Saturday, July 21, 2007

Global Warming and Global Cooling Crisis Since 1895

The Business & Media Institute came out with a report called Fire & Ice back in May 2006 that chronicled the MSM's reporting of climate change, both Global Cooling and Global Warming, since 1895.

1895-1932 GLOBAL COOLING -First, in 1895, the New York Times warned their readers of the looming dangers of the new ice age where billions would die.

1929 - 1969 GLOBAL WARMING - The Global Cooling dangers lasted until the late 1920's when Global Warming became the danger. The MSM reported how the nation has entered into the "longest warm spell since 1776" The New York Times in 1959 reported that glaciers were melting in Alaska and the ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century. They also reported in 1960 that "the Arctic pack is is thinning and that the ocean at the North pole may become an open sea withing a decade of two". Sound familiar?

1954 - 1976 GLOBAL COOLING - There seems to be some overlap between these periods as the MSM moved back to Global Cooling. They predicted billions of people dying again. In 1970 the Washington Post told readers to " get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters - the worst may be yet to come". Fortune Magazine ran a story that said "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed" it continued with " It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude".

Present - GLOBAL WARMING - Now we are in the current situation of being in a Global Warming crisis with Al Gore leading the way. "Our ability to live is what is at stake"

So you see, weather on this planet fluctuates. It always has and it always will.

It's done it for billions of years and humans have nothing to do with it.


  1. Lester Mills7/21/2007 7:41 PM

    I kind of wish there was something more than just global warming and global cooling--something like global nothing, you know? What we need are a few years or even a decade or two when the earth’s average temperature is neither rising nor falling. Think about how nice it would be not have this continual media panic. But I imagine the liberal eco-loons would get something going:

    “Scientists Say Earth’s Temperature Unchanged in Almost 20 Years”

    “Report: Lack of Climate Change Increases Boredom, Suicide Risk”

    “Heating and Air Conditioning Salesman Kills Self, Family”

    “Time Magazine Sales Lowest in Two Decades”

    “Democratic Candidates Debate Need for Climate Change”

    “Exxon Admits Failure to Increase Carbon Emissions”

    “Exxon Admits Failure to Decrease Carbon Emissions”

    “Al Gore IV Enters Rehab”

  2. Nicely done, Lester! Your headlines gave me a good chuckle this morning.

    “Democratic Candidates Debate Need for Climate Change” LOL!

  3. Or, consider science has improved since those headlines.. and accept the reality that MSM isn't conducting the science... all the MSM is going to do is sensationalized what it can to sell it's media.

    Andy, those are just headlines. I would hope that science has improved (for all our sake, consider the everyday conveniences such as air travel, phama, medicine and a myriad of other technological advances).
    I mean, isn't it possible that science has gotten better? You selectively pick and choose what science you like, the ones that keep you alive and mike life easier, yet discount global climate change theories which have been developed via the scientific method... the same method at work with the other innovations you "trust".

    Anyhow, I just don't get how that when a majority of scientist reach a conclusion, how you and other can junk it.. yet, still trust other science using the same research methods.

    And, thank GOD the msm isn't in charge of science. There's just there to sell their stuff - and to sensationalize. What would you trust more, a msm report, or something out of a research periodical?

  4. drylander,
    The problem I have with this issue is that scientists have yet to definitively prove that humans cause global warming. Sure, global warming is currently happening now, but I bet in 20 years, we will be in a cooling cycle.

    The scientists who believe humans are causing global warming are relying only on models and theories. They have not been able to prove it or confirm it.

    There are also many scientists who do not believe humans cause global warming.

  5. True, it's not been 'definitively proved' yet, the best explanation(s) have been offered. Science often does not give us absolute empirical proof, yet there are many elements of science and the scientific method that at least attempt to explain a certain event or phenomena.

    And, just to be picky, science isn't about betting, wishing, or believing. We take what evidence we have, and we make the best conclusion we can make.

