So newf, you are on my side in a way if you say cap and trade is a bad idea. Your reasons are just different.
PAGE stinkin 4!
It may be, like I said I really don't know the details of it. My guess that it would have to be somewhat pallatable to ever get it passed.
Just for the record I'm not in favour of some draconian measures to halt production or emissions I just think a plan needs to be thought about and reasonably implemented. The benefits of lessening oil dependance and greener technologies I believe are worth it but it can't be at the cost of irreperably damaging the economy or livelihoods, it must make sense.
This also why I believe currently it is less of a priority, the economy has to be stable before we can bring in such measures.
IP: Logged
01:30 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Hardened/catalyzed paint is far more deadly. First time I sprayed some Imron...without a mask...I was coughing for weeks afterward. Pain and sore throat were definately not worth it. I do now for just catalyzed stuff. I just dont like the restriction of wearing a mask If I dont have to. Its personal choice if you want to. I have no problem with people even wearing a mask to sand if they want. It dont hurt. Just to me, its overkill, like using a grade 10 bolt to hold on a mud flap. Ive never worn a hood or suit. My safety gear is long legs and long sleeves so paint doesnt stick to my arms and legs. I might even wear a hat if I spray some plain enamel. That stuffs hard to wash out of your hair.
Oh and I forgot to say...
just kidding man
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2010).]
IP: Logged
01:43 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
The second one http://wattsupwiththat.com/about2/ I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.
Wouldn't that make him know more about weather and climate than you?
I'm fine to agree to disagree, as long as when you know that when you post things stating your case I will make mine too and question yours if I feel it's needed. Not just to be an ass (not that we all can't be at times) but I will argue my honest opinion.
OK, to the point. ......theres not a REAL fact to support than man is doing anything to the climate, except maybe to pollute it. You can believe whatever you want. I can believe in green martians if I want.
IP: Logged
02:29 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
OK, to the point. ......theres not a REAL fact to support than man is doing anything to the climate, except maybe to pollute it. You can believe whatever you want. I can believe in green martians if I want.
But it seems no matter what we believe we are all gonna PAY, via cap and trade.
this is the most succinct and concise explanation of what has actually happened regarding Global Temperature, that I have found. It is found at http://www.climatechange101.ca/
Climate has continually changed throughout history, including the age of the dinosaurs living in humid, lush green surroundings, followed by much colder periods. The earth later had alternating periods of glaciation. During much of this time, CO2 levels were about 10 times higher than today. The last cold period ended about 15,000 years ago, when ice sheets extended as far south as Missouri. More recent history, about 1000 to 1350 AD, experienced temperatures of about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (C) warmer than today. During this time food crops were abundant and civilization prospered. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, when crop failures, famine and disease prevailed until about 1850 . Since then, fortunately, temperatures on average have been rising about 0.6 degrees C per century. Fluctuations include global cooling from about 1940 to 1975, followed by warming until 1998. Since then, the earth has actually been cooling again. Humans and animals currently live in an average temperature of 5 °C in Helsinki and 27 °C in Singapore. If the climate continues to warm less than a degree per century, which it well may not, should we really be concerned about the ability to adapt?
Climate is driven by energy from the sun. The greenhouse effect stops enough of this energy from escaping back into space, resulting in the earth having a temperature capable of supporting life as we know it. Without greenhouse gases the average earth temperature would be minus 18 °C, rather than our current livable plus 15 °C. Natural water vapour and clouds make up about 95% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 responsible for 3.6%. Of this, about 0.12%, or 0.039 °C can be attributed to human activities.
BTW, this information has been posted on many other websites and comes from established research scientists and satellite data.
The truth is that while you can observe a century to century rise in Global Temperature at 0.6 Degrees per century, the Global Warming scare was created to try to prove that Western Democracies were generating an accellerated rate of Global Warming. This is an economic battle plan to steal our money. It is fully documented that there was actually Global Cooling from about 1950 to 1974 and again currently from as far back as 1998. More particularly since 2007. So, all the hype about accelerated Global Warming since 1998 by Al Gore and others, is particularly false, misleading and errant.
