Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s

_{Barry Arrington

January 24, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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.

Mark Frank has made the risible assertion that “the global cooling thing was a non-event” in the 70s. StephenB has offered Mark a service by setting him straight:*

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)

1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
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)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ?September 11, 1972?)
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ?September 12, 1972?)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ?December 4, 1974?)
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ?December 5, 1974?)
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ?December 5, 1974?)
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ?March 3, 1975?)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ?January 17, 1978?)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14,

Mark Frank

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

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.

*From http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Comments

Piotr I issue the same challenge to you that I presented to Mark Frank: Give me your interpretation of the following quote: …”only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.” Here is my interpretation: only 1% of those expressing an opinion endorsed the claim that human activity is the main cause of global warming. Now give me your interpretation.StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

I really hope that the climate scientologists go with the spin that it was all a big CIA conspiracy.BartM_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

This information was copied from my website, please add a source link in the article thank you. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.htmlPoptech_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

The 71 is all the papers in AMS, Nature and discoverable in JSTOR and references therein. That fact alone should tell you how different the scientific understanding of long term climate change (be it warmer or cooler) was in the 70s than today. Your list of papers above further underlines the point -- the CIA reports are the only ones that come close to a consensus in an organisation. Most are one or a few researchers talking about an hypothesis, one of them is someone talking about the glacial-interglacial cycle and the establishment of a new ice age in the next 10,000 years!wd400_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

The News desk is signing off for a few hours, which will enable naturalists/Darwinists to pile up abuse. But if only global warming were true. Vast areas of the planet would become habitable and cultivable. Why isn't that good?News_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Ok here's the math being used for the claim that there was NO global cooling consensus in the 60s and 70s: Total papers reviewed: 71 over 15 years Yes, that's the grand total. 71. Even John Cook's refuted "97% consensus" paper claims to have reviewed over 12,000 of which 4,000 were used in the study. Sorry, but 71 papers over 15 years is waaay too small a sample size to make the claim that there was no global cooling consensus.BartM_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

@53 BartM See the link above: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/66785/#comment-543816Piotr_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Radioaction:
I called the anti-vaccine movement “science-deniers” because that is exactly what they are doing: denying the scientific evidence continually provided to them that showed vaccines do not cause autism.
Yeah but what does it have to do with criticizing the science behind global warming and ice age predictions that never pan out?
I would assume that anyone else who uses the term “science-deniers” has a similar reason: they are describing someone who denies scientific evidence from an unscientific standpoint.
Sure. But everybody who's a taxpayer has the right to question, not just the evidence, but also the interpretation of the evidence and the motivation of the interpreters. There is a lot of room for conflicts of interest in this business, not the least of which is that it employs a lot of people who would not be employed if the science was shown to be shoddy.Mapou_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

For those of you claiming that global cooling was NOT the consensus in the 70s, please help me out with the following: (1) How many papers were reviewed to make this determination? I need the total and the range of years these papers cover. (2) What is the breakdown of the numbers for each position (global cooling, neutral, global warming)? Please no links. Just give me the numbers.BartM_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

StephenB, If you still can't grasp the difference between "believe in man-made global warming" and "have explicitly declared properly quantified endorsement in their abstracts", despite all the explanations given so far, and despite being shown Legates's own table (which breaks down "endorsement" into several degrees) -- you are beyond help. You already owe us a couple of retractions. If they are not forthcoming, your credibility as an honest discussant is gone. Like Mark, I'm not going to waste any more of my time addressing your posts.Piotr_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

I would assume that anyone else who uses the term “science-deniers” has a similar reason: they are describing someone who denies scientific evidence from an unscientific standpoint.
Hmm. So this would include materialists who deny the simple fact that genetic translation requires non-dynamic regularities in order to organize the cell. Actually, I prefer "anti-intellectual" over "science denier".Upright BiPed_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank
My dispute is simply with your original claim that you have evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Until you admit that was an error I am not going to bother addressing anything else.
OK. Tell me how you interpret these words? What do you think Legates is saying: ...”only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.” Perhaps I will agree with your interpretation. If so, I will amend my claim accordingly. So tell me what you think he is saying.StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

