Comments on: The NYT’s climate coverage in 1970s was a megaphone for science, not ‘global cooling’ alarmism

By: Peter Sinclair

Peter Sinclair — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:48:00 +0000

“Climate Denial Crock of the Week – I Love the Seventies”
now up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

By: paulm

paulm — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:03:03 +0000

“Things are worse than they can possibly be.”

I think Will was referring to the state of the media reporting on Climate Change.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:57:13 +0000

The main point of the 1960s science debates was the realization that there was not enough data or understanding to offer sound climate predictions.

By: John Hollenberg

John Hollenberg — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:46:29 +0000

Flat Earther (very appropriate name, BTW),

No one here is interested in “debating” long debunked garbage. So while the “debate” goes on, California and multiple other states are attacking the problem. President Obama and his advisers and department heads (including Nobel laureate Chu) are focused on the problem and have already taken some positive steps in the first month in office. It is time for serious action at all levels of government, and hopefully by individuals as well.

By: MarkB

MarkB — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:45:31 +0000

I’m not so concerned what a few articles claimed in the 70’s. There are articles in the press on climate that say much more dubious things today. The scientific community has reached a general consensus today.

Regarding Will Happer, he made one of the more weird contrarian arguments in front of the Senate recently. This video is fine comedy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2009/ 02/ 27/ co2-famine-exxon-paid-sci_n_170473.html

By: lgcarey

lgcarey — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:02:32 +0000

Gee, if we’re going to have trolls, can’t we at least have better ones, please?

By: Flat earther

Flat earther — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:24:27 +0000

Just got done going over those 650 scientists. They are morons.

http://epw.senate.gov/ public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

By: Flat earther

Flat earther — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:17:51 +0000

You’re right, Princeton University professor should have gave it away. He obviously doesn’t understand anything he’s talking about and the 650 prominent international scientist he noted: clueless or paid off. What the heck was I thinking? The sun doesn’t warm the planet, my breath does. It’s all so simple now.

By: caerbannog

caerbannog — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:42:36 +0000

here, Dr. William Happer, Princeton University professor and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (1990-1993), presented some of his key findings on climate change…

Here’s a fun way to waste a bit of time: run Dr. Happer’s name through scholar.google.com and check out all the peer-reviewed papers relevant to global-warming that he’s authored.

By: Flat earther

Flat earther — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:39:39 +0000

Dano your post is a distraction or do you think you contributed to the debunking of my ideology? If I did have an ideology, do you think it would rely on whether scientist in the 60’s or 70’s did or did not come to a consensus on global cooling? The article seems to say there wasn’t a consensus on global cooling all to reaffirm the current consensus on global warming. My ideology is that a “Scientific Consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the Scientific Method”. This you cannot debunk, this is FACT. The more we talk about a consensus one way or another, the less we talk about the facts.