This petition can be dismissed and ignored as the signatories are just Al Gore haters -- they must all have GDS (Gore Derangement Syndrome). They've been blinded by their hate for Al Gore and would oppose anything he supports.

Clearly there is no reason OTHER than these people having GDS for them to have signed this petition.

Scientists blinded by hate? That is a rarity since they are basically emotion free.

About time the corrupt UN got some challenges. ww

Cassy;

Are you a high school graduate?

This means you Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani and Romney.

All answered affirmatively when asked in the last debate if the "believe" that global climate change is a serious, man-made threat.

Are you a GW "believer" or a "skeptic"?

"...these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."

I would NEVER have guessed! Third-World tinpot leaders and other "honest" politicians and hirlings writing the summary that's used to alter social norms and "level" the economic playing field, all while garnering more power to these individuals and lining their pockets.

After "oil for food", who wouldn't buy into this altruistic effort? sarc/off

And all led by Nobel Al.

Yes, Semanticleo, I am a high school graduate. I even went to -- gasp!! -- college!

Seems Al is getting blasted for his hypocrisy and arrogance. First the Harvard Crimson mocks him in an editorial, Jack Cafferty (big bush hater) on CNN called him pompous the other day and even Robert Redford made some snide remarks. People are waking up.

About.Damn.Time.

Cassy, Semanticleo wanted to know because he's filling out college applications in a few years and he wants some tips.

Semanticleo, it's a little early to start worrying about college while still in the 5th grade. You have plenty of time.

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages

The year was 1978. The place was northern Ohio. I was 17 years old, smoking dope and bad mouthing my country.

But the biggest thing going on was the undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us. Winter after winter was getting colder and colder with the climatic blizzard that year. We couldn't get out for days. Even the summers seemed chilly back then.

If anyone told me anything contrary to the fact that a new ice age was coming I would have asked them; "Are you a high school graduate?", because the evidence was up to the second story of our house.

Now that I am older and wiser and actually lived through a weather pattern that didn't climax with glaciers sliding down from the north as predicted "by scientists", all I can say now is "opps".

"I even went to -- gasp!! -- college!"

Liberty University doesn't count.

But the biggest thing going on was the undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us.
...
I was 17 years old, smoking dope

That explains your poor memory.

Brian,
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all.

Your own links continue to refute you, which in realclimate's case is particularly sad. Are you supposed to be some parody of a leftroid, or are you that dumb?

The ice age problem was identical to the global warming in that both were misunderstood by the press, and seized upon by the occasional politician with an agenda.

"Cassy;

Are you a high school graduate?

Jealousy will get you nowhere.

Your own links continue to refute you

Not so much.

The ice age problem was identical to the global warming in that both were misunderstood by the press

And fundamentally different in that amidst the ice age speculation was the conclusion that:

we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate ... Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn't know enough to make predictions.

Hardly an "undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us".

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages."

Too bad they have to keep reminding people. I'm sure algore is convinced he knows more because he's figured out not only how to blindside people with his controversial "evidence", but he's managed to cash in on the whole "dilemma".

That explains your poor memory

I love when someone posts a link in an attempt to debunk me, and then it ends up verifying "my" point even more instead.

In your link Brian it clearly states:

should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better).

My memory is fully intact since you proved to everyone that all the major media were reporting this. I guess I didn't miss a thing.

And gee, they regret that this was just a big mistake. That was old ancient 1970's technology predicting the new ice age. Not like the new sophisticated stuff we have today.

We're not that different Brian, except you are still smoking dope and bad mouthing your country. And 30 years from now you can reminisce about the old days when there was a "global warming scare" and how you fell for it, because you know....that old early 2000's technology. Not like the stuff we have in the 2030's.

But that will only come about when you put the bong down and mature a few more years.

Here are a couple of links about Great Blizzard of 1978:

Great Blizzard of 1978

Weather Historians Recall Blizzard of Legend

The worst winter storm in Ohio's history struck before dawn on January 26, 1978. The "Great Blizzard of '78" continued for two days and shut down transportation, schools, and business all across Ohio, for a week in some cases. According to weather historians Thomas and Jeanne Schmidlin, it was a storm that Ohioans will never forget, one that will be a legend through the 21st century

Ohioans who lived through the "Great Blizzard of '78" will never forget it. It is engrained as part of each person's "Ohio Experience", a legend to be told to their children and grandchildren. This storm was compared to the Blizzard of January 1918 and the New Year's Blizzard of 1864 for ferocity and disruption to everyday lives.