It does not matter one iota what the Global Warming Alarmists publish, (and it is ubiquitous), the temperature has not risen above the high of 1950 so far as I can find. Moreover, the famous "hockey stick" graph is proven to be fiction; the rising oceans predicted 10 years ago have not happened; and the violent weather predicted for last year, simply did not happen. The weather and the oceans continue to operate within the known norms.
Global Warming has most certainly been found to be a scam.
Arn
So instead of trying to discredit the Science professionals who remain anonymous on these websites due to persecution by the GW's, or seeking to discredit meteorologists, why don't we discuss whether the information I have posted is true?
If it is not true, then simply show me how it is not. For instance, let's take the prediction of a record hurricane season made by the GW's last year, when we had only 3 or 4. Is that untrue? If so, please show me. Similarly, if the Mean temperature of the earth is higher in 2010 than it was in 1950, please show the data which proves my information is inaccurate.
So instead of trying to discredit the Science professionals who remain anonymous on these websites due to persecution by the GW's, or seeking to discredit meteorologists, why don't we discuss whether the information I have posted is true?
If it is not true, then simply show me how it is not. For instance, let's take the prediction of a record hurricane season made by the GW's last year, when we had only 3 or 4. Is that untrue? If so, please show me. Similarly, if the Mean temperature of the earth is higher in 2010 than it was in 1950, please show the data which proves my information is inaccurate.
Arn
No problem, now first of course you will have to provide where you are getting these claims of the hurricane predictions and mean temperature. I have not heard any definate predictions, scientists rarely make specific ones like you say. But please show me where they did.
IP: Logged
03:49 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
So instead of trying to discredit the Science professionals who remain anonymous on these websites due to persecution by the GW's, or seeking to discredit meteorologists, why don't we discuss whether the information I have posted is true?
Arn
That's one of the oldest trick in the book. Can't deal with the facts and data, so argue to the man (ad homenim).
Here's what I could find on the Nasa site for global mean temperature.
BUT, is that the one they rigged?
... Definitions of fact (n) fact [ fakt ] 1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened 2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something 3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
essentially what we have are #3 and they cannot really be proven true easily, also taking into account motivation and corruption of the people "finding" the facts and how they report them....
... Definitions of fact (n) fact [ fakt ] 1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened 2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something 3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
essentially what we have are #3 and they cannot really be proven true easily, also taking into account motivation and corruption of the people "finding" the facts and how they report them....
I have no idea but there is an email address on the page so you can ask.
Also I am not saying it's fact and I doubt you'll find any scientific body that does. Most of the people spouting "facts" are the ones who say it definately isn't happening.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2010).]
This what I quickly found on Hurricanes and the "predictions". It quotes the latest IPCC report however it is from wiki.
Hurricanes There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature. The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced. There is no clear trend in the number of hurricanes. Other regions appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity as well, but there are concerns about the quality of data in these other regions. It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity. It is likely (>66%) that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during the 21st century. Table SPM-2 lists recent trends along with certainty levels for the trend having actually occurred, for a human contribution to the trend, and for the trend occurring in the future. In relation to changes (including increased hurricane intensity) where the certainty of a human contribution is stated as "more likely than not" footnote f to table SPM-2 notes "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."
I am not talking about the errant hurricane predictions. I am talking about the record low hurricane season in 2009. This, after the prediction of a particularly violent hurricane season.
It is really interesting, post the falsified graph like it is the final word, then cast dispersions on any opposing bit of information. It sounds exactly like Al Gore.
Now that we know this, one can assume that the discussion is absolutely pointless because one of the participants is simply arguing black is white.
This is almost like trying to discuss something with....say..... Punisher?
I am not talking about the errant hurricane predictions. I am talking about the record low hurricane season in 2009. This, after the prediction of a particularly violent hurricane season.
It is really interesting, post the falsified graph like it is the final word, then cast dispersions on any opposing bit of information. It sounds exactly like Al Gore.
