"

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientist are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meterorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past two decades.The trend show 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.

Telltale signs are everywhere__from the unexpected persistence and thickness of ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940's the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F. although that figure is at best an estimate, its is supported by other convincing data."

Cite-From Time magazine, June 24, 1974
Reprinted WSJ April 30, 2015 in Notable & Quotable

Another flat earthier!

Originally Posted by Guest

Another flat earthier!

This, I take it, coming from a Global Warming True Believer who is likely still driving his (or her) fossil fueled car and golf cart??

Originally Posted by Guest

Another flat earthier!

We all know the knee jerk name calling routine .

Do you have anything to say one way or another about the subject presented. We know you are not prepared....take your time do some research about what was in the article. Then present what you think.

Surely you can lay the slingshot down long enough to participate....really participate.

You all do know that the intent of the article was to explain that climate experts in 1974 were pushing an ice age ( dangerous cooling) and now they are pushing just the opposite global warming (dangerous rising of heat)
illustrating how wrong such predictions can be.

Originally Posted by Guest

You all do know that the intent of the article was to explain that climate experts in 1974 were pushing an ice age ( dangerous cooling) and now they are pushing just the opposite global warming (dangerous rising of heat)
illustrating how wrong such predictions can be.

What it illustrates is how consistently wrong liberals are about most things.

However, on a more serious note, it does illustrate PERFECT consistency ... whether it's getting too hot, or too cold, or even if it's just right the liberal solution is always the same -- a more powerful central government to fix whatever they think needs fixing.

Hmmm ... maybe they should work on fixing themselves first come to think of it??

Originally Posted by Guest

We all know the knee jerk name calling routine .

Do you have anything to say one way or another about the subject presented. We know you are not prepared....take your time do some research about what was in the article. Then present what you think.

Surely you can lay the slingshot down long enough to participate....really participate.

Just can't find the time to talk with idiots!

Originally Posted by Guest

Just can't find the time to talk with idiots!

[B][/B

I am the OP and shared this quote from Time to illustrate the human experience. The same type of thing evolved around over population and how we would all suffer from starvation. However man's ingenuity and survivor instincts kicked in and man developed via technology better way to grow more crops, etc.

Now we have these same individuals referring to GMO as frankenfoods when this technology has been around for many years in the livestock and agriculture industries with not one factual piece of evidence that anyone has been harmed.

Yet a push to eliminate GMO is starving people in the underdeveloped world, and liberals by their green agenda against goal are creating the same effect. People are forced to use woodstoves which is killing kids

Am I against green or organic no but I believe humanity should proceed with a rational and balanced policy to move from theory to fact and build a better world.

Personal Best Regards:

Just for the record, there is actually no real data that proves how much of man's activities are responsible for climatic changes. Climatic changes have always taken place and always will. The argument that man's activities are actually responsible for non-natural climate change comes from computer simulation models. While there is little doubt that man's activities have contributed to some of the climate change, the real question is how much: 5%, 10%, 50%?? The physics incorporated in computer simulation models is incomplete and these models, in my opinion, are not ready to be used as a tool for shaping public policy because they cannot answer the question of how much of the climate changes are do to man's activities. It is not enough to say "some of it". Full disclosure, I developed computer simulation models for the Government and I am well aware of their limitations and the assumptions used in construction such codes.

Originally Posted by Guest

Another flat earthier!

Originally Posted by Guest

Just for the record, there is actually no real data that proves how much of man's activities are responsible for climatic changes. Climatic changes have always taken place and always will. The argument that man's activities are actually responsible for non-natural climate change comes from computer simulation models. While there is little doubt that man's activities have contributed to some of the climate change, the real question is how much: 5%, 10%, 50%?? The physics incorporated in computer simulation models is incomplete and these models, in my opinion, are not ready to be used as a tool for shaping public policy because they cannot answer the question of how much of the climate changes are do to man's activities. It is not enough to say "some of it". Full disclosure, I developed computer simulation models for the Government and I am well aware of their limitations and the assumptions used in construction such codes.

The other question that no one on the Left ever answers is ... ok, let's assume their is "climate change" (ie a euphemism for global warming) WHAT are we supposed to do about it?

Close down the economy? Stop driving cars? Stop using electricity? Starve and go away? Also, will the other countries do this if we do? (answer=no)

In short, no solutions ever offered ... just doom and gloom.

Essentially, your standard of living is proportional to the amount of energy you use. Fossil fuels provide cheap energy. Most other forms of energy are more expensive, especially in the case where you need to have a reliable power supply 24x7. Moving away from fossil fuels can be expected to decrease your standard of living. Not too many people want to talk about that.

Originally Posted by Guest

The other question that no one on the Left ever answers is ... ok, let's assume their is "climate change" (ie a euphemism for global warming) WHAT are we supposed to do about it?

Close down the economy? Stop driving cars? Stop using electricity? Starve and go away? Also, will the other countries do this if we do? (answer=no)

In short, no solutions ever offered ... just doom and gloom.

Originally Posted by Guest

Essentially, your standard of living is proportional to the amount of energy you use. Fossil fuels provide cheap energy. Most other forms of energy are more expensive, especially in the case where you need to have a reliable power supply 24x7. Moving away from fossil fuels can be expected to decrease your standard of living. Not too many people want to talk about that.

EXACTLY right ... and the party that b*tches about income inequality wants to further impoverish everyone.

Originally Posted by Guest

EXACTLY right ... and the party that b*tches about income inequality wants to further impoverish everyone.

Except themselves, of course.

Originally Posted by Guest

Except themselves, of course.

Yes, some perfect examples are the wealthy liberal enclaves in California.

I'm truly surprised the average run of the mill working class democrat has not exercised more skepticism in this regards. The wealthy liberals are the aristocrats, the working class the serfs, but the liberals keep them at bay by telling them stuff they want to hear while refocusing their anger on the "enemy republicans". It's a pretty good scam and it does work.