Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Maurizio Morabito
London, United Kingdom
Recent Activity
-
Maurizio commented on the article |L Coro - I have asked you a specific question. I see you have decided to reply by re-stating your previous comments. They just make no sense now as they didn't before. Please try again.
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
L Coro - you have dismissed earlier a particular country's temperature measurement as having anything to do with global warming. Why then would it be any different for a particular country's number of droughts/hurricanes/melting? If the former "weather event" is irrelevant, the latter "weather events" are irrelevant too. Or not?
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
to L Coro - You seem to be claiming that all we can talk about in terms of climate is "overall global temperatures" whilst the values measured in "one country or one state or one city" would not be relevant.
However, what we actually experience is what actually happens in the country or state or city where each one of us lives.
Under those circumstances, could you please explain why we should even care about any change in "climate"?
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
From the C&EN article linked by Berkeley: "For instance, PDO was positive from about 1915 to 1945, when there was a global-warming trend, Spencer says. PDO went negative from 1945 to 1977, when global temperatures were cooler, and went positive again in 1978, which was the onset of the current warming period."
If that is true, then perhaps the "consensus" in climatology is like the one among generals, always ready to fight the last war. Far from trying to understand the future, pre-1977 climatologists agreed the world was cooling because the world was cooling. And contemporary ones, agree that the world is warming because the world is warming.
Just wait for next PDO sign switch, and the "consensus" will change again. 8-)
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
May I respectfully say that I find this distinction (Liberals that is US Democrats=AGWers vs Republicans=Skeptics) more than belittling the whole issue of how to build societies that are robust if not impervious to climate changes.
If I were an AGWer I would try to keep the whole thing very apolitical, or at least bi-partisan. Everything else, I would consider it as pure folly. But I long have had the impression that "climate change" is for many just a bandwagon, something to make use of in order to get the political and economical changes they don't seem to be able to make happen otherwise.
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
If the two "consensus" (4th declension 8-) ) are analogous, equivalent or not, that's a matter of a different debate. We would have to compare the world as it was with the world as it is (no internet, no cheap flights, expensive phone calls, consensus-building via one-off conferences rather than series of international meetings, etc etc).
The point is: was there a consensus about a cooling world? And the answer is: Yes, there was. It's as simple as that.
You are right: in 1975, the original enthusiasm for predicting future climates was on the wane. But in 1972 and on to 1974, there was still hope for multi-year forecasting. Newsweek's article is important only as a sign of what information trickled down to the general public. That is what people read, that is what people remember, and no sleight-of-hand to convince them otherwise will sound much truthful.
I haven't read of an international campaign at the time by scientists to denounce the alarmism of the Newsweek's article. Has anybody?
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
Could anybody please explain why in matters of global warming there are so many illiberal zealots? I do know a few very well-mannered, reasonably, scientific-minded people that as soon as "global warming" is mentioned turn into vicious attack dogs ready to berate the most minimalistic of questioning of the "consensus".
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
Oran - you keep equating "global cooling" with "ice age". That is not what I wrote about. In 1972 Mitchell wrote a paper establishing the consensus that a worldwide cooling episode was in action and that went more or less unchallenged until 1975.
Do you have any evidence against that?
Now, as in countless episodes before and since, the message "the world is cooling" got translated into a media-friendly "an ice age may be imminent" that went printed as "the ice age is upon us".
So the public heard and cared about "they are predicting an ice age". Everybody above the age of 40 will remember all of that clearly.
Negating such a statement of fact bites back as another dent in the AGW armor: just as the blog above, it shows an anti-liberal determination to get everything and everybody adhere to a set of preconceptions, no matter what.
ps please stop going back to the silly point about Newsweek being "not the determinant of scientific consensus". I have never said otherwise.
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
There is no point in wasting anybody's time. Please show me your evidence against the following:
1. There was a ‘widely accepted [by the scientific community]...global cooling trend', at least judging from Mitchell's work in 1972
2. There were doubts about that growing in the same scientific community from 1975/1976, as per Damon and Kunen's paper; but not early enough to prevent Newsweek from publishing its 1975 article, one that even mentions a certain Dr Murray Mitchell.
-
Maurizio commented on the article |
Oran - the tone, length and frequency of your comments don't present much evidence that you want to seriously discuss the fact that between 1972 and 1975 there was a scientific consensus about global cooling.
The Newsweek article is for example only marginal to my analysis of the topic, and the CIA report only part of the evidence I have described.
Then as now, climate catastrophes were not a reality but a possibility. And so just as there's plenty of scientists available to talk to the media today about the impending warming doom, at the beginning of the 1970s there were many scientists mentioning an upcoming ice age.
There were scientists ready in the 1950's-1960's to talk about Venusian fauna too. It all just shows that one should beware of the scientist talking to the public about his/her pet idea.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits