CBS Evening News – March 25, 1982
“Concerned about rising temperatures on planet Earth heated up a hearing here in Washington today. For years, scientists have theorized about the dangers of the so called greenhouse effect, the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere due to the burning of coal and oil. And in recent months, as David Culhane reports, research has uncovered facts to support that theory.
Many scientists claim that the temperature of the atmosphere has been rising over the past 100 years, that the great sheets of pack ice in Antarctica are melting at a much more rapid rate than previously. Finally, that the sea level has been rising with increasing swiftness over the past 40 years. If these scientists are correct, about 25% of Florida would be flooded along with low lying areas all over the world.
Climate changes could produce widespread disruption of agriculture. The American farm belt might be too dry and the wheat and corn crops would have to move to Canada.
Scientists blame the odorless, colorless carbon dioxide gas for these potentially dangerous changes around the planet. It is the greenhouse effect. The gas allows sunlight to filter down and warm the Earth, but like the glass of a greenhouse, the carbon dioxide tends to trap heat so that it cannot rise into space.
The scientists maintain that the coal, oil, and gas we’ve been burning for a 100 years have produced more and more carbon dioxide and helped overheat the Earth.
Now some political leaders endorse the demands for more C02 monitoring stations like this one in Hawaii, and they share the anger of the scientists at Reagan administration budget cuts at a time when they feel closer to getting definitive answers.
We are not doing the kind of research that we should be doing to determine whether or not these scientists who are so alarmed are correct in their assessment.
And what they find out will affect the lives and fortunes of millions of people, the very survival of cities like this one (See video), David Culhane, CBS News, New York.
You can check out more failed climate predictions of doom at our Failed Predictions Timeline
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1982 CBS News Barely a year after the last Global Cooling story in the news.
From the Chicago Tribune 1981
Climatologists now blame recurring droughts and floods on a global cooling trend that could trigger massive tragedies for mankind.
https://chicagotribune.newspapers.com/newspage/386894758/
The press adores Gloom and Doom…Gloom and Doom sells papers. The more fantastical the headline the more papers sold
The news saying once was “If it bleeds it leads” now the saying is “If it might bleed it leads.”
the “press” also adores socialism and embraces every cause which might lead to more government control
“1982 CBS News Barely a year after the last Global Cooling story in the news.”
Thanks for that link, Steve.
All Climate Alarmists have are lies, lies, lies.
From the above article’s extensive quote of Dan Rather from the CBS Evening News of March 25, 1982:
“Scientists blame the odorless, colorless carbon dioxide gas for these potentially dangerous changes around the planet. It is the greenhouse effect. The gas allows sunlight to filter down and warm the Earth, but like the glass of a greenhouse, the carbon dioxide tends to trap heat so that it cannot rise into space.”
There you have it . . . in three sentences Rather shows how little care he and the CBS organization had about “getting the science” right. To wit:
1) Real climate scientists know now as they knew then that water vapor is a much more powerful “greenhouse gas” than is CO2 . . . but there’s no mention of that fact,
2) It is incorrect to say that CO2 (or water vapor) in the atmosphere acts in a manner analogous to a greenhouse as used for growing plants on land. Greenhouses are highly effective in maintaining their internal temperatures because they almost totally eliminate convective heat exchange of the internal air volume with the outside (ambient) air volume. IOW, they block breezes, winds and nearly all vertical air transport. CO2 does no such thing as a mixed constituent of Earth’s atmosphere. Just consider: greenhouses keep their internal air temperatures significantly above external air temperatures even when it is nighttime and there is overhead cloud coverage . . . basically, little radiation energy exchange because the delta-T is relatively small under those conditions.
