Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s

_{Barry Arrington
January 24, 2015

Intelligent Design

6}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Those who doubt global warming alarmism sometimes point to the global cooling alarmism of the 70s. The idea is that alarmists will latch onto whatever happens to be at hand to clang their bell, cooling then, warming in the 90s; explaining away the plateau now.

Mark Frank has made the risible assertion that “the global cooling thing was a non-event” in the 70s. StephenB has offered Mark a service by setting him straight:*

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)

1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ?September 11, 1972?)
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ?September 12, 1972?)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ?December 4, 1974?)
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ?December 5, 1974?)
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ?December 5, 1974?)
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ?March 3, 1975?)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ?January 17, 1978?)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14,

Mark Frank

<blockquote> I was very much around and aware in the 70s and can verify that the global cooling thing was a non-event.</blockquote>

Perhaps you were in a frozen chamber. I was also around at that time, and I can verify that it was quite the event. Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, and CIA.

*From http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Comments

SB: Claim I have provided evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Evidence Here is my interpretation: only 1% of those expressing an opinion endorsed the claim that human activity is the main cause of global warming. Your evidence does not support your claim, your evidence is that 1 % of those expressing an opinion say human activity is the main cause, Your claim requires using this one piece of evidence to show 99% of those who expressed an opinion say that human activity played or could play no role Then you might modify your claim that" while we cannot know what all scientists think but in this one instance in the unknown percentage of papers which expressed an opinion on human activity being the main cause 1% expressed that opinion, as for the remaining 99%.....( listing the appropriate %)" , perhaps also some level of confidence in the findings.velikovskys_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

SB #92
I know that you are honest enough to retract that statement. You forgot to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit.
0.37 C is 0.67 F – still way short of 1.08. When you quoted the 1.08 you never gave indication it was Fahrenheit (which would have been rather bizarre in a scientific context). However, I did actually consider whether you might have been using Fahrenheit for some reason but when I saw that Fahrenheit also was miles away from 1.08 I decided that couldn’t be what you meant. I know you are honest enough to retract your statement.
Lovejoy is not the only person to say that there was a natural cooling event in 1998.
To be pedantic 1998 was outstandingly warm. I guess you meant since 1998. As I explained – if you take that as a start point and deliberately finish on a low point you can show a small amount of cooling. Needless to say that is not the way trends are explored statistically. Lovejoy did not describe any cooling event (as far as I can see). He only talked about how natural cooling fluctuations might slow down the rate of increase.
I have also read other reports that use the number 1.08 and others which indicate a cooling trend without assigning a number.
I think you will understand that I would like to see the references. You have not demonstrated a very firm grasp of the papers you have used as references to date.
None of that changes the overall warming trend of .7 degrees in 135 years, which is insignificant. It will go the other direction in time.
Reference please.
Yes, I read the paper. A natural cooling fluctuation sometimes involves a temporary decrease in temperature, not simply a slower rise in the temperature.
It does sometimes – but Lovejoy is not saying this happened since 1998 and certainly not by 1.08 (F or C).
From NASA: “In their recently published research paper2 entitled “Is the climate warming or cooling?”, David Easterling of the U.S. National Climate Data Center and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming.
Yes. So what. That is not the same as saying a period of cooling actually occurred. It is only saying that if happens that is consistent with long term global warming. This is what Easterling and Wehner actually wrote (my emphasis): It is true that if we fit a linear trend line to the annual global land-ocean surface air temperature (Smith et al. 2005) shown in Figure 1 for the period 1998 to 2008 there is no real trend, even though global temperatures remain well above the long-term average. The unusually strong 1997-1998 El Niño contributed to unusual warmth in the global temperature for 1998 at the start of this period resulting in only a small, statistically insignificant positive trend. However, if we fit a trend line to the same annual global land-ocean temperatures for the 1977-1985 period or the 1981-1989 period we also get no trend, even though these periods are embedded in the 1975-2008 period showing a substantial overall warming. Furthermore, if we drop 1998 and fit the trend to the period 1999-2008 we indeed get a strong, statistically significant positive trend. There is a another significance to this. Barry’s previous post was about how sceptics were “sober-minded champions of dispassionate science” while alarmists were “benighted opponents of scientific endeavour”. I hope, at least, that this dialogue will convince you that my opinion is based on a detailed and objective reading of the available material – even if you disagree with the conclusions.Mark Frank_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

