Our demographic is old enough that those of us who did a lot of reading, and whose memories are still good, remember all the traumatic stuff we were fed over 50 years ago. In school in the 1960s the teachers terrified the kids with the "imminent new ice age" and the "population bomb." And ever since then there have been prominent people making similar predictions that have fallen totally flat. Not even close to coming true. So what would you expect from us old guys that have listened to all this stuff and are still waiting for it to happen? We get skeptical, as we should. More recently, remember that British computer model that predicted tens of millions of Covid deaths? Models are only as good as the parameters that are entered into the computers, and bias toward certain outcomes is nearly impossible to avoid.
And a lot of models are correct about COVID. Those might have been your schools, but they may not be representative of other places.
Here's a long and interesting list of failed predictions since about 1967:
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
I remember almost all of those. Anyone my age should. It seems, though, that too many watch the boob tube and believe whatever it tells them, and forget that last year or five years or ten ago it said something quite different.
Those ice-age predictions were never accepted by most scientists. There were a handful of papers that made that prediction, and the media picked up on it, as your citation shows. There's a lot of news clippings there, but no papers. However, after that time, the reports about global warming have been consistent- more than last year or 5 or 10 years ago.
Just a single person, not representative of the medical profession.
What you're never told is that every year there are hundreds of new papers, by real climate scientists, questioning the "settled science," with real numbers and evidence.
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/01/20/148-papers-for-high-sticking/
148 papers? I'm surprised there aren't more. Out of thousands of papers each year, that all they found?
As the citation above goes to another link which is a similar sort of summary, it is impossible to see which journals. 148 papers isn't such a long list that those papers can't be cited on that web page. I'm writing an article now (not on climate change) that has around 50 citations now, I'll have to list all of those. It is very likely that a number of those 148 are published in those fake journals I mentioned earlier in the thread. Anyone from PoA can publish in any "journal" in the Omics group for a couple of thousand dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group
"Many of these predatory journals publish research that supports a particular political, religious, or social agenda using questionable science that normally would not pass through peer review. I’ve seen predatory journals publish pseudoscientific therapies for financial gain, papers denying man-made climate change (or climate change entirely), or even claiming a newly discovered drug is efficacious, with the hope to attract investors and sell the drug over the internet without government approval."
http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/06/26/sciences-fake-journal-epidemic/
Yes, there are likely to be papers supporting the climate change narrative submitted and cited to those journals. The only ones who take such journals seriously are the authors submitting to them, and those who use them merely to support their own narrative.
If anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, it needs addressing or we're all in real trouble. If it's been way overblown and is not a real threat, and we address it by spending trillions on it, we risk wrecking the world's economies and infrastructures and all of us are in real trouble. This is why honest debate and evaluation are necessary, but debate is so often dismissed by saying " the science is settled." That's not wise at all, as that long list of failed predictions spectacularly demonstrates.
Again, those predictions were made by a minority that received a megaphone by the media. Just the same as very small subsets of politicians and other "influencers" do now. They don't represent the view of most people working in the field.
Much of the science
is settled. The adsorption and emission characteristics of various gases in the atmosphere to light and heat are well known, Arrhenius was mentioned earlier in the thread. The way that heat is trapped, and the evaporation or water is known. The thermodynamics of heating a gas and water vapor is known. We use adsorption and emission for many of the devices we use daily, thermodynamics to run our engines.
I'm just riffing on the questions on that term from earlier in the thread.
