Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s

StephenB I feel for you, you see to people like WD400, SKRAM, Alan Fox, and Aurelio, the truth of a matter is as comparable as the importance of ketchup or not? These people don't give one iota of what truth means and you know why I say that? I've noticed over the years that they love asking to be allowed to get on with being good, without ever fully investigating what good really means. This is because they have this anti-human conception that we can't really know. They tend to forget that one of the things that distinguishes us from the other animals is the fact that we want to know things simply for the sake of knowing. Anything that challenges their belief system that the truth can not be known is vehemently defended even if it means that reason and logic has to be discarded. We see this over and over and over again, that brings me to the following conclusion, and I am 100% certain of this claim; Atheists are overly emotional pansies, that don't want to know what truth is! In closing I will quote CS Lewis; "We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately 'forgets' to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won't look at his bank account because he's afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won't go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor may tell him. The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result.."Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

08:58 PM

8

08

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

Interesting. After complaining endlessly about my second hand sources, you and piotr depend on a “reviewer” to tell you what the NAS report said. I notice that no one has downloaded the report itself.

In case you didn't notice, Mark Frank posted a link to the NAS report itself as well as to its summary. He mentioned that the report is long, but nonetheless he provided a link. Anyone who is interested can access it (I did). You, on the other hand, couldn't even be bothered to read a two-page article. A summary for you would be more than you can handle. Feel free, however, to delve into the report itself. (I am not holding my breath.)skram

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

03:24 PM

3

03

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram, Interesting. After complaining endlessly about my second hand sources, you and piotr depend on a "reviewer" to tell you what the NAS report said. I notice that no one has downloaded the report itself. Here is a hint: All the reports of that vintage are the same. They send a message, then they hedge their bets to cover their anatomy, then they revert back to the original message and say, nevertheless, “action must be taken.” Naturally, it is the last message that resonates. That’s what the press picks up on. Of course, your reviewer left that part out, didn't he? It is important to read the entire report and not just rely on what the reviewer tells you it said. You are doing exactly the same thing that you falsely accuse me of doing. Physician heal thyself. However, many scientists (not journalists) of that period didn’t beat around the bush. They argued for global cooling without protecting themselves with the qualifiers. Here are some examples: [a] Scientist Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, among many others, warned of a coming ice age. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. This is the kind of thing that the journalists used. [b] Professor Stephen Schneider: Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a present Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made “ice age.” From Wikipedia...."it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production. This is the kind of thing that Times and Newsweek pick up on. They don't just make things up. He later flip flopped to global warming [c] Rasool S., & Schneider S.”Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: ‘The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Schneider was still promoting the coming “ice age” in 1978. [d] Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, From Wikipedia: Bryson's main contribution to the debate on climate change was the idea of "the human volcano" causing global cooling, via an increase in aerosol loading.[3] This idea was sparked in 1962 by his own observation, while flying across India en route to a conference, that his view of the ground was blocked not by clouds but by dust. At the time, the instrumental temperature record did not show unambiguous warming and the view that the earth might be cooling, and heading for further cooling, was not unreasonable. Others, including Hubert Lamb, who created a Dust Veil Index, thought volcanoes were more responsible for global-scale aerosol. (Sound familiar? It should.)He later flip flopped to global warming. Then, of course, there were numerous books written on global cooling as well. Clearly, it was not a mere jounalistic phenomenon.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

02:53 PM

2

02

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

Make your case.

wd400 has already linked to a summary of the NAS report. If you go there you will find this tidbit:

There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus with regard to either the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years.

Do you ever read anything beyond the title, StephenB?skram

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

01:13 PM

1

01

13

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram

An authoritative report from the Academy of Sciences, on which that article was based, also contradicts your assertions.

Make your case.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:44 PM

12

12

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram

You’ve presented a hundred titles. Digging into a random article from your list turned up evidence that things weren’t exactly as you presented them.

I have already refuted your claim. However, I don't think your attempt to save wd400 will succeed. He made a ridiculous claim. Let's find out how honest he is?StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:40 PM

12

12

40

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

I presented almost 100 articles on global cooling. Defend your claim that the “majority” of them describe a tentative hypotheses.

You've presented a hundred titles. Digging into a random article from your list turned up evidence that things weren't exactly as you presented them. The NYTimes article ended up summarizing the situation as “we don’t know enough to be sure if the climate is changing, or indeed what direction it will change in.” An authoritative report from the Academy of Sciences, on which that article was based, also contradicts your assertions. The onus is now on you to present some real evidence.skram

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:33 PM

12

12

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I would have though that the previous post made it pretty clear I was done wasting my time on this. I'll leave you with one more opportunity to youdate your views on this

If a final act of desperation, you offer an article written in late 1979 as evidence of a non-cooling argument, at the very time when the cooling craze had given way to the warming craze.

