My point was that Matt implied the in the 70’s they predicted this. My point was there were other credible people who were predicting a different climate change.
Unfortunately there will be protesters like this, at events like this, until this type of propagandist nonsense is not fodder for some sort of argument that people shouldn't have to care about anything. It's also a worthwhile topic on a golf architecture forum... as it affects golf course architecture and historic sites. I deeply want to be respectful on this forum at all times, but
I've already discussed this exact issue at length, over a year ago, and you were in that thread. Thus, it can be more than a bit frustrating for me. I apologize if I'm a bit curt here.
The citation you made is Peter Gwynne's piece in Newsweek.
The article itself can be read on Archive.org. The article describes concerns about orbital forcing, which is basically the way the earth wobbles, and it wobbles in cycles. The article
is correct in it's concern, all things being equal, that
we may be near the beginning of a long term cooling cycle because of Earth's precession... however by "near" here, we mean "probably it will start effecting the climate the next 50,000 years."
This is perfectly sensible science, and has a mechanism that has literally nothing to do with concerns about green house gasses, nor are they in conflict at all. Both observations can exist at the same time. The global warming effects happening right now,
the ones that were accurately predicted in the '70s, the ones that we are all clearly witnessing, is the serious concern right now. Ice age cycles, while in the relatively remote future, should also be concerning, and we should
also study and prepare for them as well.
By implying that one cancels out the other, you seem to miss the point that two systems with opposite effects can happen at the same time. The science for both of them remains solid, except that the effects of green house gasses, at least in the short-run, will likely have far more impact on the climate than the wobbling of the planet.
The reason why this new story is bandied about is simply because
many people actively don't seem to care, and they are looking for a reason to not pay attention, so they repeat this nonsense to somehow imply that there is uncertainty in the scientific community, which is simply not the case. If anyone parroting this talking point actually cared, they should take the time to read an interview with the author in Scientific American that happened literally a decade ago:
Struck, Doug. “
How the 'Global Cooling' Story Came to Be: Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed.” Scientific American, 10 January 2014.
So, if you want to know why people are causing a ruckus on golf courses, it's that, even while one of the most important and tragic events in human history is unfolding before our eyes, so many people care so little about it, that they don't even bother informing themselves beyond some propagandist talking points. I'm perfectly happy to disagree with someone on the economics of whether fighting climate change is a worthwhile tradeoff, but literally suggesting that climate scientists are somehow a bunch of dumb oafs that get things wrong all the times, is enough to make me want to join those kids.
I apologize for the wall of text, and I'll pipe down. However, this thoughtless line of reasoning is extremely relevant to the thread, as it's one of the main reasons the protestors are out there in the first place.