What year do you estimate that the environmentalists changed from being worried about an Ice Age to global warming?

[glenn1]

Just wondering, since growing up the doom and gloom battle cry was always about the coming Ice Age, not global warming. Just wondering when that flipped around and the cause.

Also, place your odds on the concern flipping back to an Ice Age within the forseeable future......

 

[sandorski]

Strawman! Get your fresh Strawman here!

 

[tweakmm]

The two go hand-in-hand no?

 

[Captante]

If you read the most current research, the consensus opinion is that global warming may well lead to another ice age because the polar icecap melting has the potential to interrupt ocean currents like the gulfstream which bring warmth to much of the North... these are theories however & all data regarding global warming/cooling weather patterns etc is based on at most a few hundred years of records, just a few seconds in the life of our planet.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Captante
If you read the most current research, the consensus opinion is that global warming may well lead to another ice age because the polar icecap melting has the potential to interrupt ocean currents like the gulfstream which bring warmth to much of the North... these are theories however & all data regarding global warming/cooling weather patterns etc is based on at most a few hundred years of records, just a few seconds in the life of our planet.

And there are theories that say there is global warming because there is an ice age coming. Before every other ice age, temps have risen before falling.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Captante
If you read the most current research, the consensus opinion is that global warming may well lead to another ice age because the polar icecap melting has the potential to interrupt ocean currents like the gulfstream which bring warmth to much of the North... these are theories however & all data regarding global warming/cooling weather patterns etc is based on at most a few hundred years of records, just a few seconds in the life of our planet.

It's just a way to cover their butts in case they have to go back to the ice age thing again.

 

[dahunan]

Cool... so man has no ability to affect the Earths climate or atmosphere.. good to know.. thanks

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The two go hand-in-hand no?

Correct. Those who are well informed know that the issue is "climate change" not "global warming." As such, some regions of the Earth will cool and others will warm. Both are a concern.

 

[glenn1]

Strawman! Get your fresh Strawman here!

This is actually a serious question. I'm not equiped to have a debate on the merits of climate change theory, but that doesn't mean I don't know the difference between warming up and cooling down, and when I was younger the only thing mentioned was ice age. Just like back then, all the children's cereals had the word "Sugar" in their title and don't now (like how "Sugar Frosted Flakes" became "Frosted Flakes," or "Sugar Smacks" became just plain Smacks).

 

[Moonbeam]

I can look into a girls eyes and tell weather.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Just wondering, since growing up the doom and gloom battle cry was always about the coming Ice Age, not global warming. Just wondering when that flipped around and the cause.

Also, place your odds on the concern flipping back to an Ice Age within the forseeable future......

They are 100% directly releated to one another. The condensed version:

Global warming will melt the polar ice caps causing desalination of the oceans, thus changing the jetstream, consequently bringing on the next ice age.

 

[glenn1]

They are 100% directly releated to one another. The condensed version:

Global warming will melt the polar ice caps causing desalination of the oceans, thus changing the jetstream, consequently bringing on the next ice age.

Then why did they skip the step about the warming up first, considering that's the most important part which the rest depends on? That's like starting off with the statement "your furniture will be wet in the future" without bothering to mention the house fire which caused the fire department to spray it down with their hoses in the first place. To me the fire is a tad bit more important.

 

[shoegazer]

i'm pretty sure a lot of the global cooling talk was in response to lower temperatures that can be attributed to the emissions of aerosols that reflect sunlight back out to space. (like the ffect after a volcano erupts)

we've since cut the emissions of aerosols (which cause many other air quality related health problems) and it seems as though they were just masking the trend of global warming for a short period.

 

[Moonbeam]

Most people are sheep and go with the other sheep. Very few are courageous enough to think for themselves. I myself, for example, worry about both of these at the same time. I guess it takes some capacity to contemplate a double disaster.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Strawman! Get your fresh Strawman here!

This is actually a serious question. I'm not equiped to have a debate on the merits of climate change theory, but that doesn't mean I don't know the difference between warming up and cooling down, and when I was younger the only thing mentioned was ice age. Just like back then, all the children's cereals had the word "Sugar" in their title and don't now (like how "Sugar Frosted Flakes" became "Frosted Flakes," or "Sugar Smacks" became just plain Smacks).

I could have also went with "Repost", but decided that post was just as appropriate with less neffage to boot.

So, you may ask, why Ice Age to Global Warming? The fact is someone suggested Ice Age, it got some media attention, but didn't withstand scientific scrutiny. Overall that idea lasted a few years before it was abandoned. Global Warming OTOH has withstood scientific scrutiny and continues to gather evidence.

The other problem with the question is how it portrays the "Environmental" movement and even who's behind Global Warming. Environmentalists are, by their very name, people who are concerned with the Environment. As such, when a Scientist or science proposes a threat to the Enviironment, of course they will be concerned and express alarm. However, they are not stupid, when the Ice Age idea was proven false, Environmentalists dropped it as a concern(some quicker than others most likely). When Global Warming became an issue, they again saw it as a threat to the Environment and expressed concern again.

Did Environmentalists fabricate the Ice Age/Global Warming theories? No, they merely reacted to theories proposed by scientists(I suppose there are a few radicals that over react once in awhile). Often they rely on Scientific Mavericks or Pioneers who are opening new fields of science, but they don't just cook up issues such as these.

