Are ideas to cool the planet realistic?

[Still Waters]

The deliberate large-scale manipulation of the Earth's environment, called geoengineering, could be one way to cool the Earth or help reduce levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But scientists are aware that these technologies are in very early stages of development and remain untested on a global scale.

Although there are great risks in deliberately interfering with nature to cool the planet, some researchers say that if the concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere reach a critical stage, geoengineering might become the only way to take control of our climate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-24033772

[freetoroam]

Fighting against nature? Not the best of ideas, maybe they should concentrate on whats happening now, like hundreds of tons of contaminated water leaking into our oceans. Japan!!!!!

[spud the mackem]

Fighting against nature? Not the best of ideas, maybe they should concentrate on whats happening now, like hundreds of tons of contaminated water leaking into our oceans. Japan!!!!!

There is said to be a million tons of chemicals and effluent waste floating up and down the Severn Estuary it goes out with the tide then comes back in again.And when you approach Bombay (now Mumbai), the water is a sickly greenish yellow colour 15 miles out.The Ganges is about the same.

[sam12six]

Is it realistic?

Logically, if we can affect things to the point that we've screwed it up the we should be able to affect it enough to fix it - so, yes. Now, is it realistic as-in we have the knowledge to do so? I seriously doubt it.

[spud the mackem]

Is it realistic?

Logically, if we can affect things to the point that we've screwed it up the we should be able to affect it enough to fix it - so, yes. Now, is it realistic as-in we have the knowledge to do so? I seriously doubt it.

I seriously doubt that a Neanderthal person, would survive very long in todays atmosphere, and I don't think we have the knowledge to fix it even if Countries would get together and act as one,which aint gonna happen,the Human Race is hell bent on suicide.

[Skep B]

Worked for Futurama

[+DieChecker]

The deliberate large-scale manipulation of the Earth's environment, called geoengineering, could be one way to cool the Earth or help reduce levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But scientists are aware that these technologies are in very early stages of development and remain untested on a global scale.

Although there are great risks in deliberately interfering with nature to cool the planet, some researchers say that if the concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere reach a critical stage, geoengineering might become the only way to take control of our climate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-24033772

Most of that is in line with what I know and believe about Geoengineering climate. It is very much within our ability, with only financial and political realities preventing such projects.

[Merc14]

Back in the '70s the same type of idiot was talking about ways to warm the planet because global cooling was going to kill us all. Their models are not much better today than they were way back when.

[Doug1029]

Back in the '70s the same type of idiot was talking about ways to warm the planet because global cooling was going to kill us all. Their models are not much better today than they were way back when.

There was one paper based on arithmetic errors in calculating the Milankovitch Cycles. Beyond that one mistaken paper (which was soon caught and retracted) no scientific organization ever published anything saying that the world was going to get colder. The hype was the doing of scientifically illiterate writers working for newspapers and magazines (Newsweek and Times Magazine). The retraction didn't make headlines because you don't sell newspapers and advertising with apologies and retractions.

Aside from the inherent illogic of these ad hominem attacks (They provide no evidence to refute global warming - Indeed, they don't even try - and are irrelevant to an informed debate.), an article by Stephen Schneider (recently deceased) seems to have contributed to the hysteria. The article was about the cooling effect of particulate pollution. What newspaper and magazine writers apparently missed was that particulates are human-caused and of short duration. When we quit making them, they soon disappear having little effect on climate.

The denialists claim that a National Academy of Sciences report, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action." said the NAS "experts" exhibited the same hysterical fears—-this time, however, asserting a "finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." .... "The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as 'unusual,' following as it did the 'Little Ice Age,' which had lasted from 1430 to 1850."