I just came across this interesting site, which seems a brother-in-arms of Uncommon Descent : http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science I noticed the name of Rupert Sheldrake among its principles.Axel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

I called the anti-vaccine movement "science-deniers" because that is exactly what they are doing: denying the scientific evidence continually provided to them that showed vaccines do not cause autism. I would assume that anyone else who uses the term "science-deniers" has a similar reason: they are describing someone who denies scientific evidence from an unscientific standpoint.Radioaction_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Why is it that nobody can criticise the scientific community without being called a "science denier"? Is the scientific community immune to public scrutiny? Can we trust the foxes to guard the chicken coop? I don't think so. The mainstream AI research community took the entire world to the cleaners for half a century. Their main idea that intelligence was all about symbol processing turned out to be a complete dud, wasting billions of dollars and fifty years of chasing a red herring. The few critics of symbolic AI, e.g., the Dreyfus brothers, were blacklisted and accused of being anti-science dualists or worse. Even after that embarrassing debacle, not one of those people offered an apology. PS. Did anybody in this thread come out against vaccination? Why the stupid strawman?Mapou_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

The science-deniers that skipped vaccines didn't think their choice would lead to catastrophe. Just take a look at the ongoing measles outbreak in California to see how that went. Maybe not the same scale of catastrophe, but tell that to the 70+ people who were infected by a disease that was considered to be eradicated from the US.Radioaction_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

SB
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.”
Neat switch. My dispute is simply with your original claim that you have evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Until you admit that was an error I am not going to bother addressing anything else.Mark Frank_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

SB #34
”only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.”
You have slightly simplified the quote but not significantly. However, it is a very long way from your ridiculous assertion that
I have provided evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming.
As shown in the table by far the majority of scientists (97%) did implicitly or explicitly endorse global warming - they just didn't happen to explicitly say that mankind was responsible for most it in the abstract. There is no reason to suppose that these scientists did not believe in global warming and good reason to suppose they did. Remember these were just the abstracts of papers that mentioned global warming. There is no reason why they should specifically say mankind was responsible for most of it in the abstract. If you will not accept that your conclusion does not remotely follow from Legate's paper than I despair of you ever admitting an error about anything.Mark Frank_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Well, luckily there is an easy way to check on the claims for antibiotics, vaccines, and catastrophic anthropogenic climate change: Check the predictions against the real world results. Which is why I believe in vaccines and antibiotics, but doubt that human contributions to CO2 are going to lead to catastrophe.anthropic_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

