There is another cover going around mentioning "The Big Freeze", but it refers to a particularly cold winter in the US during the 70s, and not about the so called Global Cooling
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,...
Just because some meme is fake doesn't mean OP was wrong. OP was right.
Also it is hilarious Betty Friedan wrote the harpers article.
It was just another crackpot theory used to fill space in the newspaper. Back then, the serious neurotics used the threat of nuclear annihilation to make themselves sick with worry.
This would not be the article to use to support that claim though.
'As Ewing and Donn read the evidence, an Ice Age will result from a slow warming and rising of the ocean that is now taking place.'
What are you meaning by 'no longer a black box' in this context?
Sorry, I mean "black body." We were taught that the Earth absorbs as much radiation as it emits. The term we were taught for that is "black body."
Wikipedia disagrees.
"A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. (It does not only absorb radiation, but can also emit radiation. The name "black body" is given because it absorbs radiation in all frequencies, not because it only absorbs.)"
It really doesn't.
This might help. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/B/Blackbody+Radiation
Note the line 'As the temperature of the blackbody increases, the peak wavelength decreases'
Just because some things can be approximated for varying degrees of usefullness as absorbing and emitting equally well on all frequencies (which the earth is really bad at anyway), does not mean they are stable in temperature.
If they were taught in school that the earth is cooling, and we know from research that people are very unlikely to change their mind about things after 35 ... well why would they believe it’s now warming?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ― Upton Sinclair
So it seems reasonable that despite the money the people who are receiving it might rationally support O&G regardless because it is great for their constituents.
It isn't because of what they were taught in school though, that much is pretty clear.
This makes sense. I assume they're expecting more out of this package than some stubborn climate change denialism.
Fossil fuel industries are spending large sums of money to promote backlash. Same as was with smoking and Freon.
Typically people stop updating their world views as they get older.
There were a bunch of articles in the 70s talking about the potential of an ice age. So much so that I remember my dad (69yo) talking to me and my brother about global cooling/ice age when we were kids in the 80s.
He bought the articles in his 20s but now can't be bothered by climate change, because "it was just cooling 40 years ago..."
It's more of a mix of anti-environmentalism (as environmentalism is closely associated in the public mind with the global warming denier's boogeymen -- liberals and the left), ignorance of climate science, anti-intellectualism, conspiracy theorizing that's rife on right-wing media, a desire to recklessly exploit natural resources, and a belief that counteracting global warming will harm businesses and cost taxpayer dollars, which they'd rather spend on the military or on handouts to corporations.
Even Al Gore's doomsday predictions in the late 90s turned out to be woefully inaccurate. I'm all for being a good steward of the planet, but I think it's reasonable to wait in order to:
- Make sure this is a serious risk, and not just something we can adapt to
- Let technology develop so we can combat climate change effectively and without bankrupting the world.
Furthermore, I see environmentalists who are anti-nuclear, anti-iron-fertilization, and anti-atmospheric-sulfur-injection. If global warming is truly an _existential_ threat, then why aren't these projects appreciated by the run-of-the-mill environmentalists?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nucle...
I vaguely remember in the last few years someone linking to a Time magazine cover published in the 80's about global cooling.