The only report I've referred to is the one described, which is from 1975, the middle of what you think was a "cooling craze". If you actually read the report you'll see in the middle of this "cooling craze" the scientific position amounted to "we don't know enough to be sure if the climate is changing, or indeed what direction it will change in".wd400

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:27 PM

12

12

27

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

wd400

You’ve proved yourself almost utterly impervious to evidence in this thread (you get some credit for updating a couple of positions). Moreover, you’ve shown exactly how you treat evidence in an argument.

It is clear that you are the one who is turning himself into a pretzel. Every article that I alluded to has been shown to say exactly what the title says it will say. All you have been able to do is desperately claim that it doesn't reflect the convictions of the scientific community at the time, which is ridiculous, and when that doesn't work, you say that the article doesn't say what is says, which is even more ridiculous. If a final act of desperation, you offer an article written in late 1979 as evidence of a non-cooling argument, at the very time when the cooling craze had given way to the warming craze.

When those clippings are examined the majority of them describe tentative hypothesis and the many unknowns about climate science in 1970s.

I presented almost 100 articles on global cooling. Defend your claim that the "majority" of them describe a tentative hypotheses.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:10 PM

12

12

10

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus

Club of Rome, pollution per Carson’s Silent Spring, population bomb, and possible nuke war, were all there as dominant themes. In a lower key but also spread, were stories like the coming ice age. I recall how news about cold spells killing off orange crops in Florida were played even out in the Caribbean .

Yes, and let us not forget that the same theme was pushed in the early part of the 20th Century, followed by its opposite theme in 1930's, followed by another flip flop in the 1970's, followed by yet another flip flop in the 1990's GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s The Times, February 24, 1895 “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again” Fears of a “second glacial period” brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia’s climate. New York Times, October 7, 1912 “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age” Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923 “The possibility of another Ice Age already having started … is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak.” Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923 “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada.” Time Magazine, September 10, 1923 “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age.” New York Times, September 18, 1924 “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age” GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s New York Times, March 27, 1933 “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” Time Magazine, January 2, 1939 “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…. weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” Time Magazine, 1951 Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year. New York Times, 1952 Reported global warming studies citing the “trump card” as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat. U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954 “[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.” GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s Time Magazine, June 24, 1974 “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974 “Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect” Reported that “glaciers have begun to advance”; “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter”; and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool”. Science News, March 1, 1975 “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the ‘very extraordinary period of warmth’ that preceded it.” Newsweek, April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World” “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.” International Wildlife, July-August, 1975 “But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime.” New York Times, May 21, 1975 “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-? Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992 “About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades.” Time Magazine, April 19, 2001 “[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” New York Times, December 27, 2005 “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006 “Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a ‘broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,’ and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive.”StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:56 AM

11

11

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Stephen, You've proved yourself almost utterly impervious to evidence in this thread (you get some credit for updating a couple of positions). Moreover, you've shown exactly how you treat evidence in an argument. This thread starts with you lifting a quote from a skeptical blog and attributing it to your own memory (as described in 25 and pointed out to you many times), then you have these rediculous claims about "billions" being marked to die in 1895 (even a moments thought should have made the veracity of that one obvious). When the evidence that scientists were talking about warming much more than cooling in the 1970s was presented you googled up some new links about press clippings. When those clippings are examined the majority of them describe tentative hypothesis and the many unknowns about climate science in 1970s. You've clearly made not effort to understand the articles, because attributing some of them as evidence to your claim is utterly ridiculous. Like the articles about cranks building themselves shelters or scientists talking about the ~10K year glacial-interglacial cycle. I would like to think there are genuine skeptics, who are wither capable of looking at the same evidence and reaching a differenct conclusion, or indeed updating their views when they find new evidence. Butf you really think it's fair to compare these sorts of clippings to the combined weight of science supporting mainstream climate science today, then I'm afraid you don't fit that description. So when I say you are laughable I'm not trying to undercut your "arguments" by attacking your character ("ad hominem"), I'm saying you are so detached form the evidence all that I can do it laugh.wd400

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:50 AM

11

11

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

MF: Let's recall the headline and lead to this post:

Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s January 24, 2015 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design 251 Comments Those who doubt global warming alarmism sometimes point to the global cooling alarmism of the 70s. The idea is that alarmists will latch onto whatever happens to be at hand to clang their bell, cooling then, warming in the 90s; explaining away the plateau now . . .