3) It is incorrect to say that CO2 (or water vapor) “trap heat” so that it cannot “rise” into space. In reality, all LWIR-active gases (water vapor, CO2, methane and a few others in the atmosphere) absorb LWIR from Earth’s surface and then extremely rapidly thermally equilibrate that absorbed energy with other atmospheric constituents, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, via molecule-to-molecule collisions. It is then the distributed thermal energy radiated by ALL constituents in the atmosphere (about 99% of which is nitrogen and oxygen) because that have temperatures above absolute zero that is directed to space. Nitrogen and oxygen are the major emitters of thermal radiation to space, but that energy certainly does not “rise” to space in the sense of any buoyancy effect.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that CBS has improved its climate-related “news” reporting in the last forty or so years.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
During the day, water and CO2 absorb incoming IR light in sunlight, of which about 40% is IR light. In summer after sunrise, the cool morning air rapidly heats up by the absorption of IR light by water and CO2, and by noon the air can be quite warm or even hot.
By the late afternoon, the land has warmed up and now emits much more IR light which is absorbed by water and CO2. After sunset, water and CO2 continue to absorb IR light which retards the cooling of night air. If the RH of air is high, it does not cool down very much. Tropical air stays hot a night due to high RH.
At 70 deg. F and 70% RH, the concentration of water vapor is17,780 ppm. This 14.3 g
of water vapor per cubic meter air. One cubic meter of air has a mass of 1.2 kilograms for
these weather conditions. The concentration of CO2 would be about 397 ppm by volume.
This is only 0.780 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. Thus, water is about 98% of the
greenhouse effect. This small amount of CO2 can only heat up such a large mass of air
by only very small amount.
Since 1988, the claim by the IPCC that CO2 is the “cause” of “global warming” is a lie.
Water is the main greenhouse gas by far, and CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas.
Also, don’t forget that the climate crackpots aren’t wailing about the greenhouse effect above 0 ppm CO2. They’re whining about the effect above preindustrial, generally accepted as 280 ppm. Also, of course it’s all logarithmic.
On the other hand, don’t forget that WV does have a habit of condensing in the early mornings. Still the square root of sweet FA though.
FA=?
SFA… Sweet Fanny Adams….. or… Sweet F**K all !….. ie nothing, immeasurable..
You know, like the warming effect of CO2. 🙂
Sweet FA. It’s a British thing that the BBC may still allow you to say on their website, though I haven’t tried it recently. Not long ago I had a post deleted for saying WTF.
If all this can be proven, scientifically, why does same agency not take the IPCC to court to claim, say, a few $trillion in damages?
Harold: good point. We should also not forget that RH and water vapor content is highly variable and even very small differences completely overwhelm the green house effect of the tiny amount of CO2 we’ve added. Also the phase transitions of water between gas and liquid involve massive amounts of energy – orders of magnitude greater than LWIR absorption and radiation.
“Real climate scientists know now as they knew then that water vapor is a much more powerful “greenhouse gas” than is CO2 . . . but there’s no mention of that fact,”
Nor is there any mention that CO2 needs a strong positive feedback from water vapor in order to overheat/destroy the world, but there’s no evidence of a positive feedback from water vapor, to this very day, much less in 1982.
“3) It is incorrect to say that CO2 (or water vapor) “trap heat” so that it cannot “rise” into space. In reality, all LWIR-active gases (water vapor, CO2, methane and a few others in the atmosphere) absorb LWIR from Earth’s surface and then extremely rapidly thermally equilibrate that absorbed energy with other atmospheric constituents, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, via molecule-to-molecule collisions. It is then the distributed thermal energy radiated by ALL constituents in the atmosphere (about 99% of which is nitrogen and oxygen) because that have temperatures above absolute zero that is directed to space. Nitrogen and oxygen are the major emitters of thermal radiation to space, but that energy certainly does not “rise” to space in the sense of any buoyancy effect.”
Not true N2 and O2 do not significantly radiate directly to space.
Plank’s Law: all matter with a temperature above absolute zero emits radiation.
Regarding your statement: “Not true N2 and O2 do not significantly radiate directly to space”, please define what you mean by “significantly” given that N2 and O2 comprise 99% of Earth’s atmosphere.