In 1976, B. J. Mason explained the problem at the Symons Memorial Lecture: "At present we are in a warm interglacial period, the duration of these in the past have averaged about 50 kyr. It is probable that the present very warm interval, which has already lasted for about 10 kyr, will eventually give way to a period of colder climate. Statistically the chances that such a transition will begin in the next 100 years mayy be placed at about 1 in 100 but the full drop of 10 oC or so would probably be spread over several kyr. There is a rather higher probability that a cooling may set in but not be carried through to the full glacial conditions. The chances of a prolonged cold, but far from glacial, spell within the next century, with average temperatures lower by about 1 oC, such as occurred between 1500 and 1850, must be put quite high, about 1 in 5. However, there is no physical basis for predicting either the timing or magnitude of such changes because we do not yet understand the underlying causes. Likewise there is no real basis for the alarmist predictions of an imminent ice age which have largely been based on extrapolation of the 30-year trend of falling temperatures between 1940 and 1965. Apart from the strong dubiety of making a forecast from such a highly fluctuating record by extrapolation of such a short period trend, there is now evidence that the trend has been arrested."

That's a pretty good assessment of "climate science" at the time. Time and Newsweek took a highly-improbable event and blew it far out of proportion for the sake of sales.

There are a few serious and informed people out there who are trying to refute climate change. Yet I have never heard one of them use this argument. Why? Because it doesn't stand up to analysis. Merc, et al.: Why don't you read up on the subject and present the REAL arguments against climate change?

"Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 19760s and 1970s." -- Thomas Peterson

Peterson, T. C., W. M. Connolley, J. Fleck. 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society. 89:1325-1327.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.../2008BAMS2370.1

Edited September 22, 2013 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Most of that is in line with what I know and believe about Geoengineering climate. It is very much within our ability, with only financial and political realities preventing such projects.

I would hope we don't allow things to get bad enough to make these proposals necessary.

Doug

Edited September 22, 2013 by Doug1029

[Merc14]

Hmm,

Edited September 22, 2013 by Merc14

[Merc14]

There was one paper based on arithmetic errors in calculating the Milankovitch Cycles. Beyond that one mistaken paper (which was soon caught and retracted) no scientific organization ever published anything saying that the world was going to get colder. The hype was the doing of scientifically illiterate writers working for newspapers and magazines (Newsweek and Times Magazine). The retraction didn't make headlines because you don't sell newspapers and advertising with apologies and retractions.

Aside from the inherent illogic of these ad hominem attacks (They provide no evidence to refute global warming - Indeed, they don't even try - and are irrelevant to an informed debate.), an article by Stephen Schneider (recently deceased) seems to have contributed to the hysteria. The article was about the cooling effect of particulate pollution. What newspaper and magazine writers apparently missed was that particulates are human-caused and of short duration. When we quit making them, they soon disappear having little effect on climate.

The denialists claim that a National Academy of Sciences report, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action." said the NAS "experts" exhibited the same hysterical fears—-this time, however, asserting a "finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." .... "The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as 'unusual,' following as it did the 'Little Ice Age,' which had lasted from 1430 to 1850."

In 1976, B. J. Mason explained the problem at the Symons Memorial Lecture: "At present we are in a warm interglacial period, the duration of these in the past have averaged about 50 kyr. It is probable that the present very warm interval, which has already lasted for about 10 kyr, will eventually give way to a period of colder climate. Statistically the chances that such a transition will begin in the next 100 years mayy be placed at about 1 in 100 but the full drop of 10 oC or so would probably be spread over several kyr. There is a rather higher probability that a cooling may set in but not be carried through to the full glacial conditions. The chances of a prolonged cold, but far from glacial, spell within the next century, with average temperatures lower by about 1 oC, such as occurred between 1500 and 1850, must be put quite high, about 1 in 5. However, there is no physical basis for predicting either the timing or magnitude of such changes because we do not yet understand the underlying causes. Likewise there is no real basis for the alarmist predictions of an imminent ice age which have largely been based on extrapolation of the 30-year trend of falling temperatures between 1940 and 1965. Apart from the strong dubiety of making a forecast from such a highly fluctuating record by extrapolation of such a short period trend, there is now evidence that the trend has been arrested."

That's a pretty good assessment of "climate science" at the time. Time and Newsweek took a highly-improbable event and blew it far out of proportion for the sake of sales.