Now that we know this, one can assume that the discussion is absolutely pointless because one of the participants is simply arguing black is white.
This is almost like trying to discuss something with....say..... Punisher?
Arn
Not sure what you are looking for I guess but feel free to post these predictions you say the Scientific bodies are making. You made the accusation now it's your turn to show it.
I only posted the graphs and the IPCC information because you said you wanted to see it. I don't say or think it's the final word, who is saying such a thing?
Also Falsified Graphs? Please back that up. (same as 'bears arguement if you believe that all the data is falsified how can anyone know anything) Or is that your point, that there is a massive conspiracy by Governments, scholars, and scientists but only you and a precious few know the real truth?
Predictions of a particularly viiolent hurricane season. Back that up too. Was it a certain scientific body that said it? Who are you accusing?
Yeesh... I thought I could be stubborn
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2010).]
Actually, if there was any information any forum member could put in this thread not supporting Global Warming, you would dispute it or attempt to discredit the contributor. This has become a thread for your own ego, not intelligent discussion so I'm outta here.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 10-15-2010).]
IP: Logged
07:40 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
And then there's this one: which if this is accurate, we are currently in a low point of the global cycle and the earth is indeed warming - as part of a natural cycle that has happened LONG before humans walked the earth.
It also suggests that even if humans stopped ALL CO2 emissions today, hopped on a space ship and left the planet completely devoid of human life - the temperatures would still rise as normal.
This is why any "proof" of warming doesn't mean much. It's not what the temperature is doing - it's WHY, and beyond a statement, "man is causing it" I haven't seen any scientific justification of the causal connection between man-made CO2 and the environment. At least not on a scale large enough to have any impact on the global cycles.
Remember peeing in the ocean? Why doesn't that cause floods?
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-15-2010).]
Actually, if there was any information any forum member could put in this thread not supporting Global Warming, you would dispute it or attempt to discredit the contributor. This has become a thread for your own ego, not intelligent discussion so I'm outta here.
Arn
Sorry you feel that way but ego has nothing to do with it.
You and lots others have the same non-belief in Climate Change, or maybe believe in it but don't subscribe to the man made influence. Your opinion is fine but I have another one and am trusting that the science shown by the groups is correct. Who knows it may turn out not to be and you can laugh your butts of at the experts. I don't pretend to know the ins, outs and intricacies of the earths climate so I have to trust that the scientists are basing their theories on the evidence given and their expertise. I will however discuss and even argue with someone who claims they "know" what's happening in regards to something that is so complex and that they can prove it is true or false.
A critical eye is good and I would hope there are always people questioning such things but I would hope it would be rational and science based, not fear mongering and conjecture. Not that it always is.
Not wanting to speak for you but really when it comes to you, I or most on this board, I would be willing to bet our knowledge of subjects like this is limited at best, so we have to put our faith in someone elses (or groups) knowledge.
It's not personal, it's just difference of opinion.
And then there's this one: which if this is accurate, we are currently in a low point of the global cycle and the earth is indeed warming - as part of a natural cycle that has happened LONG before humans walked the earth.
It also suggests that even if humans stopped ALL CO2 emissions today, hopped on a space ship and left the planet completely devoid of human life - the temperatures would still rise as normal.
This is why any "proof" of warming doesn't mean much. It's not what the temperature is doing - it's WHY, and beyond a statement, "man is causing it" I haven't seen any scientific justification of the causal connection between man-made CO2 and the environment. At least not on a scale large enough to have any impact on the global cycles.
Remember peeing in the ocean? Why doesn't that cause floods?
Do you really want me to? Because I have no problem going on.
'''''''' There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity; * Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and * The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science,
APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.” '''''''''''''''
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity; * Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and * The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.
Still no quantification of scale.
How about this scenario? * Urine is increasing in the ocean due to human activity; * Urine is a liquid, and therefore, its increasing presence in the ocean contributes to rising sea levels; and * The dwell time of urine in the ocean is hundreds of years.