Are you seriously asserting that Earth does not radiate “significant” energy to space?
Dan was fond of catchy phrases. This one fits.
“All hat and no cattle.”
Interesting how they are demanding more CO2 monitoring stations, but not more weather monitoring stations.
If as they claim, CO2 is a well mixed gas, then you don’t need a lot of measuring stations to monitor changes in it’s concentrations.
On the other hand more weather monitoring stations would give the scientists a more solid basis from which to claim that they actually know what the atmosphere is doing.
In fact, there is a SINGLE monitoring station that provides the world-wide-accepted, temporally-varying values for determination of “the global average” of atmospheric CO2 concentration: it is the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) in Hawaii operated by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Sure, there are other stations around the planet that monitor atmospheric CO2 concentration, but none of these have either a similar pedigree or the scientific respect that is given to MLO.
The problem is that “global average” CO2 is a red herring. There are significant spatial and temporal differences in CO2 concentration around the planet as a function of latitude, longitude, the underlying surface being water or foliage-covered land or desert, the seasons, and the prevailing winds. See the attached Image from the OCO-2 CO2 monitoring satellite courtesy https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/nasa-satellites-1st-carbon-dioxide-maps-earth-revealed-n272066
Also, if you want to watch a movie of CO2 variations around Earth over time as compiled from from OCO-2 imagery, link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP7DC6jY40A .
Obviously, CO2 is not a well-mixed gas.
I’m curious as to why you use a youtube link for the OCO-2 information instead of a NASA link.
NASA appears to downplay OCO-2 results. I guess OCO-2 doesn’t really help NASA to push the CO2-caused Climate Change narrative.
Range of values ~+/-6ppm so standard deviation ~3 so less than 1% I would call that ‘well mixed’.
Most scientists consider a practical full range of statistical variability in a Gaussian parameter to be defined by +/- 3-sigma statistical limits, not +/- one-sigma. +/-6 ppm (the approximate full range for the color code displayed in the above still image I posted) versus the midpoint of 395 ppm would be +/- 1.5%, or a total min-to-max swing of 3%.
I would not call that well-mixed.
If it weren’t for Media Fear-Mongering, we’d have no mongering at all.
It is the life-blood of those wanting to put their hands on YOUR money.
Well, we would still have fish mongering. Unless you live in California and want to eat salmon or dungeness crab.
If it weren’t fer bad luck, we’d have no luck at all….
Gloom, despair, and agony fer all.
I don’t believe Dan was wrong.
I do believe his timing is off a bit.
At least 10,000 years, possibly more.
And being a fan of Futurama, I believe his head will be around to see it!
My understanding is that earth is heated by short wave radiation from the sun. As the earth heats up it radiates long wave radiation into the atmosphere. The long wave radiation encounters water vapor and CO2 on its way up. I’m not sure how water vapor interacts with the long wave radiation. My understanding concerning CO2 is that the long wave radiation makes contact with CO2 and is instantly reradiated in all directions. CO2 does not hold the long wave radiation at all. In my view at least half of the long wave radiation must be radiated out towards space and a portion of the other half radiated towards earth. The so called greenhouse effect acts nothing like a greenhouse or a blanket. In addition the long wave radiation reradiated towards earth can not heat lakes, streams or oceans more than a millimeter deep.
“I’m not sure how water vapor interacts with the long wave radiation.”
Please see the attached graph, which is one of my all-time favorites. It shows how water vapor predominates in the absorption of LWIR, overlapping CO2 and methane in many spectral bands and having a wider total LWIR absorption bandwidth than either. Furthermore, it shows that LWIR absorption photon energy is below 1-2 eV, so that it only excites molecular translation, vibration and rotational modes of energy in the LWIR-active molecules . . . it is insufficient to excite those molecules into elevated electron states. In turn, this means that the LWIR active molecules (mostly water vapor and CO2) will thermally equilibrate the LWIR-absorbed excess energy via molecule-to-molecule collision redistribution of energy, not via photon relaxation/re-radiation.