From HuffPo
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda [...] .1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition. In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such: Atmospheric Science (113) Climatology (39) Meteorology (341) Astronomy (59) Astrophysics (26) So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
Seversky_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
Amazing that science ever came up with lasers, GPS, vaccines, capacitors, integrated circuits, jet engines, solid state drives, etc. You do realise that GPS systems work because we understand relativistic effects on clocks? And that we can make semi-conductors because we understand quantum mechanics?
LOL. Most of this work was done decades and even centuries ago and mostly by non-materialists, non-atheists and non-Darwinists. The current usurpers/pretenders are just riding on the coattails of their predecessors and using that bully pulpit to spread their lies. Nobody's fooled.
Odd that Mapou, with his greater knowledge and understanding isn’t filthy rich, running some large corporation, creating lots and lots of valuable devices, medical techniques, analytic tools, etc that would greatly benefit all of mankind. Maybe he’s just too busy posting slanderous comments on this blog.
If you only knew what I have been working on, you'd defecate in your pants and go into an apoplectic fit. :-D
Sad too that his kind of rancorous comments is now allowed to be posted without any kind of moderating comment from the editors. But I guess if it’s a way then all’s fair eh?
Crybaby.Mapou_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Not the most reliable of sources, granted, but this is from Wikipedia
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[12] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[13] The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[11] In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[11]<
[My bold]Seversky_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Radioaction @ 37
Don’t forget how scientists lie about the effectiveness of vaccines and antibiotics too!
Not as much as anti-vaxers have lied about them lying.Seversky_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Mapou #30
The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. There is no honor among scientists. They lie about the climate. They lie about the origin of the species. They lie about the brain and consciousness. They lie about health care. They lie about multiple universes, time travel, black holes, wormholes, Big Bang, universal accelerated expansion, etc. They even lie about infinity. It’s all politics, lies and propaganda. The public at large is beginning to sense this. It will get ugly. Scientists brought this on themselves.
Amazing that science ever came up with lasers, GPS, vaccines, capacitors, integrated circuits, jet engines, solid state drives, etc. You do realise that GPS systems work because we understand relativistic effects on clocks? And that we can make semi-conductors because we understand quantum mechanics? Odd that Mapou, with his greater knowledge and understanding isn't filthy rich, running some large corporation, creating lots and lots of valuable devices, medical techniques, analytic tools, etc that would greatly benefit all of mankind. Maybe he's just too busy posting slanderous comments on this blog. Sad too that his kind of rancorous comment is now allowed to be posted without any kind of moderating comment from the editors. But I guess if it's a war then all's fair eh?Jerad_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Don't forget how scientists lie about the effectiveness of vaccines and antibiotics too!Radioaction_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

PS: History. Paid for in blood and tears. But, if we refuse to learn or heed sound history we doom ourselves to pay the same price over and over again. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

F/N: One last thing. Way back, I learned in school that climate was a 33 year average of weather, i.e. a moving average. Wiki concurs: >> a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region. >> It is thus a mathematical fiction that captures a "typical" value, dependent on the observations put into it. It will change and will be pulled by extreme values, means have those known properties . . . as opposed to medians for instance. The issue is whether there is variability beyond the "normal" patterns and if so whether we collectively are influencing to a destructive extent, i.e. whether stabilising interactions are being overwhelmed by human forcings. On fair comment, we don't know enough to be overly definitive, but should be concerned and prudent. And in any case we should seek to moderate impacts of extreme weather, e.g. it is folly to invest so much on hurricane coasts, with New Orleans as case study no. 1 regardless of what and who you believe on Katrina. But then, here, with volcanic eruptions ramping up for two years many were in denial until people needlessly and horribly died. March of folly. Now, THAT'S a real concern that does not get anywhere the headlines it should. KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Piotr Mark Frank, Read Legates's own words and weep: ...."only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming." Here is a little more for you: "Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change. Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous. Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing." Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem." It's not looking too good for your side.StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