"The list of signatories is impressive. But what would they know compared to the Goracle, a politician who was a C student in science?"

Isn't this simply a lie?

You purposefully mislead the reader to think that it's the scientific community vs. Al Gore, who has no scientific training. I'd certainly take these scientists' word if that was the case.

But it's not. The vast majority of scientists think that anthropogenic global warming is real, so it's really a lot of scientists against a few that best characterizes this debate, not these scientists vs. Al Gore.

And that majority may be wrong, granted. But that's besides the point, which is that you lie to the reader as to who's really having this debate. That's inexcusable.

I love when someone posts a link in an attempt to debunk me, and then it ends up verifying "my" point even more instead.

No, it just showed that your "undeniable facts" were based on limited popular media misinterpretation and *gasp* a blizzard one year that left snow piled up against your house. And it shows your claim that all that was "as predicted by scientists" is bogus. If you want to continue to defend that as the basis for "undeniable fact", you're the only one looking foolish.

There most certainly was an "ice age hysteria" in the 70's. I was just a kid at the time, couldn't have cared less about politics or the news, but somehow this particular threat of crisis penetrated into even my encapsulated little world.

Not only that, but also the impending doom of "world-wide famine" and "population explosion."

You can blow it out your ear Brian - reality denier and historical revisionist. Next you'll be telling us that the left didn't really allow our government to be infiltrated by Communists. How old are you?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

There most certainly was an "ice age hysteria" in the 70's.

I lived through the 70s too, and don't remember this "hysteria". Perhaps an article or two in Newsweek is all the criteria you need for "hysteria," but most people look to scientists for information about science.

You can blow it out your ear Brian - reality denier and historical revisionist.

Reality and history is "sensationalizing of a potential ice age in some popular press but not backed by the scientific community". That would be a historically accurate claim.

But the claim here was "undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us... as predicted by scientists". That is demonstrably false. And if you believe it to be true, go ahead and show us why.

Other than that, all I'm seeing here is backpedaling from the initial claim, assisted by either hand-waving distraction or an attempt to change the subject. Or, one might even say, reality denial and historical revisionism.

"There most certainly was an "ice age hysteria" in the 70's."

And the scientific community was by and large in favor of this model? BS.

It was proposed that particulate matter could reflect sunlight back out to space, but it was never an accepted model in the scientific community becasue

1.there wasn't enough evidence

and

2. Climatologists even back then realized that even if that model was true, increased carbon in the atmosphere would at the least counteract it.

If there was such a hysteria - find me the scientific literature beyond speculation. You can say whatever you like, but give me the proof.

Brian,

I will grant that the press unnecessarily seized upon and sensationalized data not backed by all scientists. The hysteria was probably media generated and did not actually exist in the scientific community. Boy howdy - things sure different today...

So what? Your argument is besides the point. The point is that some science was selectively seized upon and fear generated in society by those with vested interests to do so - namely leftists.

This did not just happen with the weather, but with every facet of dubious science that the left could exploit. I give you Rachel Carson by way of example.

Today every bureaucracy has only gotten bigger and the politicization worse. The pressure was not quite as great back then as it is now, but it was still there. We were largely a captive audience with few media publications and only three channels to watch, after all.

No, it just showed that your "undeniable facts" were based on limited popular media misinterpretation

Dang Brian, it almost as if you are trying to make my points for me.

I am telling you the new ice age was being hyped in the media. You are just reaffirming it for me.

And no kidding it turned out to be wrong because that period of cooling ended and the trend reversed.

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice age or warming

What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can't possibly be accurate.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media's version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

Who cares what journalists do? Journalists have hyped a lot of nonsense stories over the years - does this mean that anything they write about is therefor necessarily wrong?

What do scientists think - that's the only cite that really matters. Scientists may be wrong, but at least they're looking at the evidence.

The logic I'm reading here is:

"Carbon that people put in the atmosphere is not warming the planet because back in the 1970s journalists started a hysteria re: whether particulate matter was causing global cooling. "

Great work, guys - all those scientists got nothing on you!

Steve:

What do scientists think - that's the only cite that really matters.

Let me edit that for truthfulness for you:

What do scientists whose opinions comport with my own ideology think - that's the only cite that really matters.