“In my view at least half of the long wave radiation must be radiated out towards space and a portion of the other half radiated towards earth.”
i developed a model of the atmosphere using Trenberth’s data. The model predicted that it’s 40% upward and 60% downward. It seems that the denser atmosphere near the surface is more involved in the radiation transfers. This has a tendency to actuate the lower levels and cause more downward radiation flow. Of course, it’s only a model.
That is a remarkable study and the basis is quite sound. Well done.
Temperature inversions, which are a daily occurrence here on Earth, are a direct refutation to the back radiation hypothesis.
Well, you’ve got it mostly correct.
First, it does not act like a greenhouse, but it acts EXACTLY like a blanket. When you cover yourself with a blanket, it is at room temp and so colder than you. Your body heat warms it up. As it warms up it starts radiating some of the heat it got FROM you BACK to you.
Second, reradiation is only part of the story. CO2 can also give up the energy it absorbs to other molecules in the atmosphere via collision.
Lastly, while LW only penetrates the skin surface of water, most water in the oceans isn’t sitting still long enough to form a skin. Add in waves, flotsam, jetsum, rain, and many other active physical processes and there are pathways for energy to get into the ocean. No one has yet shown me how all this works for certain, but without the GHE the oceans would freeze, pretty much to the bottom.
All that said, CO2’s effects are logarithmic and the earth’s cooling response is exponential. The whole alarm thing should have died on those two points alone.
Yes, your body heats blankets from room temperature. Heat is a flow. As blankets warm up to your body temperature, the heat flow away from your body decreases. It is not that blankets re-radiate back to your body that warms you.
LOL. How is this reduced heat flow accomplished? Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies how many w/m2 a body emitts based on its temperature. P=(5.67^-8)*(T^4). There is no term in the equation for the temperature of the blanket. So you are cooling by the same amount if there is a blanket or not. The photons leaving your body hve no idea that there is or is not a blanket. Unless they run into one, get absorbed, and get reradiated.
The body’s metabolism generates energy. The vast majority of that energy is convected to the air from the skin & conducted through the air and blanket based on delta T and thermal resistance.
The skin does emit IR, but very little.
You are correct. Insulators are based on thermal resistance. Thermal resistance is part of the conduction equation. When the temperature under the blanket rises, the amount of heat flowing through the insulator increases. It reaches a thermal equilibrium with a equation remarkably similar to the delta voltage across a resistor due current.
If blankets trap heat, no heat (or energy) escapes and staying under the blanket will literally cause the body to go into heat stroke.
Well, not quite.
A blanket works to reduce heat transfer from a human body PREDOMINATELY by reducing evaporative and convective heat exchange from the warmer body to the cooler ambient air.
Sill air is quite effective as an thermal insulator.
And although there is significant thermal radiation power from a human body at a temperature of around 99 deg under normal, clothed conditions during outside activities, as you correctly point out there is much less when it is receiving “back radiation” from a blanket whose inner surface has warmed to, say, 90 deg-F.
Thermal radiation is a folk lore term, like trapping, that had its origins in the past before we had any understanding of physics.
Before making claims about “much less” due to “back radiation” you need to address the composition of the blanket and what it’s emissivity is and how the air pockets within the weaving affect things.
I clearly stated: “Sill air is quite effective as an thermal insulator.”
Otherwise, I await your revolutionary scientific paper that documents your statement “Thermal radiation is a folk lore term.”
The only em energy a CO2 molecule can pass through momentum exchanges with other molecules is due to what is due to wave front momentum. Photons at rest have no mass. Energy in motion has momentum so there is a mathematical momentum equivalent for a photon when interacting with molecules. It is very small, but it does contribute.
Valence energy does not exchange momentum during collisions. Nor does the so called proton resonance vibrations. Neither add to the vector momentum of a moving molecule.
1) By definition, photons travel at the speed of light in a given medium and in any physical reference frame, and therefore can NEVER be at rest.