    Are there dissenting opinions in regard to the mainstream theory's the scientific community believes as to what's causing climate change? Of course... but, the bulk of our scientist do indeed believe mankind is contributing to the climate change issue.

    You know, for a period of time, we humans thought the earth was flat, that the sun orbited our planet and that our continents never moved.

    Anyhow, the thing I dispute most is the selective acceptance of science. As a scientist myself, I feel this is due fundamental misunderstanding of how the scientific peer review process works. I've been a contributer and editor to this process - and it's not like two political pieces in the newspaper.... it's people trying their best, offering explanations and reasoning based on the empirical proof they do have.

    If you think the scientific community is devoid of dissent and criticism you have clearly never been a part of the this review process. Science is unmerciful - and the only way it ticks is not through beliefs or gut feelings, but the proof that is available.

    Anyhow, my point is that the truth will come out in the peer review process in the scientific community. Now, it seems the bulk of research and evidence leans towards a human component to climate change... Maybe time will tell? But, political punditry and gut feelings won't hold much water until then.

    I'll call a spade a spade, climate change is poorly understood - there's clearly easier science to undertake... But I defend the majority of researchers and their findings - the peer review process has tilted their way.. Not because Al Gore made his movie.. and not because it's a liberal/conservative thing, but because it's a scientific thing that will ultimately prove itself to be divorced from public opinion and speculation and based on solid scientific research.

  6. lester mills7/22/2007 10:49 PM


    [I wrote this in response to your 8:02 comment.]

    First, I really hope you don’t think science is infallible because the history of science is mostly a record of failures. Second, that the scientific method is fixed because it is still evolving.

    As for science “improving” over time, that is not necessarily true. While it is true that science builds on its successes, the quality of scientific work at any given time varies. There have been periods in the history of science when the quality of scientific work was rather low and nothing much was accomplished. And then there have been periods of very high quality work, when one or more scientific disciplines made rapid advances.

    I think we are currently living through a period of very shoddy scientific work. The reasons for that are manifold. They range from a general lack of public interest in science to the dumbing-down of the scientific curriculum for the sake of affirmative action. The rise of junk science, as evidenced by the perpetual media scares, not to mention the rows upon rows of herbal cures in the supermarkets, is also symptomatic of the general decline in scientific thinking.

    The great irony is that the current generation is one of the mostly thoroughly unscientific generations we have produced, probably since the 1930s, yet the entire nation is filled with people who are continually passing judgment on the merits of the global warming theory.

  7. Lester,

    Of course science is not infallable. I didn't say that it was. If it involves mankind, of course it can be fallible. But, I still say that the bulk of our research has proved to be fruitful, useful, and viable.

    Science is only a record of failures? How do you explain putting a man on the moon? Medical breakthroughs? Microchips? I think these examples speak to the record of "success" of science. To be sure, I'm not sure how you can think of science as failure... You'll have to elaborate on that.

    Explain more of how the scientific method is evolving? How so? I think the method is actually quite standard. Make an observation, hypothesis how it occurred, gather proof to support your hypothesis. Make a correlation. I don't think these basic ideas have evolved much - only thing to add is how this information is processed by the scientific community: through the peer review process via publication. In fact, due to the internet and our digital age, these tools allow research to be accessed by many more researchers who can contribute to peer review process.

    I'm not sure if we're in a period of shoddy scientific work. Do you have a way to quantify that gut feeling? There are ebbs and flows to the quality of research I suppose... and I think you're right - there is a lot of dumbing down going on there, but what proof do you have beside anecdotal evidence that says science itself is being effected because of that? Generally, person becomes a research scientist because they are passionate about what they do... And lest you forget, there are many "gray hairs" out there publishing, discussing, and criticizing other scientist's work. There is a generational mix out there yet - not just a new crop of "uniformed" scientists...

    Sure, there is a lot of "junk science", but you're looking at the MSM, the internet and so on to garner that opinion. Pull apart an actual scientific journal. (Google Elsevier - a huge publishing house for scientific papers) You'll see that those are the publications with meat on the bones - not some journalists take on the matter.

