|
|
|
|
|
|
by revelio
1117 days ago
|
|
|
Every time I post that story here someone quickly reads Wikipedia, doesn't think about what they just read and then immediately attempts an AI-quality refutation. Yes Wikipedia claims that "Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974". Yet there he is in 1976 - two years after this supposed retraction - telling the NY Times that there's an absolute scientific consensus on global cooling. Wikipedia isn't reliable for anything climate related or on many other topics. Their citation for this claim of a retraction doesn't go to any retraction, but rather a book written by a Guardian journalist. It's really depressing how systematic this problem is. I'd try to fix Wikipedia with a link to the 1976 interview but there's no point, it'd get reverted quickly for sure. For the wider point here see my other comment. According to present day understanding not only the media but also scientists were massively misleading the public about the climate and what other scientists believed. So how do you know it's not still happening? |
|
|
Cool, we're going to be like that. What's depressing is that I made the effort when you tried to pull things off into a rabbit trail of to a single book review.
To be clear you didn't refute my initial argument here which looked at the state of the scientific community, you threw out a (from the sounds of things favorite cherry picked) book review from the New York Times.
> So how do you know it's not still happening?
Because it's much easier for scientists to have their own independent voices and easier to hear from the scientific community directly. Our ability to communicate these points, much like the science itself, is greatly improved from the 70s.