There are a few serious and informed people out there who are trying to refute climate change. Yet I have never heard one of them use this argument. Why? Because it doesn't stand up to analysis. Merc, et al.: Why don't you read up on the subject and present the REAL arguments against climate change?

"Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 19760s and 1970s." -- Thomas Peterson

Peterson, T. C., W. M. Connolley, J. Fleck. 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society. 89:1325-1327.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.../2008BAMS2370.1

When I have time I'll dig up some scientists playing Al Gore with ice age BS but you miss the point. It was hysterics back then with little proof and it is hysterics today with little proof beyond very very flawed models and manipulated data. There are many scientists today that dispute man-made global warming and you dismiss them out of hand which is very unscientific, to say the least and reeks of zealotry and/or greed.

That was the panic back then folks. It is what it is despite Dougie's protestations. They wanted to shoot CO2 into the atmosphere and the White House was right on board with it. Democrats of course.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Merc14

[Doug1029]

When I have time I'll dig up some scientists playing Al Gore with ice age BS but you miss the point. It was hysterics back then with little proof and it is hysterics today with little proof beyond very very flawed models and manipulated data. There are many scientists today that dispute man-made global warming and you dismiss them out of hand which is very unscientific, to say the least and reeks of zealotry and/or greed.

I've already tried to find the articles that supposedly say an ice age is imminent. There are lots of non-scientific articles out there, but the ones I listed above are the only journal articles I found. You're right about the hysterics, but it wasn't scientists' doing. And if you'll check the credentials of those anti-warming scientists, you'll find the vast majority are not climatologists. Just because a person is a scientist doesn't mean he knows anything about the topic at hand. I have a Ph.D. in Environmental Science, but if you're looking for medical advice, I suggest you look somewhere else. I wouldn't trust me to remove a wart, let alone perform surgery. Same with people who specialize in statistics or engineering or space. They may be good at what they do, but that doesn't mean I'd believe them in an area they haven't studied.

Thanks for posting that cover. Time is another one of those popular press publications that hypes stuff just to sell more copies. Good example of what I'm talking about. But if you're looking for advice on how to build a spaceship, I wouldn't bother with them. Same thing with climate - they don't do their homework.

That was the panic back then folks. It is what it is despite Dougie's protestations. They wanted to shoot CO2 into the atmosphere and the White House was right on board with it. Democrats of course.

There was an article way back in the mid-seventies about CO2 emissions warming the planet. It sort of died for lack of interest and because at the time there wasn't much to support it. I don't know about the White House: politicians hype whatever they think will get them votes. Take Republicans, for example: they're busy destroying democracy because their greedy backers want to own everything and the rest of us be damned. But that's the right wing-nut jobs for you.

Doug

P.S.: If you can post insults and flames, expect to get some back. We'll get a lot farther if we keep this civil.

Doug

[Merc14]

I've already tried to find the articles that supposedly say an ice age is imminent. There are lots of non-scientific articles out there, but the ones I listed above are the only journal articles I found. You're right about the hysterics, but it wasn't scientists' doing. And if you'll check the credentials of those anti-warming scientists, you'll find the vast majority are not climatologists. Just because a person is a scientist doesn't mean he knows anything about the topic at hand. I have a Ph.D. in Environmental Science, but if you're looking for medical advice, I suggest you look somewhere else. I wouldn't trust me to remove a wart, let alone perform surgery. Same with people who specialize in statistics or engineering or space. They may be good at what they do, but that doesn't mean I'd believe them in an area they haven't studied.

Thanks for posting that cover. Time is another one of those popular press publications that hypes stuff just to sell more copies. Good example of what I'm talking about. But if you're looking for advice on how to build a spaceship, I wouldn't bother with them. Same thing with climate - they don't do their homework.

There was an article way back in the mid-seventies about CO2 emissions warming the planet. It sort of died for lack of interest and because at the time there wasn't much to support it. I don't know about the White House: politicians hype whatever they think will get them votes. Take Republicans, for example: they're busy destroying democracy because their greedy backers want to own everything and the rest of us be damned. But that's the right wing-nut jobs for you.

