Well, this is my first time back on Answers for 5 months and I would guess that the hardened skeptics haven’t moderated in any way, nor will they have taken the time to learn any real climate science and I suspect that they’re just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of their claims have become even more bizarre and irrational.
The problem with citing the Time Magazine article is that I have yet to see anyone do so in context or with any degree of honesty. But then let’s face it, such characteristics are rare manifestations from the denier community.
For the record here are the facts. From the last 1960’s to the early 1970’s there was some concern amongst the scientific community that Earth could enter a period of cooling (dimming) as a consequence of our emissions of sulphates, black particulate matter and other aerosols that either block or absorb incoming solar radiation.
The concern was that if we did not implement changes to our emissions practices then a period of cooling was a possibility. At no time was it ever said that the world would definitely cool, nor were there ever any predictions of impending ice-ages or other disasters; these were the sole preserve of the populist media.
Importantly we DID make changes to our emissions with the passing of Clean Air Acts and other regulatory measures and this led to a significant decrease in emissions of dimming agents. Ironically, as these emissions waned it allowed the suppressed warming trend to return to the fore.
I consider it extremely unlikely that any established denier will ever relate the Time Magazine story in context as to do so would expose the fact that they are forced to distort reality in order to present their arguments.
ADDED: The cover of the magazine may not be faked, but what is faked is the sensationalistic misrepresentation of scientific work contained within the pages and the continued dishonest manipulation of reality by those seeking to push their personal agendas on the populace by whatever means.
EDIT: I retract my statement about the cover not being faked (thanks Jeff M for exposing more lies from the charlatans). How monumentally stupid are the deniers that photoshop fake magazine covers when it’s so easy to prove them wrong.
Time did published an article in 1974 about global cooling but it wasn’t a front cover feature. Here’s what Time have to say about the fake cover:
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry...
Well from what I have read, that cover is indeed a fake. What's odd though is that there are several which are similar from Time in the 70s that are not fake so I'm not sure the purpose of it.
And what's funny is the indignation by alarmists in that YA question. They seem to have no problem with polar bears being photo-shopped onto ice floes or fake flood photos or using pictures of smokestacks emitting water vapor to show "CO2 pollution".
There was no Time magazine that was released on April 8, 1977.
http://search.time.com/results.html?N=46...
You would think these people would do some fact checking first. This is the second magazine posted from the exact same person that turned out not to exist at the date shown.
I think he's admitted it, but what makes him so dishonest is that he doesn't care.
I'll ask my question again: Why is it so hard for YA skeptics to be ethical? And if there is an ethical "skeptic" on here, who is it?
Doubt it I guess if he has integrity he would
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhsLpPxpYtDh1j1TIOaMisHh5gt.;_ylv=3?qid=20140105054553AAbl8KJ
