Ottawa Mike
New member
There are thousands of scientists, most major scientific academies and institutions, the major UN climate body, etc. that clearly show CO2 is causing warming. It's been called a solid consensus and even that the science is settled. There has been unequivocal warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and accurate projections from climate models show it's going to get worse and even catastrophic.
So why would every alarmist fight so strongly against a global cooling scare almost 40 years ago? That would be just an insignificant blip compared to what I wrote in the first paragraph.
And the alarmists here a just tadpoles in a much bigger pond. The shark is William Connolly. Not only was he a co-author on a peer-reviewed (!) study debunking the global cooling scare (The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus(2008)), he apparently has time to be a member of the RealClimate.org team and spend most of his time editing Wikipedia entries to suit his views (http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/143215.html).
Just look at the editing page of the global cooling wikipedia entry and Connolley apparently has a lot of free time on his hands: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_cooling&action=history
Don't alarmists realize how suspicious this behavior is?
Have alarmists ever conceded even a single point of discussion, even a minor one? Do they have a 100% record for being correct?
So why would every alarmist fight so strongly against a global cooling scare almost 40 years ago? That would be just an insignificant blip compared to what I wrote in the first paragraph.
And the alarmists here a just tadpoles in a much bigger pond. The shark is William Connolly. Not only was he a co-author on a peer-reviewed (!) study debunking the global cooling scare (The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus(2008)), he apparently has time to be a member of the RealClimate.org team and spend most of his time editing Wikipedia entries to suit his views (http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/143215.html).
Just look at the editing page of the global cooling wikipedia entry and Connolley apparently has a lot of free time on his hands: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_cooling&action=history
Don't alarmists realize how suspicious this behavior is?
Have alarmists ever conceded even a single point of discussion, even a minor one? Do they have a 100% record for being correct?