It went from ozone "fixed" -to CO2 -I can tell I'm beating my head here - but the ozone is fixed? and we're still having problems - now with relatively harmless CO2?
I can see why you would be beating your head here since the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Go take some more ginko biloba and maybe a little caffine as well and get back to me when you're able to think straight again.
what speech? are you talking about the ice age lie from the seventies or some other speech?
the one about CO2? - wipe that foam off your mouth sarge and tell me what speech you're referring to?
WATCH THE VIDEOS and you can see for yourself.
I watched the entire 70s video - he never addressed the fact that it was being taught in schools that we had an ice age on the way - did you miss what I was saying - it isn't related to whether the data was eventually disproven - we all know that it was at least dropped.
If you had actually watched the video, what you would have known is that the vast majority of studies from that time period found that any cyclical cooling period would be counteracted by the additional warming caused by additional greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... only 7 minor studies came to the opposite conclusion.
By way, it's still correct to teach that the earth should be entering a cooling period. Should is the key word there.
I said it was just a movie - do you want to dispute that it was an exaggeration of the predictions of the scientific community?
They never said sea levels would be rising drastically by now?
First of all, waterworld was based on a fictional screenplay... not any science at the time.
As for sea levels rising drastically by now, they already are. Predictions for the sea level rise last year were 2mm but sea levels rose by 3mm... 1 and a half times faster than previously predicted. I suppose you are under the idiotic assumption that climate change is an instantaneous event, but that would just be weather changes. Climate change normally takes thousands of years, but currently we're on pace to cut the time down to a tenth the normal pace, but we're still talking about many many years, not a single season.
yes I do have a working memory - which is why I remember being lied to by media and "respectable" organizations of all kinds.
Media and scientific research, are two different things... but you already said you're not interrested in looking anything up for yourself... so what's your point here? The media always has and always will oversensationalize stories because their livlihood depends on their ability to captivate an audience.
I'm sure they have stable funding - and if they want additional funding they have to make a case for it.
Actually, they don't really. Their get additional funding EVERY year, because multi-trillion dollar industries count on the accuracy of their climate predictions and models (at least for the NOAA).
you're assuming I "Fully trust" one organization over another - of course - it seems you often assume that if someone disagrees with you they're failing to think for themselves - I often get that "think for yourself" garbage - what "think for yourself" really really means is "stop disagreeing and think like me". No thanks, I'll think what IWANT.
We both know that's not true. If you wanted to think for yourself you would be interrested in finding out facts so that you could come to your own conclusions about them. So either you fully trust the oil industry that you keep handing thousands of dollars over to annually, or you just don't want to think at all. I don't really care which one it is since they both have the same end result.