It's also important to note that the Ice Age idea didn't get replaced by Global Warming. Global Warming wasn't considered an issue until many years after the Ice Age idea was abandoned.

 

[doody]

Scientists are full of it, the ozone crisis was a good example right?

I mean, the ozone fixed itself just fine and we didn't have to do anything to help it right?

 

[Captante]

My point in mentioning that these were theories based on a relatively short span of time was that at this point they are VERY subject to change..the most valuable studies along these lines IMO involves taking soil & ice core samples at various locations around the earth in order to research the actual composition of the earths atomsphere far into the past.. its the only way we can begin to look back far enough to get a real picture of "normal" climate for the earth.

 

[irwincur]

It was about 1983 or 84 when the flip was made. The flip occured in response to the 'hole' in the Ozone over Antartica. I remember this clearly because all of the liberal puke teachers I had back then shoved this crap down out throats. Little did they know that this 'hole' was temporary and most likely a natural cycle.

Since then, the left realized that Global Warming was big business. From lefty teachers looking for grants, to lefty directors looking for movie concepts. The great majority of Climatologists are still on the 'wait and see' side of the issue. However, this does not seem to matter much to the pseudo-intellectuals on the left - after all, they know everything about everything...

 

[doody]

Originally posted by: irwincur
It was about 1983 or 84 when the flip was made. The flip occured in response to the 'hole' in the Ozone over Antartica. I remember this clearly because all of the liberal puke teachers I had back then shoved this crap down out throats. Little did they know that this 'hole' was temporary and most likely a natural cycle.

Since then, the left realized that Global Warming was big business. From lefty teachers looking for grants, to lefty directors looking for movie concepts. The great majority of Climatologists are still on the 'wait and see' side of the issue. However, this does not seem to matter much to the pseudo-intellectuals on the left - after all, they know everything about everything...

Perhaps you'd like a new set of batteries for your sarcasm detector?

The reason the ozone layer is recovering is because the chemicals which destroy it were band, apart from methyl bromine which is still used by American farmers...well because Americans consider themselves outside international rules/regulations/laws and all that kind of cr@p right?

 

[shoegazer]

iwincur,

i'll trust my "leftist" professors over your oil company propaganda anyday.

 

[Captante]

I don't think theres much doubt that the global climate is warming, the real question is why is it doing so?

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I

Since then, the left realized that Global Warming was big business. From lefty teachers looking for grants, to lefty directors looking for movie concepts.

Directors find disaters in the headlines, regardless of political motives. And yes, there is some benefit to researchers who overstate the effects of their own research, but more often than not they only take money from their peers, and as such earn their peers' criticism.

The great majority of Climatologists are still on the 'wait and see' side of the issue.

Proof? I have seen empirical studies that show that the majority of scientists in the environmental and meteorological fields think that climate change is a fact, a concern and is (at least in part) impacted by human affairs. Even Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist" concedes these points (while questioning the doomsday rhetoric and absolutist policies proposed by some).

Since your opinion goes against "common knowledge," I'd very much appreciate a link so I might better educate myself.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: irwincur
It was about 1983 or 84 when the flip was made. The flip occured in response to the 'hole' in the Ozone over Antartica. I remember this clearly because all of the liberal puke teachers I had back then shoved this crap down out throats. Little did they know that this 'hole' was temporary and most likely a natural cycle.

Since then, the left realized that Global Warming was big business. From lefty teachers looking for grants, to lefty directors looking for movie concepts. The great majority of Climatologists are still on the 'wait and see' side of the issue. However, this does not seem to matter much to the pseudo-intellectuals on the left - after all, they know everything about everything...

Nothing "pseudo" about them. They were correct, plain and simple.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: irwincur
It was about 1983 or 84 when the flip was made. The flip occured in response to the 'hole' in the Ozone over Antartica. I remember this clearly because all of the liberal puke teachers I had back then shoved this crap down out throats. Little did they know that this 'hole' was temporary and most likely a natural cycle.

Since then, the left realized that Global Warming was big business. From lefty teachers looking for grants, to lefty directors looking for movie concepts. The great majority of Climatologists are still on the 'wait and see' side of the issue. However, this does not seem to matter much to the pseudo-intellectuals on the left - after all, they know everything about everything...

Zendari, you are, um, amazingly brilliant! Only you have the insight to read into this year's data - which is showing one of the largest holes yet recorded - a conclusion precisely the opposite of what the data suggests. The only larger hole is the one between your ears, which is obviously there to accommodate your huge brain.

Gee, a BIG hole

The EPA, the United Nations Environmental Programme, and the World Meteorological Organization all agree that the primary cause of the reduction in worldwide ozone levels is the introduction of man-made chloroflourocarbons and other "ozone depleting substances" (ODSs) into the atomosphere. As a result of the massive scientific consensus on this issue (which continues to this day), the Montreal Protocol was put into effect in 1987 to control the emisson of ODSs. The current scientific belief is that if strict controls of ODSs is successfully maintained, the world's ozone layer can be completely restored by 2050.

Of course, you will claim that if the ozone layer is restored by 2050 that proves the scientists were wrong about there being an "ozone hole" problem. God, you're, um, incredibly astute.

Edit: Edited to avoid banworthiness.

 

[sandorski]

Asking not to be banned does not prevent banning. You might wanna edit that before it's seen.