Conclusion:

Mark Frank

I was very much around and aware in the 70s and can verify that the global cooling thing was a non-event.

Perhaps you were in a frozen chamber. I was also around at that time, and I can verify that it was quite the event. Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, and CIA.

Sufficient has been provided to show that there was endorsement by dominant factions of influential bodies. But an alarm does not happen unless there is a media diffusion. And you picked up on one of the signature impacts of such spreading in the newspaper and dominant broadcast media house age. MF, you, BA and I were all around at the time. Club of Rome, pollution per Carson's Silent Spring, population bomb, and possible nuke war, were all there as dominant themes. In a lower key but also spread, were stories like the coming ice age. I recall how news about cold spells killing off orange crops in Florida were played even out in the Caribbean . . . I suppose that was a sign of a good tourist season coming up. And, weekly newsmags had much more influence then than now . . . Cf again 34 above. KF PS: WD, WUWT is in fact the most viewed blog on climate issues and has some very serious commentary. Watts is of course a meteorologist. Tim Ball, who I clipped above, is someone who has a serious point. Let me clip just one point from his article:

As a climatologist, trying to put all the pieces in the puzzle, I have always known it was necessary to consult with specialists. For example, when using statistics, I relied on Alex Basilevsky, whose biography lists climate studies. He was especially interested in Markov probabilities. This failure to consult specialists was identified by the Wegman Report as a serious failure of the paleeoclimate group associated with the “hockey stick” fiasco. In a devastating finding they wrote, It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. The challenge, when dealing with specialists, is to know enough to ask the right questions and understand the answers. This worked well in many cases, but often created more problems, because I received different answers from people in the same specialization. The last sentence by Wegman seems to imply that they didn’t consult because they knew their work would not withstand scrutiny. That proved to be the case, when Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitirck looked at what was going on. However, there is another issue of differences between specialists . . .

kairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:43 AM

11

11

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

wd400

It’s kind of laughable to compare the state of the science in 1975 (and the confidence with which positions were held) with today. But laughable is what Stephen and Barry have become.

If that is the case, then why can't you refute the argument or respond intelligently to the evidence. An adhominem attack is not a refutation. It is an act of desperation.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:40 AM

11

11

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

What are you on about Andre? [Oh, I get it, Evolutionary biology is "1859" science. That's pretty dumb.]wd400

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:37 AM

11

11

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram

A strong word diluted by “hints” and “may have” makes weak tea. The article is full of references to how uncertain the situation is.

You are confusing a theme with its qualifiers. Do you know what a theme is? Do you know what a qualifier is? The article's theme is about the inevitability of global cooling and its causes. Most of the article is about the possible causes. It is not about doubts or uncertainty--those are qualifiers. That is why the title doesn't say, "Doubts about global cooling disclosed."StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:35 AM

11

11

35

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Well there you have it. 1975 science is suspect compared to today. 1859 science however is gospel truth right WD400? You are a joke.Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:28 AM

11

11

28

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#249 KF

That widespread diffusion and echoing in print as lesser papers carry the conventional wisdom is exactly one of the effects one is looking for, the dissemination of a dominant line of talking points. As in, message dominance

KF. I thought we were looking at whether the science was flip-flopping between one story and another. We all know that press stories can "take off" for no obvious reason. The point is that all those stories (and quite possibly some of the national one's - they are behind a pay wall) reflect just one science story - in fact if you read the story seems to be about something a Dr Arnold Reitze, who is an "expert in the legal aspects", said.Mark Frank

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:14 AM

11

11

14

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Soime reading that “should” not exist: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....y-problem/ A stimulus for thought on a problematique. KF PS: WD I suspect the substance is clear enough for purpose.