The science is even more proven with peeing in the ocean than CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone can easily do an experiment to verify that adding a quantity of liquid (i.e. urine) to another body of liquid causes that volume to increase, and it's level to rise.
Yet no panic to control people peeing in the ocean. It's apparently not a concern, yet using the exact same arguments and science, CO2 is.
Yes, I know it's an absurd example, but the science and the logic behind the argument is identical. So what's the difference, if the "science is settled?"
How about this scenario? * Urine is increasing in the ocean due to human activity; * Urine is a liquid, and therefore, its increasing presence in the ocean contributes to rising sea levels; and * The dwell time of urine in the ocean is hundreds of years.
The science is even more proven with peeing in the ocean than CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone can easily do an experiment to verify that adding a quantity of liquid (i.e. urine) to another body of liquid causes that volume to increase, and it's level to rise.
Yet no panic to control people peeing in the ocean. It's apparently not a concern, yet using the exact same arguments and science, CO2 is.
Yes, I know it's an absurd example, but the science and the logic behind the argument is identical. So what's the difference, if the "science is settled?"
Are you still seriously asking this?
The arguments could not be more different with no logic behind peeing in the ocean raising it's level, I'll assume you know the difference unless you really want to discuss it.
Also I'm still waiting for some one to tell me what scientific body is claiming the "science is settled"?
IP: Logged
02:23 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Theres no arguing that the climates changing...so climate change is true. It just the fact that it always changes and always has....and man has absolutely nothing to do with it. Ive never seen the weather even close to being identical 2 adjoining years. They cant even predict if its going to rain tonite or not, yet someone expects everyone to believe what idiots like Al Gore has to say (a guy who couldnt even pass a history course in college) about whats going to happen to future weather.
One thing is absolutely sure about the future weather, it will be either hotter or colder tommorrow than it was today.
IP: Logged
06:48 PM
Oct 17th, 2010
fierosound Member
Posts: 15190 From: Calgary, Canada Registered: Nov 1999
... APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity; * Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and * The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
... APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
That's not surprising, since they're singing from the same IPCC "songbook".
IP: Logged
12:16 PM
PFF
System Bot
Black Lotus Member
Posts: 340 From: Washington State USA Registered: Jan 2010
Finally, common sense on global warming The Calgary Herald October 15, 2010
Britain's Royal Society, one of the most venerable science academies, has amended its idiots' guide to global warming. Officially titled Climate Change, A Summary of the Science, the 19-page layman's document is a refreshing departure from the strident doom-and-gloom message that has characterized most scientific statements on global warming, which have been parroted by the Al Gores of the world thusly: Humans are to blame, sea levels will rise and the end of the world is fast approaching.
Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, depicted melting glaciers causing a rise in sea levels, putting coastal cities and island nations at peril. While the society says sea levels will rise, it also states the following:
"There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe."
The Royal Society does not deny global warming is occurring but admits no one cause can be assigned to it. "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change," it states.
With the society now on record that human activity is a "potential" cause of global warming, we wonder if the Alberta government's $2-billion investment in the unproven technology of carbon capture needs a rethink. The society indicates such measures are necessary. With human activity likely the "dominant cause" of global warming, and the effects of carbon demonstrably profound, it warns the risks are great enough to proceed with climate mitigation strategies even in "the absence of perfect knowledge."
We hope this ushers in an era of balance to a polarized debate. Science for too long has been engaged in climate activism. Skeptics, too, have been strident in their protestations.
Alarmism has the potential to result in egg on one's face.
The arguments could not be more different with no logic behind peeing in the ocean raising it's level, I'll assume you know the difference unless you really want to discuss it.
Don't just dismiss the argument - tell my why.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Also I'm still waiting for some one to tell me what scientific body is claiming the "science is settled"?
I don't know of a scientific body claiming it - but I do know of political ones, and THAT is the biggest concern. AGW science, driven by government money, to support a theory that politicians have seized upon to pass legislation that will give them far reaching control and added ability to tax the air we breathe.