Here is the mental picture of the current state of science:

A leftist shouts through a megaphone in one hand "consensus! consensus!" while the other hand wields a billy club to make sure consensus is enforced.

Steve:

"You purposefully mislead the reader to think that it's the scientific community vs. Al Gore, who has no scientific training. I'd certainly take these scientists' word if that was the case."

That's unadulterated cow shit.

The Goracle has been dubbed that because has set himself as THE spokesman for the alleged "2600 scientists" on the IPCC.

He along with a good portion of the 2600 are nothing more than hucksters.

"The Goracle has been dubbed that because has set himself as THE spokesman for the alleged "2600 scientists" on the IPCC.

He along with a good portion of the 2600 are nothing more than hucksters."

and you know this because you're in a position to adjudicate the data. right....

Two points:
1. What she said is a lie, regardless of what Gore does:
"The list of signatories is impressive. But what would they know compared to the Goracle, a politician who was a C student in science? "

Whether you like it or not, many scientists agree that anthopogenic global warming is real. They may be wrong, but this is a fact. Her statement clearly says that scientists think it's tripe but Al Gore believes it, and he's no scientist. IOW:Science vs. Al Gore on science. Regardless of what you think of anthro global warming, this is a lie simply becasue MANY scientists think anthro global warming is real. So claiming that the debate is Al Gore vs. the scientific community is a lie. Very simple point and has nothing to do w/ global warming. It's simple integrity.

2. Most geophysics scientists interpret the available evidence as indicative of anthropogenic global warming. They may be wrong, but this is a fact and it only makes her transgression worse. The debate that most believe is still in play is about extent, and what we should or shouldn't do about it - no small debate. Look at the academic societies and what they endorse. These are not my opinions.

I know wikipedia is not an ideal source, but they provide links to the major societies so I think it's OK in this instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"What do scientists whose opinions comport with my own ideology think - that's the only cite that really matters."

Here is the mental picture of the current state of science:

A leftist shouts through a megaphone in one hand "consensus! consensus!" while the other hand wields a billy club to make sure consensus is enforced."

My point is that this is a scientific question, and your hatred for Al Gore or what the media did in the 70's are completely besides the point. I'm quite sure you don't understand one iota of the scientific data, yet you have an 'opinion' on it all (of course), or at least what passes for one.

Shame on you for being so slothful as to not even try and understand what the debate is about and so ignorant as to prattle on as though you do.

Steve, when the AGW proponents start actually doing real science, instead of refusing to disclose data and methodology, hiding inconvenient data, attacking critics with ad hominem instead of actually dealing with criticism and participating in the debate, then you might have a point.

Oh, and Al Gore is not merely a focus of hatred, but also is a joke, as he claims to be an advocate but can't get basic things right.

"Steve, when the AGW proponents start actually doing real science, instead of refusing to disclose data and methodology, hiding inconvenient data, attacking critics with ad hominem instead of actually dealing with criticism and participating in the debate, then you might have a point."

I'm not going to say that every single scientist who interprets the data as being indicative of AGW has been correct on everything. But how the hell can YOU tell what's right here? YOu don't know anyting about climate modeling or geophysics - so shouldn't you just throw up your hands and say "I really don't understand the science either.". Aren't you, at the least, no better than Al Gore in that you pretend to understand this stuff and really do not?

And this whole stupid 'reasoning' of trying to infer whether AGW is happening or not becasue of Al Gore or jouranlistic hype is just inane. Shit on Al Gore and shit on jouranlists. There's many, many more scientists that think AGW is happening than not. Why is that? Al Gore? 70s media hype? Liberal media?

Please... Stop being a lazy shit, get out of the politics of it, and get your hands dirty with the data or STFU becasue you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, and Al Gore is not merely a focus of hatred, but also is a joke, as he claims to be an advocate but can't get basic things right.

Oh, and Al Gore is not merely a focus of hatred, but also is a joke, as he claims to be an advocate but can't get basic things right.

The ignorant who have this feverish hatred of Al Gore are pathetic. Why does the truth scare you so? Oh, that's right. You're the same little cowards who hide behind your brilliant leader GWB as he lies to you about every little thing. But, hey, you believe him, don't you? Of course you do. Cowards are willing to believe anyone who makes them feel safe, make excuses for every father figure.

