Mark says it all in his biography.
If my memory serves me right DDT was used EXCESSIVELY in the 1950/60. It was billed as the miracle of the age. It then turned out to be carcinogenic, harmful. This was the era of overreaction. I seem to remember this was the time that gave us the giant corporations, 'reds under the bed' and creative (manipulative) advertising. All of which are fine in moderation.
Now with testing techniques and a different public awareness DDT in controlled circumstances is acceptable what a surprise!
EVEN Mark should know that hindsight is always 20/20.

One is inclined to wonder at the point of his meandering article? Only slimy polluting capitalists are allowed to make money?
All environmentalists should weave their own clothes walk and confine their activities to a grove of sacred trees? Get real, we want almost the same as you. By your reasoning all those in vocations not jobs should work for what?
With regard to AWG, its a pity he doesn't understand physics perhaps he should read up on second law phase transmissions and ponder the probable application (AKA tipping point physics.).
As usual, poorly thought out article.

**Leigh**
evidence re hockey stick & courts?

**Cowboy Joe** said:
"Go CO2 -- more plant food, yeah."
No, excess Co2 can actually hurt plants. Sorry. Also, can you please explain the physics of sunlight hitting the earth, bouncing off as heat, and what Co2 does with this heat? How do they actually test the refracting properties of Co2 and methane and other Co2 gases? If you chase that up for us, and demonstrate why the majority opinion on the Radiative Forcing Equation is wrong, that would be great thanks.

**Mark**
You mention the "global cooling" scare of the 1970's. Can you please outline for us how many climatologist institutes and science academies concurred with this theory, or was it a few lone voices in the wilderness? Or even more likely, was it a huge media beat-up of just a few opinions?

To answer these questions, try here.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

"Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."

Hey Mark, isn't that a bit of an "Oops" moment for ya old pal?

*AND* I'll add that it is over 40 years since some of these papers and the science HAS evolved since then. Climate change has been vigorously studied by countless thousands of papers. The Denialist can only really be trying to make the insulting argument that "ALL climatologists must be morons, because look what they ALL said back in the 1970's". What a crock!

But hey, it's a movie review, so you're not responsible for peddling this rubbish are you? You can spread THEIR misinformation around without being accountable for it yourself... is that how your conscience deals with spreading outright denialist propaganda and lies

Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday

Scientists once predict that man couldn't fly, because it would be impossible to breathe once he left the ground, the same was said about travelling in motor vechiles that if they travelled too fast man would not be able to breathe. I think the speed was set at around 40 miles per hour.

The point is that scientific hypothesis is not all that reliable or accurate.

>> The point is that scientific hypothesis is not all that reliable or accurate.

i agree. enough of this bowing to authority! let's all try bowing to journalist blowhards, see how that works out.

Just to put a toe into radiative forcing.

"The change is computed based on "unperturbed" values, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the measured difference relative to a base period. For radiative forcings for the industrial era, it is customary to take the year 1750 as the defined starting point." Source Wikipedi

So the IPCC defined the changes in radiative forcing based upon a value that they defined. Could this be significant? Defining the parameters so that the outcome is as one hopes for? Similar to different researchers creating 13 computer models (not one of which agrees with the other)and running 'what if' scenarios until the output agrees with ones hypothesis, paranoia or hate for capitalism. Could even be more than one I suppose.

"Customary to start at 1750." Yep just as it was customary to start at date that would create the hockey stick effect.

Because if they went back 10,000 years or more there would be CO2 levels higher than the inherent levels that are supposed to be creating the rising temperatures.

I would imagine a sudden increase in CO2 could damage plant life. But as has been noted Chicken Little has been on the warming campaign since the 70s. A gradual increase in CO2 over 40 years would stimulate plant growth which would increase the amount of CO2 stored in plant cells dead or alive.

Cowboy Joe, they chose the year 1750 because prior to that we hadn't *really* begun releasing masses of Co2 into the atmopshere, and the climate was *relatively* natural, get it? That is the *normal* concentration of Co2. Today's is the *anthropogenic* concentration of Co2. The Radiative Forcing Equation measures the difference, and calculates how much extra energy has been trapped. It's nice, clean physics and mathematics. Nothing sinister in it at all!

"Yep just as it was customary to start at date that would create the hockey stick effect. "
That's a bit rich coming from a Denialist who probably thinks global warming stopped in 1998. Talk about cherry-picking the data! So yeah, if you want to narrow in on a 6 year period after 1998 (ignoring 2005) you can make the argument that "global cooling" began in 1998, but if you *really* want to track climate trends, I suggest at least measuring in 15 to 20 year data sets, or why not over centuries?

"Because if they went back 10,000 years or more there would be CO2 levels higher than the inherent levels that are supposed to be creating the rising temperatures."
Absolute RUBBISH! Please quote a reputable, peer-reviewed source for this? Just today Scientific American reviews some papers that completely refute this argument.

""Modern-day levels of carbon dioxide were last reached about 15 million years ago," Tripati says, when sea levels were at least 25 meters higher and temperatures were at least 3 degrees C warmer on average. "During the middle Miocene, an [epoch] in Earth's history when carbon dioxide levels were sustained at values similar to what they are today [330 to 500 ppm], the planet was much warmer, sea level was higher, there was substantially less ice at the poles, and the distribution of rainfall was very different.""

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-sensitive-is-climate-to-carbon-dioxide&sc=CAT_ENGYSUS_20091015