Doug

P.S.: If you can post insults and flames, expect to get some back. We'll get a lot farther if we keep this civil.

Doug

You miss the point again. Why was the White House and the left backing the cooling movement? Why were we inundated with it in the schools if it was such a myth? Do you not see the parallels to the present hysterics? Explain the last twenty years and the likely next 50 where your models are completely wrong? They missed it absolutely yet we are to trust them without reservation? BS

[Frank Merton]

Too much about the credibility of the advocates of global warming and not enough about the science. The science is persuasive, although some politicians take it too far, I think the present administration in the US has it about right. It doesn't hurt to find substitutes for polluting coal and oil anyway.

[Merc14]

Too much about the credibility of the advocates of global warming and not enough about the science. The science is persuasive, although some politicians take it too far, I think the present administration in the US has it about right. It doesn't hurt to find substitutes for polluting coal and oil anyway.

It isn't about finding substitutes, that is happening, it is about bankrupting nations in the name of something that is not really proven, namely man-made global warming. The models missed the last twenty years of slowdown and the next 50 of the same. We are told a 20 year slowdown, a major slowdown, is nothing more than an anomaly. Seriously? You miss this major shift and I should destroy my economy on your word? The fact that this "slowdown"is projected to last for another 50 years or more and the models don't show anything but ever increasing temperatures should ring some alarm bells Frank.

[Doug1029]

You miss the point again. Why was the White House and the left backing the cooling movement? Why were we inundated with it in the schools if it was such a myth? Do you not see the parallels to the present hysterics? Explain the last twenty years and the likely next 50 where your models are completely wrong? They missed it absolutely yet we are to trust them without reservation? BS

The White House was looking for $$$ and the coal industry had it. Money is used to buy votes. Besides, politicians don't spend their time reading science; they get their info pre-digested from popular writers just like you do. School, especially the grade schools, are not exactly fact-based, either. Textbooks are usually five years out of date when published and our textbooks were ten years old when I got them.

I see the parallels. Once again the science is ignored in favor of manufactured hype - on both sides, but especially on the denialist side.

As for climate models: I don't use them. First, I don't need to. My work is based on tree-ring records and regression models (not the same thing).

You guys like to cherry-pick the models. There are about 300 climate models. Many that were in use 20 years ago have been discarded. Many have been developed for specific situations or locations. Why do the anti-s like to use them out of their proper context? Every model I know of is predicting desert conditions here in Oklahoma before the end of this century, probably before 2050. It wouldn't take much to get the dunes moving again. They were active when covered wagons crossed the Santa Fe Trail - this was called The Great American Desert. That's another thing you can see in those tree rings: major droughts in 1855-1862, 1881-1886 and the Gay Nineties drought from 1894 to 1901. Three or four dry years and an early spring fire would get the dunes moving again - like it did at the Commanche Grasslands. So if EVERY model says basically the same thing, what are you going to believe?

And just how wrong were the models, really? The 1991 IPCC gave us six (if memory serves) "scenarios" based on computer models. To date, four were wrong. But two were right. Twenty-two years after those primitive models were used, two scenarios are still on track. Are you trying to say that climate modelers haven't learned anything in twenty years? Have you?

Right now, climate models aren't accurate enough to use for community planning. The problem is that they can't model convection accurately enough.

At current rates of development, in another ten years we'll have models that can and are accurate enough for local communities to use in planning. I'm predicting that the broad outlines will be much the same as current models predict, but there will be some adjustments in the details.

I said I don't use climate models. I don't need to know how much rain fell from October to March. The trees aren't growing then. I don't need to know what the DAILY (or even monthly) rainfall was. But trees are sufficiently sensitive that I can tell you how much fell in the spring (April-June) and summer (July-September). I can look at my tree ring records and see the 1.6-degree increase in temps since 1830. I have daily thermometer and rainfall measurements going back to 1892. I don't need a model to see that things have warmed up and that there are ecological consequences of what has already happened. And I see no reason to believe that the 1998-2005 hiatus was anything more than a temporary interlude in warming. Since 2005, temps have been rising.

