

NASA predicted human caused 'ice age' in 1971... - gibsonf1
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

======
viergroupie
Let me preface this by saying that the 1971 doom-prophecies do cast a bad
light on global warming and the change of opinion needs to be publicly
addressed by Hansen.

Now, having said that...this article appears to have been written in an Exxon
boardroom by a committee of chuckling robber-barrons in top hats...being
served a puree made from the hearts of orphans.

~~~
lupin_sansei
Logic 101: just because Exxon might have written a report against AGW it
doesn't automatically mean that it's false and can be dismissed without
further consideration

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

~~~
aswanson
It doesn't mean that it can immediately be dismissed, but you can certainly
take into account prior or perceived behaviour of a party when making a claim,
especially if they have strong economic motive to deceive you.

<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691641>

------
aswanson
What is it with this crusade against people who have a problem with large
amounts of C02 emissions? Why believe people who, for the most part, have
every reason to lie (Hannity, Glenn Beck, Exxon executives) over the majority
of credentialed scientists? Experiment for you: Take 2 thermometers. Take 2
bottles. Put a thermometer in 1. Close it. Set a match on fire. Put it in the
second bottle, enclosed with the thermometer (this will cause CO2 to be
created). Read both thermometers after a few hours, to negate any temperature
difference that may be caused by the fire. One will read a higher temperature.
Guess which one? Guess why? Mail results to Fox News for extra credit. [/Flame
off]

~~~
lupin_sansei
Why would that simple experiment with bottles be analogous to our atmosphere?

~~~
aswanson
The first bottle contains the ratio of elements as contained in our
atmosphere. The second has an increased ratio of C02 in proportion to the
remaining nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements. The CO2 bottle would have a
greater thermal retention coefficient than the bottle with the normal
proportion and would exhibit a greater increase in temperature if exposed to
sunlight. Greater ratio of Co2, greater ratio of IR energy retention.

~~~
lupin_sansei
Our atmosphere has clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays and solar forcing effects
too. Plus the bottle experiment assumes that there will be no scaling
problems.

~~~
greendestiny
Sure. And there are plenty more effects you haven't even mentioned. What about
the changing population ratio between people with white skin and dark skin?
More dark skin means more heat absorption which means more global warming.

Of course the effect is probably 1 zillionth the size of the effect of CO2,
but apparently thats irrelevant to global warming skeptics. I'll admit the
effect cosmic rays on cloud formation is quite creative, but I think their are
even more ridiculous and irrelevant effects out their if you were really
trying.

The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive
of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature
patterns better than AGW models do. Positing inputs to the system without
reference to magnitude and other inputs is absolutely insufficient.

~~~
lupin_sansei
"The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive
of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature
patterns better than AGW models do."

It would be sufficient rebuttal of the AGW model to simply show that
temperatures don't rise as predicted. A model to predict the future stands or
falls on it's ability to predict the future.

For example if I had a model of the stock market that failed to predict the
market that model couldn't be be considered to be correct so long as nobody
could come up with a better model. The failure of my stock market model to
predict the future would be enough to show that my model didn't work.

~~~
greendestiny
I concede that the future is the absolute measure of a prediction. But its not
a very powerful tool for deciding to act or not in any situation before that
future arrives.

If you had a stock market model that's based on very observable micro effects
and your model predicts past stock prices well, would you use it to invest? Of
course the answer very much depends on your levels of certainty, but if you
don't invest now you won't make any money.

------
henning
You see? You see? Sometimes scientists are _wrong_! Since experts are unable
to predict the possibly dramatic results of climate change, it means we, who
know nothing about meteorology or climate modelling, have carte blanche to
ignore everything they say and pollute as much as possible!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drive my 1.5 children to Little League
in a Hummer.

