Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s

Jerad

Since you’re not a scientist and since you are very focused on public opinion then, perhaps, you don’t quite understand the research scientist’s point of view. For decades it didn’t matter to them what the general public thought.

I have to say that you have been very civil and polite throughout this entire discussion and I appreciate it. As I recall, you have not hurled even one ad-hominem argument in my direction, which sets you apart. Your questions have been thoughtful and your responses have been measured. Thinking back, I have been somewhat dismissive of some of your comments without giving them the full response that they deserved. For better or for worse, I have to make my points in as few words as possible in order to address a wide range of excuses (oops, objections). It is true that I am not a specialist in any field of science, but I have studied science and math at the university level. I can read a scientific report and make sense of it. So while I am not really qualified to do science in any official capacity, I can talk science when I need to. However, the issue under discussion is less about the way science is done and more about the propensity of scientists to follow the herd. And, of course, there's the money. I know that you discount both elements, but I think they count for a great deal.StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

03:15 PM

3

03

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

May I re-post a link to the Charney Report (1979)? I posted it before Barry started a new thread, and now the old link has become hard to locate. Here's what real experts on climate change thought at a time when -- according to StephenB -- they were spreading an Ice Age scare. http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdfPiotr

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

03:14 PM

3

03

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Does this not give StephenB or Barry Arrington pause for thought?

No, of course not.

How about we just forgo the press and focus on the actual scientific research and publications? That’s what we really care about isn’t it?

But then you can't conveniently copy and paste a hatchet job from some blog to give the wrong impression that the scientific community was promoting global cooling alarmism in the 70ies.hrun0815

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

02:53 PM

2

02

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Barry

Here’s a sure sign they are grasping at straws: They start to challenge your assumption that an article will say what its title says it will say.

Barry, yes, and it get's worse. The article, which I just read, does, indeed, say what the title says it will say, but our poor friends simply can't deal with it. The whole point of the piece is to speculate about the possible causes of past ice ages (Solar energy variations, Pendulum swings, Man-made influences) and associate them with the cooling trend under discussion. Read it for yourself. Only a religious fanatic would misread it the way it is being misread. Also, keep in mind that this offering is probably the most laid back one they could find. Many others are far less cerebral and far more in the alarmist mode.StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

02:50 PM

2

02

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB #181

In effect, you are arguing that journalists consistently misrepresented the majority opinion of scientists on global cooling and global warming, before, during, and after each flip flop–without a peep from those who were being misrepresented or misquoted and without a dissenting point of view from other journalists—for 100 years. Only someone who drinks the global warming kool aid could believe such a fantastic story.

In the complete article you copy and pasted a journalist pointed out how journalists have consistently misrepresented the research state of affairs regarding global climate. I can not adequately address why some scientists did not speak out when their views were not properly represented in the press except to say that many scientists I know don't give a toss what is printed in the papers and don't think it's part of their remit to refute false reporting. And, I say that now scientists have begun to understand that they do have to 'play the game' regarding public news sources. Since you're not a scientist and since you are very focused on public opinion then, perhaps, you don't quite understand the research scientist's point of view. For decades it didn't matter to them what the general public thought. Think about it: did Einstein or Plank or Bohr really care what Joe Blow in Des Moines think about Quantum Mechanics? I hope not. And if the Des Moines Register printed some disparaging article about quantum coupling do you really think any research physicist would bother to respond? AND, you know what, why aren't you arguing from that actual research that existed at the time? Why all this appeal to to what was reported instead of going for the published work? Who really cares what the papers said in the end? Why not focus on the real academic research? Yes? How about we just forgo the press and focus on the actual scientific research and publications? That's what we really care about isn't it?Jerad

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

02:04 PM

2

02

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Correct link to the NYTimes article: http://goo.gl/V3tBucskram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

01:44 PM

1

01

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OK. I just read the article. I don't care how you interpret the title - anyone who reads it and thinks it is primarily about the inevitably or even likelihood of cooling in our life time has a comprehension problem. This article is about the uncertainty in climate science. It points out that it has been getting cooler since 1950 (a simple fact at the time) but does not draw the conclusion that it is going to stay cooler. A bit further on - "Lack of agreement as to the factors that control climate change make it particularly difficult to assess current trends". And then the bulk of the article discusses some of the possible factors emphasising throughout the lack of agreement. But if we are interested in scientific opinion at the time then surely more relevant is the report from the National Academy of Sciences which seems to have inspired the article. I can't track this down but the article finishes: The Academy of Sciences report notes that any assessment of climate trends is crippled by a lack of knowledge: "Not only are basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions". Given the state of climatology at the time this seems reasonable. In no way can it be described as a prediction of global cooling. Really this is not important - one article written 40 years ago - except it illustrates again how much of the sceptical argument is recycling quotes from opinion pieces and blogs without studying the source material. We had the infamous "1.08 degrees cooling since 1998" and the "1% of scientists don't believe in global warming" and now this.Mark Frank

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

01:41 PM

1

01

41

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

As StephenB is working on obtaining the NYTimes article, I will provide a few more quotes from it. Just to wet his appetite.

