Oh, but it was....
Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. - New York Times June 23, 1890
The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions - New York Times - February 24, 1895,
The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - January 1905
“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. - Washington Post 11/2/1922
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923
I think it was more controversial amongst actually scientists those many years ago. At least until Callendar brought it back into the mainstream. since then though, and as science has advanced, it has become more and more likely as evidence has continued to grow. The controversy comes in the public eye when Al Gore, a politician whom many dislike due to his political stances, got behind it. Many people base their 'truths' on what their political side or the opposite side states. It wasn't that long when those arguing against cap and trade today, based on their own politics, were for cap and trade with the reality of the ozone hole. Now, to them, that reality has disappeared and is merely another attempt at government propaganda. These type of people are not interested in science in the slightest. And most of their arguments in here consist of insulting others (Yes Maxx even you do this quite a lot), calling others communists or lunatics or 'libtards', or going on and on about how the right is better than the left.
Well, I think if you look at the skeptics on here you'll find that most accept the conclusion that the planet is warming. The bit they want to disagree on is whether we're the cause because that would imply we're responsible.
So I agree with previous posters. The reason it's controversial now is because politicians are suggesting we do something about it. And sections of the population always dislike change. Incidentally, as a non-US citizen, I love seeing how Americans desperately avoid discussing the fact that their nation is a resource hog and the main culprit in all this! Which is probably why so many refuse to accept AGW - the US are the bad guys.
it's more likely because we now have to do something about it and the fossil fuel industry is fighting change while most US citizens would rather keep doing the same lifestyle. The logic is this:
1. Science tells us we have to reduce CO2
2. To accomplish that we need government regulations and/or taxes
3. we don't like regulations and/or taxes
4. Therefore the science is wrong.
Arhenius math has nothing to do with climate change, Milankovitch was right (proven), Callendar was right, but not related to man made climate change, Plass was correct, but again, not relating to man made weather, Revelle is wearing a pink bra if he thinks man made and natural occurring Co2 have different physical properties, Keeling was accurate, refer back to Milankovitch, Emiliani's findings reinforce Milankovitch, Manabe and Weatherald were later found wrong, climate temperature drives Co2 content not the other way around, US National Academy of Sciences
also found wrong, increasing the temperature would in fact increase atmospheric Co2, Ramanathan and collaborators (probably Communists) Got it wrong too, greenhouse gasses are produced (increase) as temperature increases. It takes an oceanic temperature increase to release Methane Hydrate. Ice core sampling proves Milankovitch, and reinforces the fact that "Global Warming" is a natural occurring cyclic phenomenon.
i must commend you for doing research and posting links to where you got your info.
i think its because climate change wasn't so drastic during those 3 yrs. also, we are now much more knowleageable about what's going on.
global warming = world's biggest hoax
Rather than wait for Sagebrush to plagiarize Ottawa, I will put my answer to Ottawa's question (which I am blocked from answering directly) here instead, in the form of a question "opened up" to anyone else blocked by O.
You might want to google Fred Seitz, JASONs, astroturfing, Marshall Institute, and Exxon-Mobil before answering.
And/or consult the following timeline:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
1930s
Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.
1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway.
1956
Plass calculates adding CO2 to atmosphere has significant effect on radiation balance.
1957
Revelle finds CO2 produced by humans not readily absorbed by oceans.
1960
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the atmosphere and detects an annual rise.
1966
Emiliani's analysis of deep-sea cores and Broecker's analysis of ancient corals show that the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.
1967
Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees.
1979
US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.
1983
Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream politics.
1985
Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases
Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful biological and geochemical feedbacks.
And these sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/inhofe-and-crichton-together-at-last/
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
http://jcmooreonline.com/2013/01/31/engineering-climate-denial/
