on their correlation to observed data, and if that is being tampered with to fit the theory, it would massively reduce the weight any scientific mind worth its salt would put behind the theory.

For instance, taking a look at the below, he has selected 14 recent papers investigating the link between Solar Activity and the Global Temperature record. I am not entirely sure how you can look at the information presented - and even have a look at some of the studies he is quoting - and not think that there is probably a bit more to this than the fact that Co2 controls everything.

New Paper: 14 Scientists Affirm Solar Forcing, Not CO2, Is ‘Dominant Control’ For Modern Climate Change

 

[CorNokZ]

 

[Scouse]

I see you totally ignored the important link @Bodhi? Bit inconvenient to your argument.

Nice looooong post tho. Must mean you're right.

 

[Job]

Its not even about cooling, I was merely pointing out how quick people are to believe that cooling theories have been made up by deniers.
They quite clearly havent, no doubt they were wrong and based on incomplete science, but they are there in plain sight and supported by the major scientific bodies at the time.
I dont even see the problem, why deny it?

 

[caLLous]

View attachment 36025

Bob Monkhouse joke.

 

[Raven]

The only thing on there I can see as remotely tin-foil hattish, is his analysis of the temperature record over time and some of the adjustments that have been made, which if he is correct, is just a little bit of a fucking issue - scientific theories live or die based on their correlation to observed data, and if that is being tampered with to fit the theory, it would massively reduce the weight any scientific mind worth its salt would put behind the theory.

The trouble is, data is getting tampered with (Sorry, I mean "adjusted") to suit the narrative. But, like any religion, it soon gets thrown under the rug.

 

[Scouse]

lulz. crappy old oft-repeated tropes.

Yep. Fraud sometimes occurs (which is scandalous) but the nature of the method means that it tends to be spotted, refuted and dodgy results and practitioners weeded out. Any important findings are investigated by replication of study - so if anything ground-shattering happens then multiple independent sources verify or disprove the original evidence.

The whole point of the scientific method is down to an acknowledgement that humans are dumb, bent, bastards - so the requirement to publish full methodology, unabridged data, workings and conclusions in an open and clear format allows anyone with sufficient training and education to perform work, published in the same fashion, to refute those results.

Over time, a long time sometimes, clearer, more accurate, protected-against-bias pictures are produced. Precisely because the method is all, and opinion, hearsay and even fraudulent practice gets filtered out.


Which is why all the "controversy" over global warming isn't really in the scientific community (of course, disagreement is natural, but sorted by the process above). No. The controversy is mainly in the press, on the public internet and in the political arena.

 

[Raven]

Actually, it usually takes a leak for the meddling to come out.