If worldwide consumption continues at its present rates, catastrophic climate changes have been projected by M.I. Budyko, a leading Soviet specialist. He says that the critical level will probably be reached within a century. This, he has written, will lead to "a complete destruction of polar ice covers." Not only would sea levels rise but, with the Arctic Ocean free of ice, the entire weather system of the Northern hemisphere would be altered. However, Dr. Mitchell has suggested, warming of the climate due to pollution might be enough to head off an ice age "quite inadvertently."

How's that for crying global cooling? I think you ought to read the article.skram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

12:58 PM

12

12

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Have you read the article, Barry? Guess not.skram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

12:34 PM

12

12

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB: Here's a sure sign they are grasping at straws: They start to challenge your assumption that an article will say what its title says it will say. Pathetic.Barry Arrington

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

12:25 PM

12

12

25

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

That's pretty funny, StephenB. You have an uncanny ability to detect what the article says by just reading its title. Let's test your theory. Buy the article or go to the library and read it. Then we'll discuss its contents.skram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

12:09 PM

12

12

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB Please, people, you must do better. We do; that's the whole point. We read the bloody article as well. Believe me -- it's much better.Piotr

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

12:07 PM

12

12

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB: Of course you judge an article’s theme by its title. Mark Frank

Unless of course you read the article itself.

The theme will be the same. (Assuming the writer is literate and knows what he is saying).StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

10:58 AM

10

10

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram

You’ve missed the first title of that article, my friend.

I read both titles. The second title is the theme and the conclusion, which is what matters. It is about the "inevitability of global cooling." You will likely find a defense for that conclusion if you read it carefully. The theme is developed in the early paragraphs. The first half of this century has apparently been the warmest period since the “hot spell” between 5000 and 7000 years ago immediately following the last ice age. That the climate, at least in the Northern hemisphere, has been getting cooler since 1950 is well established—if one ignores the last two winters. It draws a contrast between the way things were (warming) and the way things are now and are going to be (cooling). That's the theme of the 1970's. If you display the entire article (as opposed to your chosen excerpts) I am sure that you will find that point confirmed. People write things for a reason.StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

10:53 AM

10

10

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB

Of course you judge an article’s theme by its title.

Unless of course you read the article itself.Mark Frank

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

10:53 AM

10

10

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

You've missed the first title of that article, my friend. And now I've given you the full synopsis. It does not support your take on the situation. If I were you, I'd go and read the rest of the articles, at least some of them, to find out what they actually say. This should be a good lesson.skram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

09:56 AM

9

09

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram

StephenB, as a person with a degree in communications, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing such a hatchet job on the previous literature. You literally judge the book by its title. Is that what they taught you in school?

Of course you judge an article's theme by its title. That is what a title does; it tells you what the article is about. When an article says that “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” you can safely assume it is about a major cooling trend. You were thinking what???--that the purpose of the title is to fool the reader? Please, people, you must do better.StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

09:34 AM

9

09

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The record of the press inconsistency is clear as well.

In effect, you are arguing that journalists consistently misrepresented the majority opinion of scientists on global cooling and global warming, before, during, and after each flip flop--without a peep from those who were being misrepresented or misquoted and without a dissenting point of view from other journalists---for 100 years. Only someone who drinks the global warming kool aid could believe such a fantastic story.StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

09:15 AM

9

09

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I wonder whether StephenB ever bothered to actually read any of the articles he listed. My guess is no. I have read this one:

New York Times, May 21, 1975 “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable”

If you subscribe to the NYTimes, you can search for it in the paper's archive. The article's actual title is "Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead" on p. 45 of the May 21, 1975 issue. The title StephenB quotes appears in the article's continuation on p. 88. The article mentions both the warming due to the increased greenhouse effect and the cooling that will eventually occur in the next Milankovitch cycle. Both effects are real. They just happen on different time scales. The CO2 concentration rises on the time scale of a century (thanks to man's increased activity). The Milanovitch cycle has the time scale of tens of thousands years. Here is an excerpt from the article.