I study climate. It is my business, a full-time job. I'm paid to do it. I think I know a lot more about it than you do.

Doug

[Doug1029]

It isn't about finding substitutes, that is happening, it is about bankrupting nations in the name of something that is not really proven, namely man-made global warming. The models missed the last twenty years of slowdown and the next 50 of the same. We are told a 20 year slowdown, a major slowdown, is nothing more than an anomaly. Seriously? You miss this major shift and I should destroy my economy on your word? The fact that this "slowdown"is projected to last for another 50 years or more and the models don't show anything but ever increasing temperatures should ring some alarm bells Frank.

Wind power is cheaper than coal or oil right now. I'm not sure, but I think it may also be cheaper than natural gas. Whether the world is getting warmer or not, wind power is cheaper and I, for one, am getting tired of paying inflated prices - and draining the economy - just to keep some obsolete coal-fired plants in business. Conversion to wind and probably some other energy sources, as well, will produce an economic boom, both in the construction phase and in the production phase as a result of cheaper energy.

Last 20 years? I'll post the actual temps for you when I go to work tomorrow. Think you'll find 1993 to have been cooler than most years since.\

Doug

Edited September 23, 2013 by Doug1029

[Merc14]

Wind power is cheaper than coal or oil right now. I'm not sure, but I think it may also be cheaper than natural gas. Whether the world is getting warmer or not, wind power is cheaper and I, for one, am getting tired of paying inflated prices - and draining the economy - just to keep some obsolete coal-fired plants in business. Conversion to wind and probably some other energy sources, as well, will produce an economic boom, both in the construction phase and in the production phase as a result of cheaper energy.

Last 20 years? I'll post the actual temps for you when I go to work tomorrow. Think you'll find 1993 to have been cooler than most years since.\

Doug

Wind power? LMFAO. Wow, thanks for this post, it is a gem. Maybe you should read some of hwat the other side says and BTW, tree rings have been terribly manipulated as well. I love how in the last UN report the tree ring study picked a couple of trees that showed the results they wanted and discarded every other sample that didn't. Where was that tree located, Siberia? You're the expert and therefore surely aware of that little corruption so why don't you enlighten us on that chicanery, or shall I do it? Lastly, anyone who relies solely on tree ring data as a determinant on man made global warming is a person I'd dismiss out if hand.

Oh yes, show me amodel that predicted this slowdown,

Edited September 23, 2013 by Merc14

[Merc14]

The White House was looking for $$$ and the coal industry had it. Money is used to buy votes. Besides, politicians don't spend their time reading science; they get their info pre-digested from popular writers just like you do. School, especially the grade schools, are not exactly fact-based, either. Textbooks are usually five years out of date when published and our textbooks were ten years old when I got them.

I see the parallels. Once again the science is ignored in favor of manufactured hype - on both sides, but especially on the denialist side.

As for climate models: I don't use them. First, I don't need to. My work is based on tree-ring records and regression models (not the same thing).

You guys like to cherry-pick the models. There are about 300 climate models. Many that were in use 20 years ago have been discarded. Many have been developed for specific situations or locations. Why do the anti-s like to use them out of their proper context? Every model I know of is predicting desert conditions here in Oklahoma before the end of this century, probably before 2050. It wouldn't take much to get the dunes moving again. They were active when covered wagons crossed the Santa Fe Trail - this was called The Great American Desert. That's another thing you can see in those tree rings: major droughts in 1855-1862, 1881-1886 and the Gay Nineties drought from 1894 to 1901. Three or four dry years and an early spring fire would get the dunes moving again - like it did at the Commanche Grasslands. So if EVERY model says basically the same thing, what are you going to believe?

And just how wrong were the models, really? The 1991 IPCC gave us six (if memory serves) "scenarios" based on computer models. To date, four were wrong. But two were right. Twenty-two years after those primitive models were used, two scenarios are still on track. Are you trying to say that climate modelers haven't learned anything in twenty years? Have you?

Right now, climate models aren't accurate enough to use for community planning. The problem is that they can't model convection accurately enough.