    I contend that the perceived issues with science are related to the media's portrayal of the research. Wrong or right, that's how the general public gets wind of scientific endeavors.

    I realize that science is not perfect, yet, you cannot selectively garner what you want to take from scientific research. Again this is my biggest issue with climate change. I am certain, to nearly every "accepted" scientific research (socially or not, despite the political affiliation) you can find dissention to that particular piece of research. But, science is not black and white - there are gray areas. Conclusions are generally found by looking for amplification of a hypothesis. People like to feel good that science is all mathematical, cut and dried. Unfortunately, it's not - in fact, the greatest scientific matters can't be on/off, black/white -they are too complex.

    Lester, you sound like you are pretty down with the scientific community in general... specifically with the climate change issue. But, why is it that you question that piece of research, yet don't question other research that could perhaps impact you life even more greatly? What's the old saying, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
    You trust science in other parts of your life because it works into your philosophy, or it enhances your life in some way. You'd probably be surprised by the amount of discussion and controversy those "accepted" pieces of research have produced.

    My point is that I think the truth of research is being lost in the political punditry and media/personal speculation. I would rather see someone quote an actual scientific publication -rather than some MSM source or some obscure internet citation. AND my second point is that people working as scientific researches are better than you think - as a person involved in the sciences I get a chance to work with these people first hand - this process is not as backwards and broken as you seem to think.

  8. drylander,
    You are making my point. There was once scientific consensus that the earth was flat, the sun orbited around the earth, men lived on the moon, global cooling was a threat, etc. This consensus was among the most advanced and best scientists of that time. The consensus stuck until actual real proof rebuked these theories.

    In 20-30 years, scientists will look at us and think how backward we were.

    My point is that people are trying to stop the debate on the global warming theory before there is any final proof. RFK Jr., Al Gore, Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel, and many more are publicly announcing that the debate is over and we must make drastic changes in how we live our lives.

    Until there is actual proof that humans cause global warming, I will remain a skeptic. It just doesn't' make sense to me when I look at the planet's weather fluctuations throughout it's history, not just my short time on it.

  9. Andy, you make my point too.

    The accepted truth will eventually come out in the scientific wash... you can hedge your bets on something that is politically charged and choose not to accept the bulk of the research, but I am certain when science not full of politics, you wouldn't think twice about "trusting" it.

    Pundits don't make science. Scientists do.

  10. Lester Mills7/23/2007 3:05 PM


    For a scientist, you do not seem to read very carefully. I never said science was “only a record of failures.” I said the history of science is mostly a record of failures. If it were not, as Andy has hinted, we would not have to change our theories of various natural phenomena so often. To put it another way, if every scientific endeavor turned out to be fruitful, we would not need an army of scientists toiling away in universities and corporations, and every dollar spent on research and development would be money well spent.

    Science advances by discarding its failures and keeping its successes. But even its successes are only tentative. They are always subject to revision or abandonment. And when such formerly successful theories are severely revised or completely abandoned, the history of science usually labels them “mistakes.” For example, the use of Newtonian physics to explain the behavior of elementary particles was a mistake. And all the theories and research that were based on that mistaken belief had to be discarded. It would take an entirely new theory of physics—quantum mechanics—to accurately explain phenomena at the sub-atomic level.

    Although you cannot estimate the yield of a nuclear reaction or predict the path of an electron in a microprocessor using Newtonian physics, you can still chart a course to the moon using his theories, which brings me to my next subject: You have a very strong tendency to confuse science with technology. They are not the same. The science of optics, for example, was hardly a science when Galileo first pointed his homemade telescope at the moon. But were it not for that primitive technology, the science of helocentrism would have continued to languish. The point is, science and technology are two different animals. And although they often work in tandem to advance their respective goals, they are not necessarily dependent on each other.