The first half of this century has apparently been the warmest period since the "hot spell" between 5000 and 7000 years ago immediately following the last ice age. That the climate, at least in the Northern hemisphere, has been getting cooler since 1950 is well established—if one ignores the last two winters. It had been forecast by some specialists that last winter would be especially cold, but as all ice skaters know, it was unusually mild in the New York area. In Boston it was the warmest in 22 years and in Moscow it was the second warmest in 230 years. A major problem in seeking to assess the trend is to distinguish year-to-year fluctuations from those spread over decades, centuries, and thousands of years. Lack of agreement as to the factors that control climate change make it particularly difficult to assess current trends. Of major importance, therefore, is the debate of the cause of such changes and the role of human activity in bringing them about. Among the major hypotheses are the following:

The article goes on to discuss these: 1. Solar energy variations. 2. Pendulum swings (the Milanovitch cycles). 3. Man-made influence. Overall, a pretty balanced article mentioning all of the major causes of climate change that are being discussed today. Not crying wolf. StephenB, as a person with a degree in communications, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing such a hatchet job on the previous literature. You literally judge the book by its title. Is that what they taught you in school? Just my two cents.skram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

09:00 AM

9

09

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB

Sorry Jerad, I am not buying it. Perhaps you can persuade onlookers that your suspicions (“I suspect that most scientists, now and then, figured it didn’t matter”)can counteract my evidence. The record of inconsistency is clear.

The record of the press inconsistency is clear as well. I happen to know scientists who just like to keep their heads down and get on with their research. And I know many who really do think it doesn't matter what the newspapers say. But I know no scientists who are just in it for the money. Some who work for big corporations are probably not working on their first or second choice of research but they all want to do research. And I have never, ever met any academic who buys into a big lie. Everyone I've met is fiercely independent and knows that they are much more likely to be remembered by history if they buck the system and win. Name a famous scientists who DIDN'T come up with something new and paradigm shifting, if not breaking. It's part of the culture. So, when you get hundreds of scientists who sign the ICCC reports, who go on the record as supporting its findings then, not only are they participating in an activity promoting their belief, but they are also setting themselves up for being vilified by their own field if they are proved wrong. Anyway, the real point should be: look at the scientific research. Find scientific fault there and base your arguments on that, not with the popular press. The press bends and shifts with the wind, they don't care who is right, they're just trying to garner subscribers/viewers/customers/advertising. Follow that money trail.Jerad

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

07:44 AM

7

07

44

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sorry Jerad, I am not buying it. Perhaps you can persuade onlookers that your suspicions ("I suspect that most scientists, now and then, figured it didn’t matter")can counteract my evidence. The record of inconsistency is clear.StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

07:25 AM

7

07

25

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephanB

If it wasn’t true, one of you, or someone from your side, would have provided evidence for a different pattern. Where are the collective protests from scientists from those same eras? The time for them to say “it ain’t so,” was then, not now.

I suspect that most scientists, now and then, figured it didn't matter what the public perception was. Sadly, that turned out not to be true.

Of course, the global warming enthusiasts are protesting now. It exposes their scam. Any objective person knows that they want a piece of that $22.000,000,000 the government spends on the “problem of global warming,” which is not available to skeptics or deniers.

Where are the complainers you asked? Then you say when they complain it exposes their scam. Crazy.

You need to rephrase your question a little bit. Try it this way: “Do you think the mainstream media, dominated by Darwinists, anti-ID partisans, and proponents of man-made global warming, represent the science behind ID well?

So, the press does an accurate job of reporting climate issues but a very bad job reporting intelligent design issues. And that's given that lots and lots of the public are probabliy favourably leaning towards intelligent design. And probably anti-global warming. I find your position non-sensical, non-evidential and full of assumptions. But, you know what? Who cares what the press says? Go with the science. Read the last ICCC report. Find a flaw with it and use that as a basis for your argument.Jerad

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

06:03 AM

6

06

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB I am trying to understand your argument. I think it goes: * It is possible to find articles in the popular press that vary from warnings about cooling to warnings about warming at different times. * Therefore, the majority of articles in the popular press about climate varied from warnings about cooling to warnings about warming at different times. * Therefore, scientific opinion varied from warnings about cooling to warnings about warming at different times. * These warnings proved to be unfounded. * Therefore, current scientific opinion which warns about warming should be ignored. Is that a fair summary?Mark Frank

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

04:22 AM

4

04

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jerad

Here’s a question for you: do you think the mainstream press reports on intelligent design correctly? Do you think they represent the science behind ID well?

You need to rephrase your question a little bit. Try it this way: "Do you think the mainstream media, dominated by Darwinists, anti-ID partisans, and proponents of man-made global warming, represent the science behind ID well?StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

04:16 AM

4

04

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

None of the responses to the facts in evidence are rational. The idea that these poor scientists have been consistently misrepresented from one era to the next, or that the information presented doesn't capture the scientific trends is not realistic. The collective flip flops are on the record. If it wasn't true, one of you, or someone from your side, would have provided evidence for a different pattern. Where are the collective protests from scientists from those same eras? The time for them to say "it ain't so," was then, not now. Of course, the global warming enthusiasts are protesting now. It exposes their scam. Any objective person knows that they want a piece of that $22.000,000,000 the government spends on the "problem of global warming," which is not available to skeptics or deniers.StephenB

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

04:12 AM

4

04

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB Here's a question for you: do you think the mainstream press reports on intelligent design correctly? Do you think they represent the science behind ID well? I've been hearing for years and years from contributors to this forum that the mainstream press in America is in the materialist camp (because they don't want to rock the boat) so I'm curious to hear your opinion on this since you think they tend to get the main ideas correct.Jerad

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

10:55 PM

10

10

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB #168

They do an inferior job of reporting the technical details and methodologies, but they do a superior job of explaining the context and meaning of scientific reports and conclusions. This is doubly true when it comes to accurately reporting on scientific trends and the social impact of what scientists say and do. That is why all those reports on global cooling in one era and global warming in another era were consistent. They were consistent because they were true. Sometimes scientists follow the evidence; usually they follow the herd. You can’t evade the facts by condemning the messenger of the facts. That strategy is doomed.

Did you even read the excerpts I gleaned from the article you posted? Even some of the journalists say they've done a bad job reporting the science!! You're opinion explains a lot actually. Like Denyse you trust the press over the actual, published research. You don't follow the real scientific debate, rather you take the popular press reports to be accurate when it's been pointed out time and time again that the press gets science wrong all the time. Susan Mazur is an excellent case in point. Almost no one thinks she gets it right except those who find her version bolstered their already-held opinion. Why do you have that bias? (You're not the only UD contributor who leans that way, not by a long shot.) Could it be because otherwise you'd have to admit that, like the journalists, you've gotten the science wrong? Think: the newspaper are NOT peer-reviewed. There are some excellence awards (like the Pulitzer Prise) but mostly newspapers and networks news agencies are judged based on how many viewers/readers they produce. It's about the money, not the science. Look at Fox News. Do you really think getting the science right is at the top of their list? In the era of 'if it bleeds it leads' journalism?Jerad

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

10:41 PM

10

10

41

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Please can we put those supposed sceptics out of their misery with actual verifiable information. I hope the following will allow them to reconsider their silly defence and look at the bigger picture, something the average atheist seem to be incapable of due to their incredible faith! In 1974 Global Cooling was blamed for the Polar Vortex that hit North America in 2013 it was global Warming that got blamed for the same natural phenomena...... https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/time-magazine-goes-both-ways-on-the-polar-vortex/ Seriously, Piotr, WD400, Mark Frank, Hrun and Aurelio you can stop this absolutely pointless defence of something that is conjured in the minds of men. The Earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, man's CO2 emission can do squat..... Also these papers show that the oceans and forests can soak up much more CO2 that we ever thought possible...... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/tropical-forests-soak-up-much-more-carbon-than-we-thought http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide/ If you ask me, there is some really amazing risk strategies and redundancy built into the system. Or how about the fact that one group's waste is another's fuel and vice versa? Coincidence or luck? I beg to differ!Andre

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

09:04 PM

9

09

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Piotr @ 163:

If our policies don’t change, the effect will not be apocalyptic. We will not all die from flooding or overheating. But there will be a lot of irreversible damage...

Thank you for this sober assessment. Which of our policies would you like to see changed? and how much impact would you expect those policy changes to have on the climate?steve4003

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

07:46 PM

7

07

46

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Stephen, The question you should ask yourself is whether you've set out to get a fair sample of opinion (and strength of opinion) over time, or if you've just googled up some links that support your preferred conclusion. Your track record on this thread (still not comment on #25....)makes that pretty easy for others to see.wd400

January 26, 2015

January

01

Jan

26

26

2015

05:51 PM

5

05

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link