0D0 said:
I've met scientists and university professors that remember all of the global cooling topic. I googled and I found a 1974 Time magazine with the Ice Age story: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601740624,00.html Newsweek also ran stories https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326 These quant tidbits come from a short article penned by Gwynne and printed on Page 64 of Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue. Titled “The Cooling World,” it argued that global temperatures were falling—and terrible consequences for food production were on the horizon. Meteorologists “are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” Gwynne wrote. “The resulting famines could be catastrophic.” The story, and others like it, has been cited by people who like to challenge current climate science and global warming.
I may be wrong about being cover story. There was this story and others like it. There was a consensus about global cooling. Yes there was. You know it. You can find little ridiculous details of something that I might have said that isn't 100% correct according to the "Cambridge/Oxford correct way of discussing stuff on Jesus Christ threads in a smart-ass way" or whatever, but everybody knows that the subject was enormous back then. If it was peer reviewed stuff or not, if I don't have the exact percentage of scientists that stated that according to the Library of the Congress I don't care. My point is still valid, people assume things like "scientists said that, so I should do it" and I'm saying that "no, you shouldn't believe in science blindly". Now, you can keep looking for little small details that prove that I'm can't post like a scientist smart ass and so I'm completely wrong but, it doesn't matter: Science is not always right. Science commit mistakes. Science says something is A and then it's B. Science has to correct themselves. Science doesn't know that certain things exist, even though they exist. Now, what's next? Is it my "epistemologyical philosophical true scotsman of cartesian logical thinking" or whatever that is wrong? |
Here's the problem. You were wrong about the cover story, because you don't bother to doublecheck things. If I had asked you to prove there ever was a Time Magazine cover on an Ice Age you would have replied with "You know it's true. Look it up." But it isn't true.
Your idea of a consensus on an ice age in the 70's is also wrong. It has been debunked many times. For example in this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&t=176s
The problem with the supposed ice age, eggs are bad for you, wine is good for you nonsense, is a problem with science journalists looking for a story to write. Yes the newsweek article says that "meteorologists are almost unanimous". But the person who wrote said article in 1975 has admitted that he jumped the gun of sorts.
"Here I must admit mea culpa. In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world’s food production that had scant research to back it." - The writer of the 1975 newsweek article.
The funny thing here is that your newsweek article in support of your idea of a global cooling is nothing new to me. Why? Because had you actually read the snopes article I linked to you would have found the above quote already. But you just don't doublecheck things or bother to read things completely.
I'll say it again. You don't bother to doublecheck things or read things completely. And that is the heart of the problem.
I'll have you know you are not completely wrong though. If you were to change your point from "don't believe everything science tells you", to "don't believe everything science journalists tell you, without doublechecking it yourself" you would be absolutely right. In fact, we can simplify that to "don't believe anything anybody tells you without doublechecking it yourself".
