For all you denying greenies who don't believe your elders promoted the global cooling apolypse.

http://masterresource.org/?feed=rss2

August 11, 2009, 23:00:56 | rbradley
[Editor Note: An earlier series at MasterResource on John Holdren, President Obama's science and
technology advisor, is being reprinted given the recent controversy surrounding Dr. Holdren's
earlier views. This original post is dated December 30, 2008]

Skeptics of climate alarmism have often trotted out the fact that a number of climate scientists
sounded the alarm over global cooling before they sounded the alarm over global warming-an argument
for humility in the face of complexity, uncertainty, and change.Global cooling was more than fringe
thinking. As Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote in their 1996 book, Betrayal of Science and Reason
(p. 34):

"Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other leading climatologists,
based on the prevailing knowledge of the atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the
potential problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit."

President-elect Obama's new science advisor, John Holdren, was concerned about global cooling too.
In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977: p. 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich,
and Holdren stated:

"Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent
trend in that direction-that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic
history."

The Ehlrichs and Holdren also gave voice to cooling alarmist Reid Bryson, who said this in his
essay in their edited book of essays published in 1971, Global Ecology:

"I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the
earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or
so."

During the 1970s, there was also concern about anthropogenic global warming at some future date.
The Ehrlichs and and Holdren covered this base in Ecoscience (p. 686):

"There can be scant consolation in the idea that a man-made warming trend might cancel out a
natural cooling trend. Since the different factors producing the two trends do so by influencing
different parts of Earth's complicated climatic machinery, it is most unlikely that the associated
effects on circulation patterns would cancel each other."

This is a very interesting quotation. It is premised on the notion that any human influence on
climate cannot be good because it is human. The externalities must be negative, not neutral or
positive.So nature and only nature is optimal? Is that really what the global warming debate is all
about? If so, climate alarmism and forced energy transformation is more religion than a sober look
at science, economics, and politics from a humanistic perspective.

Eric Gisin wrote:
For all you denying greenies who don't believe your elders promoted
the global cooling apolypse.

http://masterresource.org/?feed=rss2

Sorry, lying denialist k00ksite.

Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
For all you denying greenies who don't believe your elders promoted
the global cooling apolypse.

http://masterresource.org/?feed=rss2

Sorry, lying denialist k00ksite.

says the kook

Eric Gisin wrote:
For all you denying greenies who don't believe your elders promoted
the global cooling apolypse.

http://masterresource.org/?feed=rss2

August 11, 2009, 23:00:56 | rbradley
[Editor Note: An earlier series at MasterResource on John Holdren,
President Obama's science and technology advisor, is being reprinted
given the recent controversy surrounding Dr. Holdren's earlier views.
This original post is dated December 30, 2008]

Skeptics of climate alarmism have often trotted out the fact that a
number of climate scientists sounded the alarm over global cooling
before they sounded the alarm over global warming-an argument for
humility in the face of complexity, uncertainty, and change.Global
cooling was more than fringe thinking. As Paul Ehrlich and Anne
Ehrlich wrote in their 1996 book, Betrayal of Science and Reason (p.
34):

"Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other
leading climatologists, based on the prevailing knowledge of the
atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the potential
problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit."

President-elect Obama's new science advisor, John Holdren, was
concerned about global cooling too. In Ecoscience: Population,
Resources, and Environment (1977: p. 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne
Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:

"Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the
beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction-that is,
an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic
history."

The Ehlrichs and Holdren also gave voice to cooling alarmist Reid
Bryson, who said this in his essay in their edited book of essays
published in 1971, Global Ecology:

"I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect
on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is
responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or so."

During the 1970s, there was also concern about anthropogenic global
warming at some future date. The Ehrlichs and and Holdren covered
this base in Ecoscience (p. 686):

"There can be scant consolation in the idea that a man-made warming
trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend. Since the different
factors producing the two trends do so by influencing different parts
of Earth's complicated climatic machinery, it is most unlikely that
the associated effects on circulation patterns would cancel each
other."

This is a very interesting quotation. It is premised on the notion
that any human influence on climate cannot be good because it is
human. The externalities must be negative, not neutral or positive.So
nature and only nature is optimal? Is that really what the global
warming debate is all about? If so, climate alarmism and forced
energy transformation is more religion than a sober look at science,
economics, and politics from a humanistic perspective.

Both Ehrlich and and Holdren are loose canons. Neither of them have been
right in their predictions of doom in the past but somehow are now
revered as they continue to bleat doom with their same solutions from
the past. IOW they are sick puppies ****ing on the public's
sensibilities while Obama drinks the kool aid and making a fool of
himself with his smooth rhetoric.