At current rates of development, in another ten years we'll have models that can and are accurate enough for local communities to use in planning. I'm predicting that the broad outlines will be much the same as current models predict, but there will be some adjustments in the details.

I said I don't use climate models. I don't need to know how much rain fell from October to March. The trees aren't growing then. I don't need to know what the DAILY (or even monthly) rainfall was. But trees are sufficiently sensitive that I can tell you how much fell in the spring (April-June) and summer (July-September). I can look at my tree ring records and see the 1.6-degree increase in temps since 1830. I have daily thermometer and rainfall measurements going back to 1892. I don't need a model to see that things have warmed up and that there are ecological consequences of what has already happened. And I see no reason to believe that the 1998-2005 hiatus was anything more than a temporary interlude in warming. Since 2005, temps have been rising.

I study climate. It is my business, a full-time job. I'm paid to do it. I think I know a lot more about it than you do.

Doug

Yikes! 1.6 degrees C and it was all caused by man? You can prove this? Never before in the planets history have temperatures risen 1.6 degrees in a 150 years? Temperature data from 1892 isn't comparable to temperatures taken from the same places today and you should know that.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Merc14

[Frank Merton]

Happened across this: I think its pertinent.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global-humans.html

[Michelle]

Here's something for you, Merc.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

NASA is often cited as one of the experts in today's global warming warnings, but if you click the links to the articles they were proponents of global cooling in the 70's. Experts from NOAA were quoted fairly often also.

[+DieChecker]

Here's something for you, Merc.

http://www.popularte...g-alarmism.html

From at link from that link...

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

http://www.nationalp...3d-5078af9cb409

True Fanatics are dangerous regardless of if they are on the wrong side or right side of a subject.

Edited September 23, 2013 by DieChecker

[Michelle]

From at link from that link...

http://www.nationalp...3d-5078af9cb409

True Fanatics are dangerous regardless of if they are on the wrong side or right side of a subject.

It infuriates me when people say it was only a hand full of reports from a couple of untrustworthy incompetent scientists and the media took off with it. Global cooling warnings were in our school books, on TV specials and if I'm not mistaken the Encyclopedia Britannica...which at the time was the go to source for all major information. I know this because I've always been a "greenie". I jumped on that bandwagon with a vengeance. I wrote reports for science class, provided graphs, handed out flyers, chastised people for not taking better care of the environment...almost to the point of fanaticism.

Of course, most of it has been eradicated from computer information sources and unless you still have the hard copies, as in the actual books, people say it was all in our imagination. Like we didn't have it crammed down our throats for my entire childhood.

Nowdays anyone that doesn't go along with the status quo of man-made global warming is refuted as working for the oil companies or having an agenda. Apparently, no matter how many credentials or "PhD's" someone has if they don't agree with man-made global warming they are a crackpot, ignorant, blind, making money off destroying the environment a Republican or all of the above. It couldn't possibly be because they've looked at the data objectively and come to a different conclusion.

[Guest]

It infuriates me when people say it was only a hand full of reports from a couple of untrustworthy incompetent scientists and the media took off with it. Global cooling warnings were in our school books, on TV specials and if I'm not mistaken the Encyclopedia Britannica...which at the time was the go to source for all major information. I know this because I've always been a "greenie". I jumped on that bandwagon with a vengeance. I wrote reports for science class, provided graphs, handed out flyers, chastised people for not taking better care of the environment...almost to the point of fanaticism.

Of course, most of it has been eradicated from computer information sources and unless you still have the hard copies, as in the actual books, people say it was all in our imagination. Like we didn't have it crammed down our throats for my entire childhood.

Nowdays anyone that doesn't go along with the status quo of man-made global warming is refuted as working for the oil companies or having an agenda. Apparently, no matter how many credentials or "PhD's" someone has if they don't agree with man-made global warming they are a crackpot, ignorant, blind, making money off destroying the environment a Republican or all of the above. It couldn't possibly be because they've looked at the data objectively and come to a different conclusion.

You must have been living on a different planet to this greenie. I remember one spoof news report about global cooling.

Strange how the memory works

Br Cornelius