You're the same pathetic crowd that hundreds of years ago would hang a man for claiming the world is round. You will always be on the wrong side of history and, for those of us who don't run around this planet afraid, always be a sad example of humankind at it's weakest.

"Please... Stop being a lazy shit, get out of the politics of it, and get your hands dirty with the data or STFU becasue you don't know what you're talking about."

I'm your Huckleberry...True, the media ran with it, but someone else started it.

Steve, you're the only one using the word "hatred" in this comment thread. Why is that? The only one with a political agenda, is the subject of this post. You have no idea what you are talking about because this is obviouly an opinion piece. And who the hell doesn't know what the "real debate" is about?

One group of scientists believe that man's misuse of resources is accelerating Global Warming. Another group believes the climate change is inevitable regardless of man's intervention.The fact remains that Al Gore as won the Nobel Peace Prize and taken endless credit for someone else's debate and research. He is the media hype and distraction that is nothing else but political.

Shame on you for being so slothful as to not even try and understand what the debate is about and so ignorant as to prattle on as though you do.

No, shame on you for having the audacity to accuse the poster of lying when writing an opinion piece.

Correction: You and hansel are the ones using the word "hatred". And yeah, you don't need to remind us of what a joke he is.

YOu don't know anyting about climate modeling or geophysics - so shouldn't you just throw up your hands and say "I really don't understand the science either.". Aren't you, at the least, no better than Al Gore in that you pretend to understand this stuff and really do not?

Actually, Steve, I do understand modeling, and I have participated for years in discussions of the fundamental physics involved. And I have read the papers on historical climate reconstructions and the statistical methods used. As for getting hands dirty with the data, when you start criticizing Hansen, Mann, Bradley, Hughes et al for refusing to share it, then you might have some credibility. After your shrill little screed above, you have none.

So I have no intention of STFU, and you can shove the suggestion but thanks for giving me another example of the AGW advocates - who do not want to discuss the actual science but instead just insist that it can't be disputed.

hansel, you seem to be a sterling example of projection.

I'm not going to say that every single scientist who interprets the data as being indicative of AGW has been correct on everything. But how the hell can YOU tell what's right here? YOu don't know anyting about climate modeling or geophysics - so shouldn't you just throw up your hands and say "I really don't understand the science either."

The only problem with that Steve is that I, unlike some, am not using my understanding of predictive "science" as an excuse for government intervention into everyone's lives or as a convenient reason to confiscate citizen's property.

Your little rant did not even come close to addressing my point - that is the aggressive quelling of dissenters - which is generally a pretty good indication of a very weak position on the part of the queller.

"Actually, Steve, I do understand modeling, and I have participated for years in discussions of the fundamental physics involved. "

Then how do you explain these changes? That the models that add what we know about the carbon in the atmosphere have best predicted the warming trend that we've seen - and more warming over land, warming closer to the ground compared to the upper atmosphere. If these changes aren't from man-released carbon in the atmosphere, what is it from? What climate change in the past best fits this one temporally, IOW - is the precedented? And in what scenario - physics wise - would a bunch more carbon in the atmosphere NOT result in more heat being trapped? Was there ever a time historically speaking that increased atmospheric carbon DIDN'T result in wamring?

If you can explain these things to me - instead of prattling on about Al Gore and global cooling hysteria from the 70's - I'll apologize for calling you an ignorant, lazy shit.

"Your little rant did not even come close to addressing my point - that is the aggressive quelling of dissenters - which is generally a pretty good indication of a very weak position on the part of the queller."

Give me examples

"You have no idea what you are talking about because this is obviouly an opinion piece....No, shame on you for having the audacity to accuse the poster of lying when writing an opinion piece. "

What's your point? That it's not possible to lie in an opinion piece? Well, this is my opinion piece - and I wanted to let you know that I am, in fact, Michael Jordan. See that? I lied.

Cassy lied about the position of the scientific community at large when it comes to global warming. It really is that simple. The notion that she couldn't have lied because this is an "opinion piece" is ridiculous.

"And who the hell doesn't know what the "real debate" is about?

One group of scientists believe that man's misuse of resources is accelerating Global Warming. Another group believes the climate change is inevitable regardless of man's intervention.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the specific evidence that points to who's right! THAT's the real debate.