2) Linear momentum is separate and distinct from angular momentum, which molecules can store in vibrational and rotational (including “rocking” or “bending”) modes of kinetic energy. Photons absorbed by molecules do indeed excite these modes of angular momentum.
Bob, there is no conservation of “photons.” CO2 interaction with LW radiation in the 2.4, 4.7,and 15 micron ranges causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Radiative energy is transformed into kinetic energy, which is instantly passed on through collisions with other atmospheric gases. This is not to say CO2 molecules don’t “re-radiate”, it is just not the whole story.
Wrong. Valence energy bands are where the photon energy is stored.
There is an unproven hypothesis that claims EM causes atomic vibration. Even if true, the vibrations add zero momentum to the molecule as it moves. Thermal energy exchange in molecular collisions are due to an exchange of momentum.
Thermal energy exchange through momentum exchanges is not instantaneous. It has much longer latency than the quantum probability of photonic emissions.
Photons are almost never immediately “reradiated”. The energy is absorbed and then transferred to other atmospheric molecules via collisions about 99.999% of the time. In addition, almost all the energy in the main 15µm bands gets absorbed within about 10 meters of the surface. This is called low atmosphere saturation.
CO2 can also be energized by collisions with other molecules and emit radiation in all directions. Keep in mind that this is not limited to energy originally absorbed by CO2 molecules. The energy could have entered the atmosphere from conduction, condensation or any other molecular radiative absorption.
Energy reradiated by CO2 molecules low in the atmosphere also travel less than 10 meters before reabsorption. This limits where energy reabsorbed by the surface originates. Almost all of it is from the very bottom layer (10-20 meters) of the atmosphere.
Because the density of the atmosphere drops as you get higher, reradiated energy directed upward goes further on average than energy reradiated downward. This is why net CO2 directed energy flow is always upward.
CO2 increases lead to a small amount of increased absorption at the edges of the 15µm bands. This is energy that previous radiated to space as part of what’s called the atmospheric window.
As CO2 increases you get more energy reradiated/reabsorbed by CO2 molecules. This increases both upward net flow and surface absorption. The distance travelled by photons before reabsorption also decreases. The increase in energy and the distance reduction are both log functions. This means the total upward flow of energy remains constant independent of CO2 concentration.
Since the photons reaching the surface come from so low in the atmosphere they do not warm the surface. This is due to the ongoing conduction between the surface and the low atmosphere. Following the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you see an increase in energy conducted from the surface to the atmosphere that matches the increase in downward energy from CO2 molecules.
When water is the surface molecule you will see an increase in evaporation from the increase in CO2 downward radiation. This removes energy from the low atmosphere/surface.
All of these physical processes balance out. The increased energy absorption from the atmospheric window is lost through evaporative cooling.
I would say that 80 femto seconds to 1 nano second is closer to instantaneous compared to collisions.
I have yet to find a valid scientific experiment that validates the so call thermalization effect.
You’re wrong Bob, it is not “instantly reradiated in all directions”, it is transferred in the form of heat to surrounding N2 and O2 via collisional deactivation. That occurs in about a nanosecond whereas emission by the CO2 molecule takes much longer, only high in the atmosphere where the pressure is lower does significant re-emission take place (by when 90% of the CO2 waveband has been transferred to the atmosphere.
Over 99.94% of the surface energy in the “CO2 waveband” is absorbed within the first 10 meters (Hug 1993). There is a secondary “CO2 waveband” of reemitted energy that proceeds higher in the atmosphere. This energy is unrelated to surface energy. It is atmospheric energy from any source
“a secondary “CO2 waveband” of reemitted energy” Please explain?
Thanks everybody.
What you are describing we in the IR sensor area call scattering.
The hold time for LWIR in CO2 is between 80 femto-seconds and 1 nano-second, but the exact time of emission is based on quantum probabilities.
I have yet to discover the science that shows that CO2 valence energy is somehow thermalized.