#93 StephenB, I didn't because it isn't available online for free, but I can share a copy with anyone who's interested (see #82).Piotr_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Piotr
I hope any genuinely interested onlookers will find the time to check up the sources for themselves.
You provided links to Cook's report. Did you provide links to Legates' report?StephenB_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

SB: “Shaun Lovejoy, professor of physics, concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998.” Mark
Well 0.37 is a lot less than 1.08.
I know that you are honest enough to retract that statement. You forgot to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit. Lovejoy is not the only person to say that there was a natural cooling event in 1998. I just cited him because his name is memorable. I have also read other reports that use the number 1.08 and others which indicate a cooling trend without assigning a number. None of that changes the overall warming trend of .7 degrees in 135 years, which is insignificant. It will go the other direction in time.
However, if you read the paper you will see that they are not saying the world has cooled that much. They are saying a natural cooling fluctuation accounts for the fact that temperatures have not risen as fast as they did in the preceding 20 years.
Yes, I read the paper. A natural cooling fluctuation sometimes involves a temporary decrease in temperature, not simply a slower rise in the temperature. From NASA: "In their recently published research paper2 entitled "Is the climate warming or cooling?", David Easterling of the U.S. National Climate Data Center and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming.StephenB_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

SB: To sum things up. One argument holds that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made. It is clearly false and made up. Piotr
You haven’t had a look at the article by Cook et al. (2013), have you?
I didn't associate that position to Cook. I said "one argument that is made,".. (When all else fails, read the sentence) It is a commonly held lie. From the NASA website: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Will you retract your misrepresentation of my position? Of course, you won't. I can predict it from your behavior.. Meanwhile, I asked you for a summary of Legates' conclusions that exposes the lie. You did not answer the challenge. Mark Frank did answer the challenge and I accepted his formulation: “Only 1% explicitly endorsed the clain that man-made activity was the main cause of global warming.” I adopted that formulation. The relationship between that commonly-held lie and Cook's dubious research is unclear. Meanwhile, you are much better at issuing challenges than you are at responding to them.
Go have your way, and thanks for your demonstration of denialism in action.
Another misrepresentation and another example of your inability to engage in an honest dialogue.StephenB_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

To sum things up. One argument holds that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made. It is clearly false and made up. You haven't had a look at the article by Cook et al. (2013), have you? (cf. the link in #83). If you had, you would not be misrepresenting its conclusions again (actually making stuff up yourself). All right, I've had enough of your weasel tricks. Go have your way, and thanks for your demonstration of denialism in action. I hope any genuinely interested onlookers will find the time to check up the sources for themselves.Piotr_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

