Is the Climate Change Debate a Recent Phenomena? Think Again!
March 26, 2007 · By Greg Farries
Noel Sheppard goes through the archives of New York Times, dating back to 1885, and pulls out all the articles relating to the issue of climate change.
Here is just two of the many many articles written:
THIS CLIMATE OF OURS; WHY THESE OPEN WINTERS AND TEMPERATE SUMMERS? THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE ALTERNATE PREVALENCE OF A SEMITROPICAL ATMOSPHERE.
June 23, 1890, Wednesday
Page 5, 1905 words
DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH – 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.
Apparently they were worried about Global Warming in 1890. However, that worrisome tone changes in the next few decades,
International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere
January 5, 1978, Thursday
By WALTER SULLIVAN
Section: Sports, Page D17, 817 words
DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH – An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
The theory that the Earth revolves around the sun has gone back and forth several times as well over the years. Should we question our current convictions on that issue?
While I don’t contend that the theories of climate change are nearly as solid as the theory of gravitation, I’d like to point out that just because scientists have changed their opinions does not affect the preponderance of data supporting the theory. I’d put more stock in the theories of 21st-century scientists than 1970s-era scientists anyday.
While, obviously, it makes sense to put more faith in the latest science, in whatever period you are living, the point is not to show a change of opinion, but just show that, despite each generation having the ‘most up to date, best science’ available, the alleged ‘consensus’es cannot be used as ‘proof’ of the purported theorums.
The main point is just that we have seen the same kind of alarmism before, and therefore aren’t as likely to buy into it without having our questions and criticisms answered, and the more we are told “its beyond dispute”, or “you are paid by big oil”, the more we rightly feel that the alarmism is in danger of crossing from science into religion, where blasphemy is not tolerated, emissions are a sin, and carbon credits are penance.
It is truly rare these days to see concerns of persuing extreme measures to mitigate a potentially inconsequential or non-existant threat answered with science as opposed to rhetoric….a sad day for science, and what the IPCC and media have made of it.