    Last, I must address your assumption that I am “down” on science. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think I have a rather good understanding of science, of its successes and its failures. And, especially, I have a very good understanding of its limitations. Unlike you, I would not bet the ranch on any new scientific theory or so-called consensus.

    PS: To get some idea about how the scientific method is evolving and what it may eventually look like, read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962).

  11. You split hairs with the "mistakes" comment - I merely responded to what you wrote... mostly implies "most all the time". Geesh, you're threading the grammatical needle.

    No, I do not confuse science with technology - as most technology was derived from some scientific research, was it not? Not all of course, but much technology has been helped by the sweat of the brow of a research scientist, in one way or another. And in that regard, they are connected. You cannot conveniently divorce them for the sake of your argument. List a few technologies who have never been touched by the work of scientific research in one way or the other - I wager your list will be small.

    Also, I'll look into Kuhns book. Though, I think it's relevance (from my cursory research) is a fringe argument to this discussion. How does this have anything to do with our discussion? Rather than cite the book, please be specific about it's relevance - as it seems like a nuanced argument in regard to the scientific method.

  12. There was once scientific consensus that the earth was flat, the sun orbited around the earth,

    Andy, please drop the BS. Those were *never* scientific consensus. They were religious tenet. BIG FRICKING DIFFERENCE. Please quit insulting our intelligence. You can make your argument without bringing up such ridiculous and silly fabrications.

  13. There was once a scientific consensus that there were oceans on the moon. No religion developed that view, cupcake. Stop insulting our intelligence and go back to the Leftosphere where people actually believe your hogwash.

  14. Lester Mills7/23/2007 5:25 PM

    The anonymous troll “Wulfgar” probably believes the pope postulated the existence of spontaneous generation, light corpuscles, phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the system of “canals” on Mars that were built by an advanced civilization.

  15. Sorry Andy. I didn't realize that you were building an idiot troll haven. I guess rational thought isn't wanted here, so I'll go now.

  16. Lester Mills7/23/2007 8:46 PM

    I am in the phonebook, but I cannot seem to find “Wulfgar the Troll” anyplace.

    I can understand why you are reluctant to explain what went wrong with science when it espoused such theories as spontaneous generation, light corpuscles, phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and Martian canals. That would be a fairly painful assignment for an ardent lover of science. But attempting to avoid the issue by staging a little pouting scene is awfully transparent, not to mention unmanly.

    Frankly, after reviewing some of your comments in this blog, and after a brief visit to a silly and somewhat obscene place called “A Chicken Is Not Pillage,” which I assume is operated by you, I am of the opinion that you can take your toys and go home and no one will miss you.

  17. But attempting to avoid the issue by staging a little pouting scene is awfully transparent, not to mention unmanly.

    Seems part and parcel of what Wulfgar is all about, Lester. Agree with me, see it my way.....or you're simply not intelligent or rational enough to waste my time on. SSDD with the bookstore clerk...a tiny little man caught up in a world that's done passed him by.

  18. I mean really guys, try to rise above it... I thought we were talking about climate change.

    Sometimes, I wish there could be a debate ring and a boxing ring on blogs. Let people debate intelligently in one - and let people pound the shit out of one another in the boxing ring.

  19. Wulfgar,
    At that time that was the science of the day, which "everybody" believed.

    There was no actual proof - just the belief that they were true - just like Humans Causing Global Warming.
    The parallel is valid.

  20. At that time that was the science of the day, which "everybody" believed.

    No Andy, it wasn't the "science" of the day. It wasn't science at all. Science is a method. You know this, or at least you would if you had some honesty about you. Science has been wrong, many times. What I objected to was your bullshit about what was and wasn't science, things about which you should know better, but obviously you prefer your pap over anything rational. As I said, you can make your argument without relying on such drivel, but you prefer the taste of the crap. Enjoy your meal. Obviously, you've many who will share it with you.