#85 SB I am not sure how you got to: "One argument holds that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made. It is clearly false and made up." There is evidence for this as 97% of the scientists endorsed global warming explicitly or implicitly - although I would share reservations about Cook's methods. Anyhow you have inspired me to look through this thread and the previous one. I see a couple of other statements that you never justified. While you are on a roll you might want to look at these as well. goodusername claimed that only 3 or 4 articles on global cooling existed You only have to look at what he actually wrote to see this is false. The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998. This is more complicated. Although you provided some references referring to global cooling none of them supported this particular statement (see below for specifics). In fact the explanation is quite easy to see. 1998 was a freak year and if you take that as your base, take the very lowest of the subsequent years (2007 I think), and look only at the RSS satellite measurements (which measure the upper atmosphere) then you can find this difference. However, this doesn’t mean the world is 1.08 degrees cooler. It means it was 1.08 degrees cooler one year in the upper atmosphere. I assume you agree this is a different statement. It differs both in spirit (measuring a trend by selecting two extremes is a very well-known fraud) and in letter (now is not 2007). Your quotes which are intended to support your claim. The first two appear to be from this NASA article
–…”some information sources — blogs, websites, media articles and other voices — highlight that the planet has been cooling since a peak in global temperature in 1998. This cooling is only part of the picture, according to a recent study that has looked at the world’s temperature record over the past century or more.
As explained above you can show a slight cooling if you carefully select the beginning and end points. However, to get it to amount to anything close to 1.08 degrees you have to be highly selective and choose the set of measurements and stop about 7 years ago.
In their recently published research paper2 entitled “Is the climate warming or cooling?”, David Easterling of the U.S. National Climate Data Center and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming.
Yes. But that is not the same as saying that there has been a period of slight cooling and it certainly does not support the rather dramatic figures of 1.08 degrees. and again,
“Shaun Lovejoy, professor of physics, concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998.”
Well 0.37 is a lot less than 1.08. However, if you read the paper you will see that they are not saying the world has cooled that much. They are saying a natural cooling fluctuation accounts for the fact that temperatures have not risen as fast as they did in the preceding 20 years.Mark Frank_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank
"Only 1% explicitly endorsed the clain that man-made activity was the main cause of global warming."
Done. So it is; so shall it be.StephenB_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Piotr
Why should I interpret a snippet scissored out from its context when I have access to the full article?
To sum things up. One argument holds that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made. It is clearly false and made up. Even so, it is a clean, concise summary that can be used for propaganda purposes. To counter it, another summary must be made based on empirical evidence. Hence, my (amended) formulation [based on Mark Frank's summary, which I like] "Only 1% explicitly endorsed the claim that man-made activity was the main cause of global warming." That's fair and accurate.StephenB_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Aurelio Smith, So I get it. Unable to actually articulate a flaw in the observations, your response is to conduct a passive form of character assassination. Is this your third or fourth time at this? It's quite a compliment.Upright BiPed_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

By the way, here's Cook et al. (2013): http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdfPiotr_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

StephenB
Now give me your interpretation.
Why should I interpret a snippet scissored out from its context when I have access to the full article? Science and Education is behind a paywall, but I have downloaded both the paper by Bedford & Cook and the rejoinder by Legates et al., and can e-mail you the PDFs if you are interested. If you really want to discuss Legates's calculations, you should read the bloody paper first. Legates et al. engage into a lot of nitpicking as to what constitutes "genuine" endorsement. It isn't enough if the abstract says, in so may words, "We strongly believe that the warming trend is anthropogenic and its results will be catastrophic in the long term." No, no, it's unquantified, scientifically valueless, and doesn't guarantee that the authors aren't merely bowing down to authority. They have to quanitify their support -- prove it with numbers already in the abstract (it doesn't count if they do so in the article), otherwise it won't qualify as full endorsement in Legates's book. Using a similar trick it's easy to "prove" that no scientist on earth endorses intelligent design. How many serious journal papers express quantified explicit endorsement of intelligent design in the abstract (no matter what they say in the body of the article or what their results imply)? I'm sure you would protest if anyone used such a method to assess scholarly support for an idea you like. So please, no double standards.Piotr_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Jerad @78, The Rebel Speech project has grown into something much bigger than I anticipated. My understanding of the architecture and operating principles of cortical memory has grown by leaps and bounds in the last few years. Think stuff like, "cocktail party effect", noise tolerance, unsupervised learning, etc. These things alone would be extraordinary in their own right but the really big surprise is something else altogether, something that will knock everyone's socks off. That's all I can say and, besides, this is neither the place nor the time for it. Wait for it.Mapou_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

Mapou #77
As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I just happen to believe that the proof should precede the claim or at least accompany it. It won’t be too long now.
The Rebel Speech demo? And accompanying document. Or so it would appear from your September 19th blog entry.
Briefly, Rebel Speech is a biologically plausible, spiking neural network. It is a novel machine learning program that can learn to recognize speech in any language just like we do, by listening. Unlike most speech recognition systems which use either a Bayesian or a supervised deep learning model or both, Rebel Speech has a winner-take-all mechanism. Essentially, during learning, the program compiles as many pattern sequences as possible and then allows them to compete for activation. During recognition, the sequence with the highest number of hits is the winner. There is magic in the air.
Jerad_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
If we have to wait I guess we’ll just have to wait. How come you can’t talk about it?
As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I just happen to believe that the proof should precede the claim or at least accompany it. It won't be too long now.Mapou_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