This is a joke... right?wd400

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

11:11 AM

11

11

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

MF, Do you recall that especially in the US at the time several major sources dominated news and views coverage, which then diffused far and wide in print, on radio, on local TV stations? For instance consider NYT, Wa Po and a few wire services, and people like Walter Cronkite? That widespread diffusion and echoing in print as lesser papers carry the conventional wisdom is exactly one of the effects one is looking for, the dissemination of a dominant line of talking points. As in, message dominance. KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

10:40 AM

10

10

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Soime reading that "should" not exist: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/26/ipcc-climate-science-as-a-gestalt-theory-problem/ A stimulus for thought on a problematique. KF PS: WD I suspect the substance is clear enough for purpose.kairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

10:06 AM

10

10

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Also worth a laugh is 1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat. This earth shattering article of about 100 words about a TV weatherman's talk to a local club makes it to page 32 of the St. Petersburg Times (not that it features very noticeably on that page). Apparently this chap said that pollution will cause change over hundreds and thousands of years – but its mostly about what to do if there is a hurricane. Also worth noting that 1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970) 1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970) 1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970) Are all identical words appearing on middle pages of small local newspapers. I didn't get beyond 1970 but so far I don't think who created the list looked beyond the headlines.Mark Frank

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

09:33 AM

9

09

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF, I'm pretty sure the lack of response to your posts relates more to how hard they are to parse than their (apparent) content. If you have something meaningful to say, then by all means do so, but if you want a reply then take some time to formulate your ideas in plain English.wd400

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

08:10 AM

8

08

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Pretty clear summary of that 1975 report here. [EDIT: whoops -that's the same link as Mark shared] It's kind of laughable to compare the state of the science in 1975 (and the confidence with which positions were held) with today. But laughable is what Stephen and Barry have become.wd400

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

08:06 AM

8

08

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I am beginning to get into this now. In case you are wondering if any of the sceptics read these articles (unless forced to) take a glance at: 1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971) Remember this is the list of articles illustrating the "global cooling alarm" on one of the primary sceptic web sites.Mark Frank

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

07:58 AM

7

07

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

Unlike some, it is not a heavily propagandized piece. I am sure that is why you chose it.

Good. We have a concession. Followed by motive mongering. No, StephenB, I did not choose to quote this article because it was even-handed. It was the very first article I checked from your list. I subscribe to the Times, so it was easy for me to get this one. I did not check any other articles from that list.

“Hints that it may have already begun are evident.” Evident is a very strong word.

A strong word diluted by "hints" and "may have" makes weak tea. The article is full of references to how uncertain the situation is. Shall I quote from the end again? Those passages have a hard time penetrating your skull.

The Academy of Sciences report notes that any assessment is crippled by a lack of knowledge: “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

skram

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

07:19 AM

7

07

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In case it is of interest I have found the text of the NAS report on which the article is based  and also this commentary (I tested the links this time). The report is too long to read right now so I just searched on the word “cooling”.  It is only mentioned 5 times in the main text. None of them give any hint of a prediction of imminent future cooling.Mark Frank

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

06:56 AM

6

06

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

scram

The inevitable cooling is a reference to the Milankovitch cycles, which happen on the time scale of tens of thousands years. Yes, eventually the climate expected to return to an ice age, but that is in the long term.

Yes, but they are strongly suggesting (not insisting) that the cooling has already begun "Hints that it may have already begun are evident.” Evident is a very strong word.

And if you care to read the description of the three mechanisms discussed in the paper, one of them—adding man-made CO2 to the atmosphere—leads to warming, not cooling. Did you miss the scenario of the polar caps going away entirely? I quoted it above.

Yes, according to one scientist, human consumption could, in principle, head off the cooling process. Articles of this kind always provide space for those who don't fully agree with what is being said. Unlike some, it is not a heavily propagandized piece. I am sure that is why you chose it. Nevertheless, the piece is about global cooling and its causes.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

06:04 AM

6

06

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, Global cooling is indeed inevitable. The Milankovitch cycles are real. But that inevitability has a time scale of tens of thousands years. The real question that occupied the people in the 1970s was different: is the cooling about to happen? And on that score, there was no certainty. That's what the article said.skram

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

05:49 AM

5

05

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram,

Where is the complete certainty that an ice age is imminent? Nowhere. You are making it up.

???????? Who said anything about complete certainty? No scientific report or commentary would ever use those two words, and neither did I. You just made that up.

The Academy of Sciences report notes that any assessment is crippled by a lack of knowledge: “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

It's the typical disclaimer---a confession that they don't know everything they could know. Don't you ever read reports like this? It doesn't change their argument: global cooling is considered by many to be inevitable. Let's speculate about the causes by analyzing past ice ages. It certainly in not an argument for global warming. You need to get a grip.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

05:10 AM

5

05

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Piotr..... All men are created equal and because of that I care for my fellow man, not because I'm scared of anything....... You must be joking what does empathy have to do with the nature of things? The Earth does not care about you why should you care about it?Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

04:56 AM

4

04

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link