I also have yet to discover how heat or, more accurately, energy can be trapped.
I find is confusing when someone says heat radiation when they mean electro-magnetic radiation. IR is NOT heat.
CO2 has narrow absorption lines. H20 covers broad spans for the spectrum.
Bob, you are correct in your points.
Is this the same Dan Rather that supposedly made up a story about Bush’s military record? And that story got him fired.
It is indeed – A Rather Shameful ending to his career.
No “supposedly” about it. Dan Rather and CBS News made up the story about Bush’s military record in an effort to get Bush defeated at election time.
You see, the Leftwing Media has been attacking Republican politicians with false stories for decades and continue doing so to this very day. Trump is their latest target.
Ohhhhhhhhhh mommmaaaaaa !! Dan Rather was RIGHT!! He was only 42 years premature … because it’s been BLAZING HOT in N.CA … all week!! Triple digit temps!! For more than a week straight!! The weatherman/global warming expert blames a HEAT DOME!! The weather girls with the shapely legs, and the annoying metrosexual twit on KTVU Ch2 insist this has NEVER happened before … in all of recorded history!!
It’s a sure signal that we’re near the end if we don’t SHUT DOWN all fossil fuel use NOW!! We’re at a tipping point!! Get OUT of your ICE automobiles!! Ride Mass transit (but observe 6ft. separation, and wear masks like the uncontrolled criminals) Pay carbon taxes! Make Nat. Gas illegal!! We can do this with the help of our eco-educated youth. The … youth … will usher in a clean, green, Co2-free, Net-zero, future.
Thank goodness Rishi Sunak will soon be relocating to Santa Monica, CA and will SAVE our State from any more heat domes!! I look forward to him becoming a leading RINO in our State.
“Ohhhhhhhhhh mommmaaaaaa !!”
Love it!!
Is Rishi moving because he lost the election?
I’ve been hearing promises from radical leftists again that they are moving out of the country if Trump gets elected again. They’re just lying, like they did the last time Trump got elected. None of the radical leftists moved. They are still here, unfortunately.
Dan didn’t say WHEN this would happen. So maybe by the year 2525? By the year 3535?… By the year 9595?
Maybe Dan was listening to Zager and Evans too much?
Silly Song.
Don’t be sill, that song hit #1 in 1969!! Move over Led Zeppelin.
In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today
That bitter pill is already being swallowed, in the form of “Hate speech” and “disinformation” Speech Laws.
In the year 3530, that pill finally replaces AI as the “arbitrator” of truth.
BOHIC.
Around 1980 all of the car manufacturers came out and strongly touted how they had reduced tailpipe emissions by 95% and the only emissions left were harmless CO2. Immediately “sciencetists” and the media began this CO2 global warming madness. The timing is most curious.
This worries me.
A block of coal as mined has a measurable energy content.
As in “heat of combustion”, 1 kg coal equivalent corresponds to a value specified as 7,000 kilocalories (7,000 kcal ~ 29.3 MJ ~ 8.141 kWh) and thus approximately the calorific value of hard coal which, depending on the type, amounts to between 29.3 MJ/kg (gas-flame coal) and 33.5 MJ/kg (anthracite).
https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/coal-equivalent/#:~:text=1%20kg%20coal%20equivalent%20corresponds,MJ%2Fkg%20(anthracite).&text=During%20the%20complete%20fission
…
Combustion of this coal releases its energy, but then the claim is made that the CO2 by-product is able to be involved with additional energy as in Global Warming with atmospheric radiation effects.
Where does this extra energy come from, after coal has exhausted its energy?
How can coal be blamed?
Geoff S
Just out of curiosity I tried to calculate the heat added to the earth from burning 10 GT carbon then converted to W/m2 for surface of earth. I got .002 W/m2. Probably blew the calculation.
Out by a factor of 10 by my calculation. I get 0.02W/m^2.