WD et al, What I pointed to at 1 seems to be happening. The clear evidence is that there WAS a widely publicised perception of global cooling and a call for major actions to address it in the '60's and '70's; appearing in leading publications of widespread influence. [U/D: BartM in 28, thanks: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/66785/#comment-543874 ] Influence that was much higher than now because of concentration of media power. Which, corresponds with my recall of the times; indeed, speculation on oncoming ice ages was even in the comics and on various TV shows as a given or almost as a given. But, there was no big global this is problem no 1 push. That was reserved for population and pollution bomb stories and/or nuke war fears; then, nuke winter fears early in the '80's along with panics over that madman right-wing cowboy fundy ignoramus in the White House, Reagan. At points in the 80's HIV-AIDS came up for serious mention and projections that simply have not panned out. With 7 bn here, the pop bomb/ Club of Rome etc projections did not come to pass either. Sometime between the 80's and '90's the crisis of the day that demands response shifted to global warming; much of the energy on it coming once the cold war was off the table. As in, Reagan's determination to stand did much to win the cold war (The trend in the later '70's was much the other way . . . ), in cooperation with a few other key figures. And, the cold war didn't just peter out, it was won. After that, climate became the big push. Then, since '98, it seems the trend line has been on average flat; with hints of slightly down. For years that was sidelined or pooh poohed, but it looks solid now. And as fair comment, there is no solid understanding of why. And from the late 00's we have had whistle blowing, which probably has had more impact than is acknowledged. There have been recent rewrites on the '70's that now try to suggest the publicised view was unrepresentative of that of scientists. That does not change the fact of what was pushed at the time, even if it could be shown so. Likewise, the Medieval and Roman warm periods seem to have been occasionally dismissed. On the whole, the earth is in a warming trend since the last ice age with a fair amount of ice sheets still in evidence. As for causal analyses and heavy reliance on computer sims, the latter is not the same as empirical observation. I won't say much on the very bad practices of too many stations and the gaps between actual values as measured and as calibrated to feed models. Just, I am not too comfortable with such. Then, there are many issues on proxies. A little humility about limitations would go a long way. And, a little less of speaking with disregard to duties of care to truth and prudence in light of uncertainties would help also.* There is a physical atmosphere warming effect, and it has water vapour (very variable component) as a big contributor with CO2 as a much smaller part, net effect ratio is what, 100:1 or so maybe, IIRC. The real issue is on feedback trends between components, circumstances and drivers, which are not well understood. I also have long taken note that the PATTERN of warming in the models does not fit well with the observed atmosphere structure patterns. A bit of a caution that we don't understand as deeply as we -- especially the somewhat educated, media and classroom conventional wisdom influenced public -- too often imagine. In the '70's, in the '90's and now. After 9/11 there was a hiatus as we went back to WW 0 since the 700's, but there has been an attempt to backburner that. Looks like the Iranians and Israelis will have something to say about that within a few years. So, we don't know enough about things more than we are willing to face, too often. And so, caution would help on a lot of topics. Including, of course imagining we know ever so much about the unobserved deep past of origins and about the creative powers of forces and factors never shown on actual observation to create FSCO/I. (But then when things calm down a bit I have to get around to getting some folks to be willing to actually face the simple reality that it exists; not to mention its routine cause.) There is enough evidence that there was a cooling perception in the '70's, which was definitely widely reported and taken for granted. Since then the big push has been warming and the argument we dunit. And remedies have been proposed that put a lot of concentrated power in hands we would be well advised to take second thoughts about. Likewise, on impacts on economies due to energy-economy links painfully evident from the '70's oil price hikes to the '08/09 surge on. And, it's the oil, stupid . . . I won't say much on nuke power panics, save that I think we need to take a serious 2nd look. Including on Thorium and pebble bed reactors. These make reasonable sense from multiple angles. As does continued investigation into fusion. If algae oil or the like biofuel can be made to work, that too would have significant positive impact. (I don't particularly like the geopolitics of oil.) From my angle, whoever it was said that measures taken to address climate concerns should be separately valid has a point. If we get energy right, a lot can be done and we can move towards Sol system colonisation. But, the point the there was a widespread perception of cooling in the 70's and some familiar sounding remedies and power concentrations put forth as ways forward, is clearly valid. Let's face it. KF * PS: A key definition of lying is to speak with disregard to truth, in hope that one will profit from what is said or suggested being taken as true. In cases where there is a significant uncertainty, the duty of truth and prudence is to acknowledge that uncertainty. Something, that has been all too often missing on too many topics.kairosfocus_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

At present my comment in 25 says
In the mean time, Barry repeatedly claimed there has been so statistically significant warming for the last 18 ( or sometimes 17) years. He has acknowledged this error.
I'm almost certain that I wrote
In the mean time, Barry repeatedly claimed there has been so statistically significant warming for the last 18 ( or sometimes 17) years. This is simply not true. He has not acknowledged this error."
It's possible my brain got ahead of my fingers and a missed the middle sentence then mucked up the last one. Whether my commented was edited or I mucked it up, I don't think Barry has admitted this error and I hope what I intended to say is now clear.wd400_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply