On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On 19 Oct, 14:22, wrote:



Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines *"New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. *

[...]

The difference is this: the media in those times
hadn't the slightest interest in climate change so that story was one
of a real tangible anxiety this was underlined by the fact *the left
never had the slightest *interest in climate as they still
parasitically lived of the great beast that was the trade Union
movement. You also have to consider that it wasn't felt that humans
had any bearing on the climate whatsoever.

In the 1970s? I don't think that's true. For example, John Mason
informed the Royal Society in 1978 that of all climate variables, the
effect of rapid increase in greenhouses gases was 'by far the
largest'; and the disparate strands of climate research through the
1970s (and indeed '60s) culminated in 1979 with the panel convened by
the U.S. National Research Council at Woods Hole under Jule Charney.
'We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to
be near 3 degrees C, with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5
degrees.' [Jule Charney, 'Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment' (1979)]

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

And I thought that the English actor Sophie Okonedo (fittingly, for
the part, born in London's East End) was excellent at portraying the
role of Nancy. Just how dark does a person's skin have to be to
disqualify them from Dickens? Moreover, considering Dickens, as far as
I know, did not mention her religion in 'Oliver Twist', should the
fact that she is Jewish also have excluded her from consideration?

How does that explain the Subday Mirror and Sunday Telegaph artices
and Nigel Calders book?

The post war cooling was very obvious right through the sixties only
ten years earlier Einstein was writing a glowing preface to Charles
Hapgoods apparent destruction of the theory of plate tectonics. I
think people forget how things rapidly change, Cooling wasn't a theory
it actually was a concern that had veen picked up by a less distorted
media than today. Again people want to revise history to suit their
view of the world.

As for Dickens: Would you think it correct if a period drama had white
tribesmen amongst the Ibo people of west africa ? Of course not. TYhe
BBC are revising the accuracy of historic events to atone for the sins
of the slave trade. As I said in another post a young Blacl actress
iis to star in a new production of little dorrit.

Now these things on their own don't mean much but when put into the
context og the BBC guilt propaganda machine- it does.