On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:

> >> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> >> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
> >>
> >> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> >> not proceed as predicted.
> >
> >Nonsense. ...
> >Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
> ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
> forty years after the fact.

Oh, facts as the author relates are also the facts I recall. NO ONE
thought there was a scare, just a bit if extra-dramatic headline composition.

> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.

No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared.
The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.

On 1/17/24 20:24, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
>>>> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
>>>> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
>>>>
>>>> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
>>>> not proceed as predicted.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. ...
>>> Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
>> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
>> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
>> forty years after the fact.
>
> Oh, facts as the author relates are also the facts I recall. NO ONE
> thought there was a scare, just a bit if extra-dramatic headline composition.
>
>> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
>> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.
>
> No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared.
> The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.

There is no point in continuing this conversation. You believe
what you want. It doesn't matter either way.

What does worry me is people who want to act against climate
change by meddling with the economy or with the environment.

What remains is that there are too many humans on this planet. If
we don't rein in ourselves, nature will do it for us and it's going
to hurt. It has always been thus for wild animal populations. We
are privileged to live in a time of abundance. Let's make it last
as long as we can.

Jeroen Belleman

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 2:37:20 PM UTC-8, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 1/17/24 20:24, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >>>> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> >>>> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
> >>>>
> >>>> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> >>>> not proceed as predicted.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. ...
> >>> Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
> >>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
> >> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
> >> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
> >> forty years after the fact.
> >
> > Oh, facts as the author relates are also the facts I recall. NO ONE
> > thought there was a scare, just a bit if extra-dramatic headline composition.
> >
> >> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
> >> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.

and I was one of 'people... in the 1970s' and am testifying as to
personal knowledge

> > No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared.
> > The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.
> There is no point in continuing this conversation. You believe
> what you want. It doesn't matter either way.
>
> What does worry me is people who want to act against climate
> change by meddling with the economy or with the environment.

Why does 'people who want to act' scare you? Everybody
with a task is a pretty large set of boogeymen...

'Against climate change' is a pretty nonthreatening category,
unless you are a land speculator buying up glacial footprints.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:24:47 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
>> >> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
>> >> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
>> >>
>> >> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
>> >> not proceed as predicted.
>> >
>> >Nonsense. ...
>> >Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
>> ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
>> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
>> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
>> forty years after the fact.
>
>Oh, facts as the author relates are also the facts I recall. NO ONE
>thought there was a scare, just a bit if extra-dramatic headline composition.

In 1975, how old were you? I was 28, and remember the scare quite
well. As does my wife. And Jeroen.

It was being thundered off all rooftops, with talk of Britain becoming
like Siberia and so on.

>> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
>> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.
>
>No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared.
>The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.

I saw it with my own eyes.

Look into the morgues of the major newspapers and magazines of that
day - these document what they thought back in the day, in their own
words, without modern spin. Which means before about 1985 for Global
Warming et seq. And there was as always a range of opinions back
then, so don't read just one source.

Joe Gwinn

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 3:28:42 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:24:47 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >> >> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> >> >> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
....
> >> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
> >> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.
> >
> >No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared..
> >The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.

> I saw it with my own eyes.
>
> Look into the morgues of the major newspapers and magazines of that
> day - these document what they thought back in the day, in their own
> words, without modern spin. Which means before about 1985 for Global
> Warming et seq. And there was as always a range of opinions back
> then, so don't read just one source.

I was a science grad student, and not impressed (then or now) with
'major newspapers and magazines' looking for headlines.
The current situation with global climate change wasn't the dominant
prediction until the 80s, and didn't stop being controversial until early 90s.
There may have been doomsayers of dozens of stripes before this,
but not with any science credibility.

The 'cooling' talk in the mid seventies was not a scare that had
any credibility.

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:28:42 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:24:47 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >> >> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> >> >> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
> >> >>
> >> >> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> >> >> not proceed as predicted.
> >> >
> >> >Nonsense. ...
> >> >Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
> >> ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
> >> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
> >> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
> >> forty years after the fact.
> >
> >Oh, facts as the author relates are also the facts I recall. NO ONE
> >thought there was a scare, just a bit if extra-dramatic headline composition.
> In 1975, how old were you? I was 28, and remember the scare quite
> well. As does my wife. And Jeroen.
>
> It was being thundered off all rooftops, with talk of Britain becoming
> like Siberia and so on.

