Isaac Asimov on the Greenhouse Effect: 1989

This video is part of a longer presentation at the Humanist Institute in New York in 1989, and it demonstrates yet again that the broad outlines of the climate change story have been understood for decades by, well, intelligent men who are guided by science.
It's been a recurring theme in this series - that the science was essentially complete long before Al Gore, long before the IPCC, long before the Hockey Stick.

Whole talk here:
http://www.ubcome.com/Savethebiosphere.htm
Isaac Asimov Radio Interview on the Greenhouse Effect: 1977
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz1g55H6XgA

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• climate
• climate crocks
• climate denial
• greenhouse effect
• global warming
• icecaps
• icecap melting
• ice sheets
• sea level
• extinction
• oil spill

[whodathunkit1960]

oh, and were you to actually LISTEN to what Asimov said, READ much of his non-fiction, do some critical thinking, and STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID.

you wouldnt be using his video, because if there was one thing in this world Sir Isaac didnt stand for it would be the mere THOUGHT that "the science (of ANYTHING) is essentially complete"

he knew better

his writings are LACED with examples of how WRONG "accepted peer reviewed accepted science" have been throughout history.

[greenman3610]

@whodathunkit1960

the science of AGW was dismissed in the peer reviewed literature from the early 20th century until Gilbert Plass's work in the 50s filled in some of the blanks, and addressed some of the misconceptions, such as the idea that co2 wavelengths were "saturated". People like Asimov then were far sighted enough to recognize it was important, and, as he said, began to talk about it seriously.

Less far sighted people still have not gotten it. They will, eventually.

[whodathunkit1960]

we know about as much about AGW as we do Quantum mechanics,

we've observed some patterns, but really have no idea what the underlying REALITIES are.

we don't even know all the factors affecting our local climate.

70% of all the "matter" in the universe is unaccounted for.

nobody in their right mind thinks we should burn all the CO2 stores

dont cut your nose to spite your face & dont try to cut mine

dont try to ram it down our throats

you want a "sin tax" on carbon GET BETTER SCIENCE

[greenman3610]

@whodathunkit1960

we know enough about quantum mechanics to build the computer you are using, and the internet on which it depends. We will never know everything about anything. That is no reason not to act on what we do know.

Tobacco causes cancer, but the climate denial movement grew out of the well funded tobacco denial campaigns of the 90s, and includes some of the very same people at the top. see

watch?v=i1RyHTDycng

[whodathunkit1960]

@greenman3610

the "science" of AGW

this bad "science" told us in 2005 that we were at the tipping point, all the huricaines were proof that it was all down hill from there, and we got 5 years of lull

the same bad "science" went on and on in the '80s about "the hole in the ozone" that we were all going to be fried to crisps in 2010, until the "holes" mysteriously disappeared

all this is is a bunch of guys staring at graphs, making theories without really understanding the underlying factors

[greenman3610]

@whodathunkit1960

not aware of any consensus in the literature on hurricanes as of 2005. The media of course, is something else.

The ozone hole was dealt with by international agreement, which was effective in eliminating most of the effluents that cause the damage. Again, see

watch?v=i1RyHTDycng

the same paid disinformers who tell you there is no climate change, told you that there was no ozone hole, and that tobacco smoke is just fine.

I prefer the science, rather than propoganda.

[greenman3610]

@GoldenVulpes

because there is a massive, well coordinated campaign to distort, dissemble and deny the science, modeled on the very successful efforts of tobacco companies.

Tobacco managed to kill millions.

Climate deniers are going for billions.

[GoldenVulpes]

its seems like common sense i don't know why people think its a big controversy.

[WaxItYourself]

@whodathunkit1960 solar activity has been decreasing for 60 years...

[WaxItYourself]

@whodathunkit1960 There was and is no consensus on hurricane activity in a warming atmosphere. hurricanes remain a mystery in a warming environment. However they will most definitely be affected in some way as those things that drive it are changing. The ozone hole still exists. An ozone hole is any part of the ozone layer that drops below 200DU. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[whodathunkit1960]

@mecher3k

um the "maunder minimum" indicates an observed minimum of SOLAR FLARES....

Solar Flares do not necessarily equate to overall solar output.

is this a concept you can accept?

[CHIPSTERO7]

@Galv140577 We've told them. but they don't believe us.

[whodathunkit1960]

@mecher3k

"the Lancet" published in 1998 & it took me about 5 seconds to see the BS, it took you a full year? r u slow?

peer review status was revoked (BY THE PUBLISHER, "the Lancet") in 2004

THAT would be SIX years in big boy math

I know, you got all confused when you counted from one hand to the other

or is 6 years actually 1 in "climate truther" years

the article was retracted in 2008

sorry, in big boy math, 10 is TEN years, not one year

sorry if this is confusing for your little brain

[whodathunkit1960]

@mecher3k

lets get this straight

either its getting HOTTER because we are in the midst of AGW

or we are in the midst of a solar minimum

problem is, according to SOLAR patterns (that we dont understand either) the solar minimum that started in 2006 should have been GRADUAL to where we are today. it wasnt, we dont understand why, but in 2006, solar flares nearly stopped, and so did AGW

and you dont get to simply ignore that when solar activity increases, that this is part of a NORMAL cycle.

[whodathunkit1960]

@mecher3k

oh truther tard,

where to begin.... how about HERE?

clearly you state: "So where is the articles from actual science journals?"

excuse me, but (in your astute, but quite obviously MOUTHBREATHING opinion) arent you stating that "the Lancet" is not an "actual science journal"?

unless of course you are NOW going to claim that this is somehow "taken out of context" being ONE of FOUR sentences, 2 of which affirm your "mouthbreathing" status. go ahead and try to spin it that way.

[Galv140577]

@mecher3k Yes for the last year or two. It was peaking a decade ago when all the man-made-global-warming-alarmi­sts were getting hysterical over fuck all. Don't you know the global climate is actually cooling despite the continuous lies that we are all being cooked alive by our own CO2? I've done my research & reached the inevitable conclusion that man made global warming can't possibly account for any more than 10% of climate change. The Sun provides the driving energy which the Oceans regulate.

[mecher3k]

@whodathunkit1960

"wasnt it YOU who flew your ignorance across the internet by claiming "the Lancet" wasnt a science journal?"

Nope never did. But then again you're a retard so I can see how your mind could think that.

"guess that makes you the RE-TARD"

It's retard, you retard.