Is that the best you can do? Repeating that old lie again? Shows that you are a really fucking dumb individual.
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Well, I remember the 70s and that we were being told we were headed into an ice age, no self serving link changes what we remember, kid.
But I like how you insult my intelligence and then completely fail to grasp the point on polling people who don't believe in polls, they believe in the scientific method. Speaking of which empirical data has your lack of intelligence finger pointing in the wrong direction.
First, you remember Newsweek and Time articles, not what the scientists of that time were stating. As far as your faith in the scientific method goes, you fail to convince me of that when you quote non-scientists over scientists on a scientific subject. But back to the seventies;
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 - GLOBAL COOLING! - Digg
In 1975 the National Academy of Science (NAS) applied for funds to ‘Establish a national climatic research program’.Some journalist went to town to try and convince readers this was important stuff. The NY Times 1975: Same story as Newsweek’s ‘Cooling world’. NYT says its HEATINGScroll down to where it has the subtitle ‘Effect of Heat Waste’.The NYT notes concern over CO2 levels and fears that production of energy 'heat waste' will generate so much heat as to have a major climate impact<a class="user" href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf">
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf</a>The Newsweek article was written by staff writer: Peter Gwynne.Not written a climatologist. Nor is its conclusion – Global Cooling - based on a scientific paper published in a scientific journal.
My guess it was a case of staff writer trying to fill a couple of pages in a quiet week for news and trying to make a dull paper requesting funding for climate research interesting. Possibly he thought he was doing the scientists a favour and helping ‘nudge’ the politicians towards supporting them. Who knows?He attempts to build a case out of very little, taking information from where he can to build a case. And with very few references to sources. And given climate is measured as trends and conditions over periods typically of 30 years some of his examples wouldn't even be considered by serious climatologist. eg one year's winter snowfall.He doesn't even have a direct quote from one of the meteorologists and scientists he refers to in general terms.He selectively quotes from the NAS report, which in fact wasn’t predicting a ‘cooling’ but rather recommending the establishment of a National climatic research program. In that context statements such as ‘A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale.’ are just making a case why funding should be considered for such a programme. Not predicting global disaster.
The NAS’s reports chapter 2, was a "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations": 1) Establish National climatic research program 2) Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man 3) Develop Climatic index monitoring program 4) Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs (GCM = Global Climate Model)5) Adoption and development of International climatic research program 6) Development of International Palaeoclimatic data networkSo the NAS report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research and the development of climatic modelling. Very different from how the author misuses the NAS report to bolster his somewhat thin case.So where did the notion of cooling come from?The 1970’s were an exciting time in the study of the ice ages and the realisation that there was arose and receded in cycles.‘The most impressive analysis remained the pioneering work of Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton. They could even split the 20,000 year cycle into a close pair of cycles with lengths of 19,000 and 23,000 years - exactly what the best new astronomical calculations predicted. By the late 1970s, most scientists were convinced that orbital variations acted as a ‘pacemaker’ to set the timing of ice ages.’ <a class="user"
Yep, I do get irate that the repition of that old saw. No, the scientists were not predicting an immediate ice age in the '70's. In fact, I read the NAS paper in the same year it was published. Now if a blue collar worker, a millwright, manages to do that, where have you been?