Not that I noticed, but was reading the Guardian and the Observer in the UK at time, and while their science journalism wasn't wonderful, they didn't got in for fatuous alarmism of the sort that Cursitor Doom fancies.

> >> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
> >> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.
> >
> >No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared..
> >The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.
>
> I saw it with my own eyes.

You understood with your own brain, which doesn't seem to have been well-furnished back then.

> Look into the morgues of the major newspapers and magazines of that
> day - these document what they thought back in the day, in their own
> words, without modern spin.

It documents what they thought would drag in gullible customers. Feckless alarmism has always sold well.

> Which means before about 1985 for Global Warming et seq. And there was as always a range of opinions back
then, so don't read just one source.

The popular press is always fond of over-dramatisation and alarmism.
Try to get hold of more sober material as well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 9:37:20 AM UTC+11, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 1/17/24 20:24, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >>>> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> >>>> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
> >>>>
> >>>> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> >>>> not proceed as predicted.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. ...
> >>>
> >>> Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
> >>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
> >>
> >> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
> >> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
> >> forty years after the fact.
> >
> > Oh, facts as the author relates are also the facts I recall. NO ONE
> > thought there was a scare, just a bit if extra-dramatic headline composition.
> >
> >> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
> >> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.
> >
> > No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared.
> > The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.
>
> There is no point in continuing this conversation. You believe
> what you want. It doesn't matter either way.

Perhaps. But your scepticism strikes me as ill-founded,

> What does worry me is people who want to act against climate
> change by meddling with the economy or with the environment.

Burning less fossil carbon as fuel is meddling with the economy, and the fossil carbon extraction industry is spending a lot of money on climate change denial propaganda in the hope of keeping that bit of the economy just the way it was, moving money away from other people towards them.

Dumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere is meddling with the enviroment, and we should stop doing it - in practive the best we will be able manage is to dump progressively, and we haven't even been able to get there yet (though we seem to be getting close).
> What remains is that there are too many humans on this planet.

Perhaps, but that's very much a matter of opinion. The demographic transition does seem to be getting close to stabilising the global population

> If we don't rein in ourselves, nature will do it for us and it's going
> to hurt. It has always been thus for wild animal populations. We
> are privileged to live in a time of abundance. Let's make it last
> as long as we can.

Which will take quite a bit of meddling.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 9:37:20 AM UTC+11, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 1/17/24 20:24, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:30:19 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >>>> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> >>>> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
> >>>>
> >>>> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> >>>> not proceed as predicted.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. ...
> >>>
> >>> Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
> >>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
> >>
> >> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
> >> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
> >> forty years after the fact.
> >
> > Oh, facts as the author relates are also the facts I recall. NO ONE
> > thought there was a scare, just a bit if extra-dramatic headline composition.
> >
> >> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
> >> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.
> >
> > No, not in fact. That's a fiction. It was a news blip, no one was scared.
> > The connection to our current concerns is a fabrication with no merit.
>
> There is no point in continuing this conversation. You believe
> what you want. It doesn't matter either way.

Perhaps. But your skepticism strikes me as ill-founded,

> What does worry me is people who want to act against climate
> change by meddling with the economy or with the environment.

Burning less fossil carbon as fuel is meddling with the economy, and the fossil carbon extraction industry is spending a lot of money on climate change denial propaganda in the hope of keeping that bit of the economy just the way it was, moving money away from other people towards them.

Dumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere is meddling with the environment, and we should stop doing it - in practice the best we will be able manage is to dump progressively less, and we haven't even been able to get there yet (though we seem to be getting close).

> What remains is that there are too many humans on this planet.

Perhaps, but that's very much a matter of opinion. The demographic transition does seem to be getting close to stabilising the global population

> If we don't rein in ourselves, nature will do it for us and it's going
> to hurt. It has always been thus for wild animal populations. We
> are privileged to live in a time of abundance. Let's make it last
> as long as we can.

Which will take quite a bit of meddling.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney