No Ice Age in the 1970s
Spend five minutes with a global warming denier, and you will inevitably hear about how the scientific community was predicting an ice back back in the 1970s. As with so much else on that side of the debate, it simply isn’t true. Eduardo Penalver links to a study showing that there was in fact no such scientific consensus in the 1970s. Myth, meet fact:
“The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.”
Comments are closed.
What a surprise. There is no consensus today either.
I’ve seen talk (I don’t remember where) that there is still the possibility that an Ice Age is coming, and should be coming, but is being disrupted by Global Warming. That one does not discount the other. And this analysis doesn’t suggest we should celebrate because of it (look, we solved the Ice Age), because if this is the case, it will cause even more horrendous weather patterns than if only one or the other were true.
But this data is still interesting. Speculation of some vs more scientific analysis of more recent times.
What a surprise. There is no consensus today either.
Hmm…44 predict warming, 7 predict cooling, 20 make no prediction. That’s 44-7 on positive answers, and 44-20-7 on the issue overall. That’s about as good as a “concensus” gets in modern science. Sometimes I think the skeptics think that unanimity is how scientific advances are made…right.
I’d say anyone who looks through the peer review stuff today would be swayed into admitting that a basic consensus is quite present. Unfortunately, the pundits on all sides of the issue obfuscate this concensus. Like I said, check the peer-reviewed stuff by chemists and climatologists.
Not only do I deny global warming; I must also deny the holocaust. I’m a bad person.
“Global-warming denier”, even if an accurate description, is a loaded term for the reasons Irenaeus alludes to.
“Global-warming skeptic” is better.
The more relevant comparison is the discussion of acid rain in the 1908′s and the right wing’s insistent denial first of its existence, then what to do about it, and then a nihilistic approach that denied there was anything to do about it without forcing a re-entry to the stone age. Finally, the dire predictions of the consequences to the economy should sulfur dioxide caps come into play.
Also, the right wing memos currently say its ok to accept global warming now, unlike two years ago when denial was part of the conservative profession of faith. However, one is not permitted to conclusively acknowledge humans contribute to the problems without nihilistic predictions about caps, reductions in emissions and once again the dire consequences to the economy should caps be put into place. And, in order not to be shot down immediately, one must seemingly be interested in the consequences to the poor should caps be put into play. These conservatively compassionate feelings are only permitted exercise in this discussion because the gift of the free market and the freedom to pollute at will feed the world.
“Also, the right wing memos currently say its ok to accept global warming now, unlike two years ago when denial was part of the conservative profession of faith. However, one is not permitted to conclusively acknowledge humans contribute to the problems without nihilistic predictions about caps, reductions in emissions and once again the dire consequences to the economy should caps be put into place. And, in order not to be shot down immediately, one must seemingly be interested in the consequences to the poor should caps be put into play. These conservatively compassionate feelings are only permitted exercise in this discussion because the gift of the free market and the freedom to pollute at will feed the world.”
I must have forgot my tinfoil… You friends with digbydolben?
According to the scientific consensus on the blogs, aerosols caused the global cooling in the 70′s. I also read the Volcanos caused global cooling. Therefore, We can save the planet by using aerosols and blowing up volcanoes? Yeah! I was wondering, how did those European peasants caused the Min-Ice Age from 1350 to 1850? Did those peasant manage to keep their cows from farting?