Notable is that Al Gore, a politician, won the Nobel prize for his work on AGW - not a climatologist. Gore is one of the ones pushing for carbon credits. It's just a coincidence that he owns interest in a company that sells carbon credits.
Finally, common sense on global warming The Calgary Herald October 15, 2010
Britain's Royal Society, one of the most venerable science academies, has amended its idiots' guide to global warming. Officially titled Climate Change, A Summary of the Science, the 19-page layman's document is a refreshing departure from the strident doom-and-gloom message that has characterized most scientific statements on global warming, which have been parroted by the Al Gores of the world thusly: Humans are to blame, sea levels will rise and the end of the world is fast approaching.
Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, depicted melting glaciers causing a rise in sea levels, putting coastal cities and island nations at peril. While the society says sea levels will rise, it also states the following:
"There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe."
The Royal Society does not deny global warming is occurring but admits no one cause can be assigned to it. "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change," it states.
With the society now on record that human activity is a "potential" cause of global warming, we wonder if the Alberta government's $2-billion investment in the unproven technology of carbon capture needs a rethink. The society indicates such measures are necessary. With human activity likely the "dominant cause" of global warming, and the effects of carbon demonstrably profound, it warns the risks are great enough to proceed with climate mitigation strategies even in "the absence of perfect knowledge."
We hope this ushers in an era of balance to a polarized debate. Science for too long has been engaged in climate activism. Skeptics, too, have been strident in their protestations.
Alarmism has the potential to result in egg on one's face.
I looked at this report before, thanks for linking it again though. Did anyone else actually read this? It does seem to be a fair take on the issue.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.
Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made. Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.
Ok I'll give you a few points of the top of my head.
First one that comes to mind is the Water Cycle hear on earth. Where do you think the water that we drink and turn into "pee" comes from?
Second you'd have to figure out how many people pee in the ocean and the volume of that compared to the volume of the ocean.
It's a silly arguement IMO there is no evidence to suggest any cause effect relationship as there seems to be with what Scientists are claiming about Climate Change and C02 leves.
"IF" we/industry are the cause,then really we have saved ourselves from the coming ice age. The ice age theory was the majority opinion of scientists when I was growing up.
Personally? I think this "man made" GW is pure unadulterated BS perpetuated by self serving con artists for either financial or power gains and of course redistribution of wealth schemes.
"IF" we/industry are the cause,then really we have saved ourselves from the coming ice age. The ice age theory was the majority opinion of scientists when I was growing up.
Personally? I think this "man made" GW is pure unadulterated BS perpetuated by self serving con artists for either financial or power gains and of course redistribution of wealth schemes.
Neither could I, not sure why you posted it in that case.
What I can tell you as a flat fact is that the ice age is a coming was taught in what I think all US schools at the time. Me, 51 years old. Maybe others from my age group will chime in on this.
In my opinion, there is as much crap on the internet as anything, combined with a mentality that if it is not on the net someplace, it is not true or didn't happen.
Edit to add: heh, warming predicted, that statement in itself means nothing unless accompanied by a prediction of when. I think most thinking peoples realize that the temp changes are cyclical, regardless of mans possible contribution, in that case any body would say warming will be coming,,,,,,, but when? another two thousand years, after the ice age?
I would rather the temps warm than cool any day.
[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 10-18-2010).]
Neither could I, not sure why you posted it in that case.
What I can tell you as a flat fact is that the ice age is a coming was taught in what I think all US schools at the time. Me, 51 years old. Maybe others from my age group will chime in on this.
In my opinion, there is as much crap on the internet as anything, combined with a mentality that if it is not on the net someplace, it is not true or didn't happen.
Taught in schools? Guess that depends on where they get their information and if it was in the text books of the day and how they came to their conclusions. I was never taught anything like that, only thing related I can remember in school was talk of the ozone layer and CFC's.
Posted it because I just did a quick search to see what I could find and didn't see what sources were used to create the graph. Thought you might like to look at it and research yourself.
Here is a slightly more in depth analysis. same source as previous.
What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."
"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:
"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows 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." However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