"The fact remains that Al Gore as won the Nobel Peace Prize and taken endless credit for someone else's debate and research. He is the media hype and distraction that is nothing else but political. "

Maybe so. It's completely besides the large point: is anthro GW happening or is it not.

Give me examples

I don't have time to do your research for you Steve. Try paying attention. Here is ONE. You can find the hundreds of others for yourself.

Portion of letter written by Sens. Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) and Snowe (R., Maine) sent to ExxonMobil's CEO.:

Mr. Rex W. Tillerson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ExxonMobil Corporation 5959 Las Colinas Boulevard Irving, TX 75039

Dear Mr. Tillerson...

We are writing to appeal to your sense of stewardship of that corporate citizenship as U.S. Senators concerned about the credibility of the United States in the international community, and as Americans concerned that one of our most prestigious corporations has done much in the past to adversely affect that credibility. We are convinced that ExxonMobil's longstanding support [i.e. funding] of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.

...we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the "deniers." Likewise, we look to you to guide ExxonMobil to capitalize on its significant resources and prominent industry position to assist this country in taking its appropriate leadership role in promoting the technological innovation necessary to address climate change and in fashioning a truly global solution to what is undeniably a global problem.

...

ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the credibility and stature of the United States. Large corporations in related industries have joined ExxonMobil to provide significant and consistent financial support of this pseudo-scientific, non-peer reviewed echo chamber. The goal has not been to prevail in the scientific debate, but to obscure it. This climate change denial confederacy has exerted an influence out of all proportion to its size or relative scientific credibility. Through relentless pressure on the media to present the issue "objectively," and by challenging the consensus on climate change science by misstating both the nature of what "consensus" means and what this particular consensus is, ExxonMobil and its allies have confused the public and given cover to a few senior elected and appointed government officials whose positions and opinions enable them to damage U.S. credibility abroad.

The trash talk continues but is not worth quoting. The letter intimates that Exxon should "go along" or else they'll find themselves in the same unenviable position as "the tobacco companies." The message: Scientists who disagree are not going to get funding from the federal government, and we're going to see that they don't get it from anywhere else either.

Here is more interesting reading. Since this new fangled contraption called the inter-web-net wasn't out there for public use, global cooling articles need to be rewritten.

Here are Newsweek and Time articles from 1974 & 1975

Newsweek 1975: Scientists Predict Massive Global Cooling

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality

Time Magazine's alarmist "global cooling" article from June of 1974

when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth

Anything sound familiar?

Here is another good link:

Forget warming - beware the new ice age

In September, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the National Climate Program Act into law, in aid of predicting future climate and combating global cooling

and combating global cooling

combating global cooling

global cooling

cooling

cool..................

"Cassy lied about the position of the scientific community at large when it comes to global warming. It really is that simple. The notion that she couldn't have lied because this is an "opinion piece" is ridiculous."

No she didn't. This was said on the day Gore received recognition for his "contributions":

"Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Cassy didn't just come up with this on her own. There are plenty who share the same point of view:

Al Gore, Global Warming and Convenient Untruths

"Gore's approach infects the debate and even the methodology of so-called "global warming." From the former vice-president to unseen academics, some who clamor for statist answers to this alleged climate crisis employ dodgy measurement techniques, while others embrace hype and fear-mongering to promote massive government intervention to combat an entirely questionable challenge. Worse yet, this applies to reputedly objective researchers, not just opinionated activists."

You might as well call them liars, too.

I am telling you the new ice age was being hyped in the media. You are just reaffirming it for me

No, you said:

the biggest thing going on was the undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us... as predicted by scientists

So now you want to pretend that you didn't actually say that, and that all you were referring to was media hype unsupported by the scientific community. I'll take that as you acknowledging that what you actually said was bullshit.

"So now you want to pretend that you didn't actually say that, and that all you were referring to was media hype unsupported by the scientific community. I'll take that as you acknowledging that what you actually said was bullshit."

Yeah just like global warming.

So now you want to pretend that you didn't actually say that, and that all you were referring to was media hype unsupported by the scientific community. I'll take that as you acknowledging that what you actually said was bullshit

This is what I said Brian:

But the biggest thing going on was the undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us. (Notice the period)

Not.....

the biggest thing going on was the undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us... as predicted by scientists.