Mapou #75
Sorry. It’s not yet ready for public release. All I can say right now is that it’s about intelligence and the brain, and something else that I can’t talk about. Don’t worry, though. You will know when it comes out. And you won’t like it.
If we have to wait I guess we'll just have to wait. How come you can't talk about it?Jerad_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
Mapou #42
If you only knew what I have been working on, you’d defecate in your pants and go into an apoplectic fit.
Go on then, tell us what you have been working on. Links to any of your publications much appreciated.
Sorry. It's not yet ready for public consumption. All I can say right now is that it's about intelligence and the brain, and something else that I can't talk about. Don't worry, though. You will know when it comes out. And you won't like it.Mapou_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

SB Thanks for retracting your claim. I don't quite accept: only 1% explicitly endorsed the claim that man-made activity causes global warming. About 25% fell into that category. Only 1% explicitly endorsed the clain that man-mde activity was the main cause of global warming. Having said that, all but 3% gave some kind of endorsement. They didn't deny that mad-made activity was the main cause and they weren't asked if it was the main cause so there is no particular reason why they should explicitly say so in the abstract.Mark Frank_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

Mapou #42
If you only knew what I have been working on, you’d defecate in your pants and go into an apoplectic fit.
Go on then, tell us what you have been working on. Links to any of your publications much appreciated.Jerad_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

The Revelle & Gore story http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdfAndre_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. Carl Sagan There is no such thing as man-made global warming or cooling, The temperature variations are natural fluxuations that have been documented since the 12th century, what we have are scare mongers, and the latest global warming scare from Al Gore was based on what Revelle assumed in the 50's that man made CO2 could cause global warming. Revelle later retracted his claim but Gore saw dollar signs.Andre_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Radioaction, The recorded temperature that water molecules boil into steam is based on observed regularities. Those regularities stem from the dynamic properties of water molecules. When oxygen reacts with iron to form rust (iron-oxide), that product is based on the dynamic properties of iron and oxygen. The mapping of nucleic acids to amino acids is also based on observed regularities. Those regularities do not stem from the dynamic properties of nucleic acids. In order to organize the cell, the mapping between nucleotides and amino acids must be established in the translation system while preserving the physicochemical discontinuity between them. Otherwise, the system could not function.Upright BiPed_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Mapou, I was just drawing a simple parallel in response to posts from you and others. You can question all you want, but when you are provided with scientific evidence and you choose to ignore it simply because it disagrees with your own preconceived notions; that is science-denial.Radioaction_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

You lost me at “non-dynamic regularities,” Upright. This seems a little redundant to me actually, but either way I have no idea what you are talking about. We are talking about biology, right? Maybe I’m “anti-intellectual,” who knows.Radioaction_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Want to know what I remember from the '70's? Hal Lindsey. What a fraud. IMO "Jesus is coming back any day now alarmism" trumps "global cooling alarmism."Mung_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

1% of papers, which you must admit is quite different than your first claim?wd400_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

wd400. You are using the wrong quote. Reread the proper quote. Even so, I am willing to amend my claim as follows: ..."only 1% explicitly endorsed the claim that man-made activity causes global warming." I think that accurately captures the spirit of the quote using my own words.StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

A simple questionnaire for StephenB: 1. What is a greenhouse gas? 2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3. Has atmospheric CO2 been increasing for the past century? If he answers those questions, there are follow-up questions.Daniel King_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Stephen B, There isn't much to interpret, is there? 41 of ~12k papers explicitly state something like "the world has warmed over the 20th century, and most of this warming is attributable to human activities". That's pretty obviously not the same thing as 1% of scientists (not papers) "believe" in man-made warming (rather than have explicitly stated in the abstract of a paper that most recent warming is the result of human activities). That retraction is now well and truly overduewd400_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply