/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15086436
>The rhetoric has never changed since the inception of the climate scare in the 70s (when it was an ice age instead of warming)
The only one spouting false narratives is you. Stop lying.

>>15072990
So retarded and easy to debunk
>1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’
Doesn't mention climate change. Let's look into Paul R. Ehrlich:
>Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) is an American[2] biologist, best known for his warnings about the consequences of population growth and limited resources.
Not about climate change at all.

>1969: ‘Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.’
Same guy, still not about climate.

>1970: Ice age by 2000
Pic related. This was always a fringe position.

>1970: ‘America subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.’
Again, this Ehrlich guy?

>1972: New ice age by 2070
Same shit.

>>14793781
It's pretty telling that deniers quoteNationalGeographic instead of actual scientific papers.

>>14670554
It was always a fringe position.

>>14611841
>Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Why did you lie?

>>14575932
>Literally from new ice age to warming catastrophe and vice versa.
Source?

>>14488714
>thats a 20 year old graph
Amazing how a 20 year old graph has data from 2021.

>back in the 20th century "trust the science" was herping and derping about the new ice age and global cooling
Not really, no. Pic related. Your third Time cover is fake and the rest are just about cold weather snaps in the US. You're very gullible.

>>12580196
Why are you lying?

>>12312850
>the point people are making is that climate scientists just a few decades ago reached a totally opposite "scientific consensus" of global cooling
They didn't though, global cooling was always a fringe viewpoint. Thanks for clarifying that your point is wrong.

>>12170839
>You heard me. If you think "facts" exist in any hard sense in science, you don't understand science. There are temporary beliefs subject to revision.
You misunderstand, facts are directly observable, not beliefs.

>That the overlapping fossil records of continents surrounded by oceans is due to a near endless array of now vanished land bridges.
Theory, not a fact. The overlapping fossil records of the continents is a fact, land bridges was a theory that explained that fact.

>That it's impossible to have a triangle with interior angles that add to something other than 180 degrees.
Has nothing to do with empirical science, it's just a mathematical definition.

>Global cooling. (The 1970s view of climate trends.)
It was a minority view. Pic related. Sorry you feel for denier propaganda.

>>12159574
>Yes there is, because to a layperson, positive is conflated with "hot" and negative with "cold". The media then conflate hot with "bad" and cold with "good".
How is that relevant? It's not even a difference between temperate anomaly and temperature. 72 degrees and 1 degree hotter than a baseline of 71 degrees are equally "hot." If your objection is that stupid people misunderstand temperature anomaly then don't be a stupid person.

>Also notice that the baseline period is exactly the one during which alarmists were warning us about global cooling.
Another denier lie that has been disproven for years yet still gets repeated. Why does the choice of baseline even matter here? The graph would look exactly the same regardless of the baseline. You are incredibly retarded.

>>11925847
Nice lie.

>>11863786
Wrong.

>>11601246
>and 10 years before
>>>omfg new ice age coming then peak oil arrrgh!
Stale Denier Meme BTFO Episode #2458723905702952947509347

>>11013832
considering most published work in the 70s predicted future warming, whoever that guy was it he really should have looked harder at the evidence.

>>11013351
>Scientists said in the 70s there would be an ice age before 2000s.

did they though?

>>10928570
retard

>>10749321
a handful of papers that were ripped apart by climatologists that the media hyped for ratings.

>>10660726
what global cooling scare?

>>10589537
Good job proving your only understanding of 'science' is garbage media BS

>>10582038
Turns out the media was just as bad at reporting science in the 70s as they are now.

>>10495714
Hmmm

>>10231349
>Eh, maybe I don't have the exact dates (pretty much just waking up, I didn't brush up on the details before posting) but I do talk to older people and any them will confirm it.
They may have heard other people talking about it (hell, the media is still full of obviously-wrong claims about AGW), but it was never a dominant position among climatologists.

>Fact is, the narrative has changed
The actual narrative from scientists has been fairly consistent. Global warming emerged as a significant threat in the early 1970's, became the dominant model by the late 1970's, and only the specifics have changed since then. I suspect the change people have seen is (slow) improvements in reporting what scientists are saying, rather than any actual shift in the narrative.

>so far it hasn't been right in it's extreme predictions.
Actually, climate change predictions have done surprisingly well. Even Hansen's models from 1988 hold up pretty well, if you adjust for actual human emissions.

>>10231365
>I'm hoping someone here in this thread has the means to put these specific concentrations of co2 in a jar and set them in the sun and record their temperatures every hour from 10am to 3pm for a week,
That's not how you would need to set it up. To start with, CO2 is basically transparent to sunlight. It's IR from Earth which gets absorbed.

>>10231378
>The climate changes all the time and the rate of change doesn't actually matter all that much.
I'd love to see your citation for that.

>humans might go extinct but so what?
Fuck you too.

>>9112516
>Remember when climate scientists used to say we were heading into an intense ice age?
even during the short period of time when some scientists were saying we might go into cooling (because the majority of our emissions were negative forcing aerosols), there were just as many if not more that were predicting warming