As far back as the 1800s, “experts” have howled about the ecological calamity that was just around the corner. An 1895 New York Times article entitled, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again” envisioned an Earth encased in “perennial frost and snow.”In 1932, the Times warned: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE / Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continent.” The following year, leaders in Syria blamed Western influences for climate change, so they banned the yoyo. Really.Then it was back to global cooling. Betty Friedan, the future feminist icon, wrote a 1958 Harper’s article, “The Coming Ice Age,” subtitled, “How a rising of the ocean waters may flood most of our port cities within the foreseeable future—and why it will be followed by the growth of a vast glacier which may eventually cover much of Europe and North America.”Then warming. In 1969, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the respected academic and future U. S. Senator, warned the Nixon White House that rising carbon dioxide levels could increase the average temperature, and that “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” This would happen by the year 2000.Then cooling: “Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century,” said the Boston Globe (1970). “Ice Age, worse food crisis seen,” declared the Chicago Tribune (1974). “Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, NASA Says,” reported the Beaver Country Times (1974). “Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age,” asserted the Milwaukee Journal (1975).Time magazine in 1974:“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere—from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.”
Some people enjoy being the messenger for doom and gloom predictions. And some people profit from forecasting calamities.
It's a corrupt leftist socialist hoax designed to create panic to trick you into paying more taxes to line corrupt politicians' pockets and fund their authoritarian power grab.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
So therefore if another "expert" disagrees then they are stupid?Awful lot of stupid experts out there then.
Only if it makes you happy 🙂 Otherwise the other expert must bring his own study and they will both participate in a discussion to sort our which of the theories seems to be more viable. However that discussion MUST be based only on facts, not on emotions or name calling. 🙂It is called scientific discussion.
The theory can be either smart (enough studies support the theory) or disproven (enough studies contradict the theory).Just like the theory of relativity: It remains smart because nobody managed to prove it all wrong.
Everybody is an expert at something and these days it's only used to make normal people sound special so you watch their interview or heed their advice. But it's still just advice from somebody with no higher IQ than you
I think the word expert today is used more often as a political cudgil than an actual word with any meaning. One side of the political spectrum in particular uses it to try to intimidate the expression of any opposing views because after all you can't disagree with their "expert." Yes, that side is the left. Why only the left? Because they know that if they try to sell their views without deception, no one will buy them. So the only hope they have of obtaining power is to lie about their true intent, obfuscate their positions, use deception to mislead and use intimidating tactics to intimidate and censor any opposing views. This is the state of the Democrat Party today. Beware when they use phrases like "follow the science" and listen to the "experts." What they mean is only listen to the science and experts that back up THEIR views. Anything that conflicts with that is to be harassed, intimidated, marginalized, canceled and silenced.