I've just posted a bunch of the media hype about global cooling so if you lived during that time it was very prevalent in the news. Something that prevalent sure seemed undeniable when they were all saying the same thing. And gee, in my short life time we have gone from one extreme to the next. And the planet is cleaner now than it was in the 1970's, so why weren't we in "MAN MADE" global warming just a short 30 years ago.

Why do you think it was so cold at the time?

Our car emissions are less, power plant emissions are less, factory emissions are less and the great lakes don't smell like dead fish any more like they did in the nanosecond of time of just three short decades ago.

So as the planet gets cleaner we are getting warmer, or it could be another weather pattern?

And this is what I said then when I concluded my post

Now that I am older and wiser and actually lived through a weather pattern that didn't climax with glaciers sliding down from the north as predicted "by scientists", all I can say now is "opps

Now refer to my link on comment 41.

It states:

Dr. Kukla, in 1972 a member of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences and a pioneer in the field of astronomical forcing, became a central figure in convincing the United States government to take the dangers of climate change seriously. In January of that year, he and another geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened what would become a historic conference of top European and American investigators in Providence, R.I. The working conference's theme: "The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?"

Later that year, Drs. Kukla and Matthews highlighted the dangers of global cooling in Science magazine and, because of the urgency of the matter, in December they also alerted President Richard Nixon in a joint letter. The conference had reached a consensus, their letter stated, that "a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age."

Why would anyone feel the need for an American / European conference about the end of this interglacial period ending. (The space of time between ice ages)

Because it was getting so cold is seemed like a logical question. We have already surpassed the 10 thousand year interval that is the predicted period of time between each ice age.

Yep, those were scientists surmising when this interglacial period would end. And they were asking because of the current conditions at the time.

Please tell us why in the last 100 years we went from cold to hot then cold to hot again, yet this HOT is the big one. This one is for real. Those other weather patterns were just patterns but this is different. It won't cool down again until we throw billions of dollars at the UN.

As usial the UN Al Gore and the eco-freaks will ignore this letter claiming thier in league with major induestries SCREW THE GREENS SCREW AL GORE SCREW THE UN LETS BOOT THEM ALL OUT

Bloggwworthy-
You're kidding right? I ask for examples of scientific dissent being quelled, and you have this rant to the head of Mobil as you e.g.? Then you say I have to find the examples?

Dude: I' m saying that it's not happening, you're saying that it is. The burden of proof is on YOU.

And it has to be with scientists, dipshit

Hey look - no one answered any of my scientific questions, but instead kept prattling on about global cooling in the 70's and Al Gore...blah blah blah.

Could it be because none of you even understand what the evidence is or isn't? How can you take a position in a debate that you don't even understand?

Was there ever a time historically speaking that increased atmospheric carbon DIDN'T result in wamring?

Your claim that the models predict the warming we've seen is actually another false claim. the AGW community is producing models that predict past events, but has not produced a model that has made any useful future predictions to date. In fact, early predictions were of a smoother distribution of temperature rise than has been observed, leading to a new set of models.

Look at the predictions of increased hurricane activity that failed to materialize in the last couple of years.

It is still not clear that we should actually have any confidence in the claims that current temps are in fact rising as much as claimed. See the recent fiasco with the GISS series where McIntyre showed that a fundamental error in how the GISS series was calculated resulted in erroneous temp summaries. NASA's Hansen had been refusing to share the code that calculated the GISS series and McIntyre and his colleagues had to reverse engineer the calculations to find the error.

Additionally, as I've mentioned, most of these claims require the fundamental assumption of the uniqueness of modern warming - and that is based on the deeply suspect work of Mann, Bradley, Hughes et al. The very group still playing the most unscientific of games to hide their work, conceal their data, and use ad hominem to attack critics.

That's not science.

If you can explain these things to me - instead of prattling on about Al Gore and global cooling hysteria from the 70's - I'll apologize for calling you an ignorant, lazy shit.

No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this - all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can. One thing not in dispute is that we cannot continue to use non-renewable sources on energy forever.
Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have over 26,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at www.solarjoules.com. Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case - the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative. This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step "just in case". And hey, the fact that you will save money on your electricity bill over time is a pretty good reason to look into it as well.
If anyone would like company information you can go to www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz.

I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling.

You must be living in a cave, Reggie.

How can the author of this claim that CO2 isn't a polluting gas? Ya, it is true that plants need it for photosynthesis, but they can only take in so much. We are putting megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels that cannot be used.