  21. Lester Mills7/25/2007 5:11 PM

    Your street slang nicely coincides with your extensive lack of knowledge regarding the history of science.

    Every example I gave-- spontaneous generation, light corpuscles, phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, Martian canals, and many others I did not mention--represented the best science of its day. And all were wrong, as you are, once again.

    A quick example will suffice, not so much for your edification, since you are obviously devoid of any cognitive skills, but rather for the curious lurkers:

    [Excerpt from Wikipedia, concerning the scientific inquiry into spontaneous generation, also known as abiogenesis.]

    However, experimental scientists continued to decrease the conditions within which the spontaneous generation of complex organisms could be observed. The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the seventeenth century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, from an egg).

    Then in 1683 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was always accompanied by the appearance of myriad bacteria and other low organisms. As knowledge of microscopic forms of life increased, so the apparent realm of abiogenesis increased, and it became tempting to hypothesize that while abiogenesis might not take place for creatures visible to the naked eye, at the microscopic level, living organisms continually arose from inorganic matter.

    In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1862 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.


    Thus, without including the years between Aristotle advancing the theory of spontaneous generation and Pasteur’s experiment disproving it, we can see that it took at science at least 200 years to correct its mistake.

  22. Wulfgar,
    I have to admit, you are correct in that they were religious tenets rather than science. I made the assertions without doing any research and relied on my faulty knowledge of history.

    I was attempting to point out that these were widely accepted beliefs that were later proven wrong which I think still make my point. Not as strongly as I thought, however.

    Lester is far more intelligent than I and does cite a number of excellent examples of science being wrong.

  23. Lester Mills7/25/2007 11:24 PM


    You should not be so quick to admit that you were wrong and Wulfgar was right. Under my analysis, you were both wrong concerning the theories of a flat earth and a geocentric solar system.

    Wulfgar claimed that theories of a flat earth and a geocentric solar system were never scientific tenets but rather were religious tenets. Unfortunately, he failed to stipulate which religions adhered to which tenets, so we are left to assume that anyone who believed in either a flat earth or a geocentric solar system was a religious person of some sort or another.

    Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The idea of a flat earth goes back to the dawn of civilization and reaches all the way into the Middle Ages, and in some cases beyond, depending on what person or society we are referring to. Flat earth believers could be found among pagans and Christians alike. But in so far as the idea being a religious tenet, other than the Jews of the Old Testament, I know of no religious group that promoted the idea.

    Geocentrism is a slightly different case. For certain theological reasons, Christianity liked the idea of the earth being at the center of the solar system, or at the center of the heavens, actually. This was so because the earth was seen as a sort of pit toward which all sub-lunar refuse tended to gravitate. Basically, from the surface of the earth, one ascended to heaven or descended to hell. But the Church did not invent geocentrism; rather it adopted the idea from various non-religious thinkers that can be traced back to Aristotle and perhaps beyond.

    Thus, it is a generally false statement to say that a flat earth and a geocentric solar system were religious tenets. But were they scientific tenets, as you claimed?

    First, strictly speaking, you cannot have scientific tenets without science. Most authorities on the subject agree that the Scientific Revolution began sometime in the 16th century. Some authorities place the date earlier, some later, but the essential fact is science as we know it has not been around very long. The ideas of a flat earth and a geocentric solar system predate the advent of science. Thus, neither idea could have been a scientific tenet.

  24. There is a very good piece up (posted by Geeguy) at
    (Craig's place)
    This piece debunks much of the "global warming caused by man" crap which is going on. It's very long, but if you want to be educated on what REALLY causes the warming trend, you should view it. Some of us don't deny that Earth is getting warmer. We just happen to believe nature is the larger cause. The segment contains hard scientific evidence presented by real scientists. Guess what? Warming of the Earth CAUSES higher CO2 levels- not the other way around. Sunspot activity seems to be the largest contributing factor in both warming and cooling periods. Who would've thunk?

  25. The poster was Gman, not Geeguy. Sorry. How could I confuse those two handles?