Anthropogenic primary energy in 2023 given as 183PWh. That corresponds to 0.038W/m^2. So the 0.02W/m^2 for 10Gt of carbon looks good based on this check.
Thank you for that check. Found my error (used 1e9 GT, s/b 10e9 GT carbon).
Whoops 10e9 T carbon.
I did a calculation a couple of years back, based only on electricity generated by coal fuels steam turbine generators.
First understand that when electricity is used, it become thermal energy.
Second understand the efficiency of a coal generator is about 35%, the rest of the burning directly enters the air and or water.
The results of the calculations, 1 year burning coal resulted in a 1C temperature first of the first 105 feet of the atmosphere based on the specific heat Cp of air at STP.
My tomatoes love the greenhouse effect. Everything loves being in a greenhouse.
The scare grew quickly. IPCC in 1988, UNFCCC in 1992.
The Scare grew when the UN figured out it could make money and acquire political power by promoting the CO2-is-dangerous scam.
Use Google, search for “IPCC budget” The IPCC is raking in many millions of dollars yearly from all the countries. Even the poor countries contribute small amounts money which they can ill afford.
The IPCC is running an “environmental shake down racket”.
In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down and the main justification for state funding of science – to win the Cold War – disappeared.
Something needed to be fought. If it weren’t the Reds Under the Bed it would be the Cows Farting,
From the article: “Many scientists claim that the temperature of the atmosphere has been rising over the past 100 years”
Well, in the United States, 1982 was one of the coldest years since the 1930’s. About five years before this, some climate scientists were claiming the Earth might be cooling to the point that another Ice Age was in the offing.
The temperatures were much warmer in the 1930’s. To claim that temperatures have benn rising over the past 100 years ignores the actual temperature records which show this is NOT the case. After the 1930’s, temperatures cooled by about 2.0C down through 1980. So claiming the temperatures have been rising for 100 years before 1982, is a blatant lie.
Climate Alarmists have to lie to sell their Human-caused Climate Change narrative. That’s what Dan Rather did here. Dan Rather is accustomed to lying to his viewers. As are all radical leftwing reporters like him.
“As are all radical leftwing folks like him”. Fixed it for ya.
Thanks for the help. 🙂 They are all a bunch of liars. Their ideological goals: Turn the country into a One-Party country (marxism), couldn’t come to fruition if they didn’t lie continuously.
This reminds me of another Dan Rather statement.
“It was fake, but accurate.” – Dan Rather
Dan Rather was a good mentor for Al Gore who spoke these words of wisdom during his Nobel lecture.
Kinda like what happened with the initial COVID-19 panic . . . we were what was wrong then.
In just 4 years, we’ve learned—despite government protestations and continued alarmism—to live with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (which causes COVID-19) and all of its variants just like we learned earlier to live with the influenza virus.
Thanks to Governor DeSantis timely investment of 96 million dollars in raising the roadway four feet, Mar A Lago is in no immediate danger of being cut off from the Florida mainland. Nor did Tucker Carlson flinch when a few feet of water from so-called hurricane Ian raised the elevation and hence the value of his Gulf Coast beach house by adding inches of clean sand to his lawn and ground floor
As far as global warming goes, cyclical in nature. The solution to global warming is easy- PLANT MORE TREES…and stop spraying f**king aerosols in the sky like somebody has been doing for the past 30 years everyday from sea to dying sea…what is the purpose of these but to create an artificial blanket over the earth? AAny moron can see that even though aerosols may reflect sunlight into space, the sunlight and heat that gets through is trapped under the layer of s**t that’s being applied 24/7..until the governments of the world come clean about this unmitigated science disaster, i refuse to believe in this hyperbolic “global warming”. F**k you Bill Gates and every other science egg head s**tf**k that thinks he’s so smart but really is a total psychopath driven to main and murder all life under the guise of philanthropist science…
We are not doing the kind of research that we should be doing to determine whether or not these scientists who are so alarmed are correct in their assessment.
Spot on.
And they’re still reading the same script here in 2024.