Dealing With The Global Warming Hoax

[PoliticalChic]

1. The basic concept is not new: government takes control of you and your property by convincing you that only they can save you from some crisis or other.
“We began this experiment in 1933 under the pressure of an internal economic crisis. We continue and extend it under the necessities of a war crisis....It is born in crisis, lives on crisis, and cannot survive the era of crisis. By the very law of its nature it must create for itself, if it is to continue, fresh crises from year to year. …And our future is all charted out upon the same turbulent road of permanent crisis.” John T. Flynn, "As We Go Marching," p. 256

Written in 1944


2. In the 1970s scientists proclaimed that we were in the midst of global freezing. Decades ago it became global warming. The Left/Democrats and their control of schools and the media made a sizeable portion of the electorate buy into the fear and the hoax. All sorts of regulations and mandates followed.



3. Finally, this administration called it a hoax and reversed the attempt to control our lives:

"Trump admin will soon propose to kill EPA’s ability to make rules about climate pollution, sources say"​

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/climate/epa-greenhouse-gas-endangerment

4. "The Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a proposal to reverse a landmark scientific finding that planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels endangers human health,....


5. "Known as the “endangerment finding,” the 2009 declaration has served as the basis for federal rules limiting greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, cars and trucks, and the oil and gas industry. The repeal, if successful, would take away the federal government’s main way to fight climate change."



About darn time!

 

[BlindBoo]

In the 1970s scientists proclaimed that we were in the midst of global freezing.

About 14% of scientist who wrote about the subject did. The other 86% predicted warming.

"But Earth was not cooling. An ice age was never imminent. And few scientists agreed with Bryson’s claims, although this hasn’t prevented climate change deniers from using these unfulfilled cooling forecasts to attack the legitimacy of climate scientists today. The new op-ed hire at The New York Times, Bret Stephens, perpetuated the idea on Fox News. “This is just the next stage of preposterous in the global warming story,” said Stephens. “In the 1970s we were supposed to believe in global cooling, in the 1980s it was a nuclear winter, in the 1990s it was mad cow disease. Global warming was the flavor of the decade – I can’t wait to see what the next scare is going to be.”

The Ice Age that never happened - Scienceline

Global cooling forecasts from the 1970s don’t discredit today’s climate science

scienceline.org

What Stephens gets wrong is that most scientists never predicted global cooling. “It’s a myth that scientists in the 1970s widely predicted global cooling,” says Sarah Greene, an environmental chemist at Michigan Tech University. She points to an exhaustive review of climate studies published between 1965 and 1979, which showed that 44 studies predicted global warming and just seven forecasted cooling.

Still, skeptics of modern climate research like Stephens continue to cite the illusory 1970s global cooling census, claiming that today’s researchers must be equally hoodwinked about warming trends. But the present climate consensus is real, and it’s founded upon dramatic advances in climate research, similar to technological leaps made in biomedicine and computing. Climate scientists understand things that we had no idea about 50 years ago, notably, that Earth’s oceans are the primary cause of cooling blips, like those in the 1970s. And perhaps more importantly, they know that Earth’s accumulating heat is hiding in the oceans."

 

[Old Rocks]

1. The basic concept is not new: government takes control of you and your property by convincing you that only they can save you from some crisis or other.
“We began this experiment in 1933 under the pressure of an internal economic crisis. We continue and extend it under the necessities of a war crisis....It is born in crisis, lives on crisis, and cannot survive the era of crisis. By the very law of its nature it must create for itself, if it is to continue, fresh crises from year to year. …And our future is all charted out upon the same turbulent road of permanent crisis.” John T. Flynn, "As We Go Marching," p. 256

Written in 1944


2. In the 1970s scientists proclaimed that we were in the midst of global freezing. Decades ago it became global warming. The Left/Democrats and their control of schools and the media made a sizeable portion of the electorate buy into the fear and the hoax. All sorts of regulations and mandates followed.



3. Finally, this administration called it a hoax and reversed the attempt to control our lives:

"Trump admin will soon propose to kill EPA’s ability to make rules about climate pollution, sources say"​

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/climate/epa-greenhouse-gas-endangerment

4. "The Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a proposal to reverse a landmark scientific finding that planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels endangers human health,....


5. "Known as the “endangerment finding,” the 2009 declaration has served as the basis for federal rules limiting greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, cars and trucks, and the oil and gas industry. The repeal, if successful, would take away the federal government’s main way to fight climate change."



About darn time!

Gotta love the ignorance of the politically driven announcements of denialists of the reality of what we are seeing today. Extreme weather events across the world, wildfires, floods, and extreme storms. And no, in the 1970's the scientists did not proclaim we were in the midst of global freezing. They did say that the aerosol pollution was cooling us at that time, but they predicted that the GHG's we were emitting would soon lead to a warming. We cleaned up the aerosols, and continued the unchecked emission of GHG's and sure enough, we got a very large increase in warming. An increase that is today accelerating.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have scientifically willfully ignorant people repeating the statements of the most ignorant President and administration in our history.

 

[Sunsettommy]

About 14% of scientist who wrote about the subject did. The other 86% predicted warming.

"But Earth was not cooling. An ice age was never imminent. And few scientists agreed with Bryson’s claims, although this hasn’t prevented climate change deniers from using these unfulfilled cooling forecasts to attack the legitimacy of climate scientists today. The new op-ed hire at The New York Times, Bret Stephens, perpetuated the idea on Fox News. “This is just the next stage of preposterous in the global warming story,” said Stephens. “In the 1970s we were supposed to believe in global cooling, in the 1980s it was a nuclear winter, in the 1990s it was mad cow disease. Global warming was the flavor of the decade – I can’t wait to see what the next scare is going to be.”

The Ice Age that never happened - Scienceline

Global cooling forecasts from the 1970s don’t discredit today’s climate science

scienceline.org

What Stephens gets wrong is that most scientists never predicted global cooling. “It’s a myth that scientists in the 1970s widely predicted global cooling,” says Sarah Greene, an environmental chemist at Michigan Tech University. She points to an exhaustive review of climate studies published between 1965 and 1979, which showed that 44 studies predicted global warming and just seven forecasted cooling.

Still, skeptics of modern climate research like Stephens continue to cite the illusory 1970s global cooling census, claiming that today’s researchers must be equally hoodwinked about warming trends. But the present climate consensus is real, and it’s founded upon dramatic advances in climate research, similar to technological leaps made in biomedicine and computing. Climate scientists understand things that we had no idea about 50 years ago, notably, that Earth’s oceans are the primary cause of cooling blips, like those in the 1970s. And perhaps more importantly, they know that Earth’s accumulating heat is hiding in the oceans."

From your article:

What Stephens gets wrong is that most scientists never predicted global cooling. “It’s a myth that scientists in the 1970s widely predicted global cooling,” says Sarah Greene, an environmental chemist at Michigan Tech University. She points to an exhaustive review of climate studies published between 1965 and 1979, which showed that 44 studies predicted global warming and just seven forecasted cooling.

She and others sure missed a lot of published papers that were well over 200 that talked about the cooling being real heck I think they were flat out LYING!

Here is a much bigger list of 285 cooling papers they amazingly failed to see, first the background to this part 1 post LINK:

EXCERPT, then a big list of published papers follows Part 2 LINK, Part 3 LINK is a continuation of the list of published cooling papers.

===

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.

Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.

A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.“

After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a “consensus” manifesto in 2008 that claimed to expose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened.

Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.

The Concoction Of ‘Consensus’ Achieved Via Exclusion​

The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:

“[T]he following pervasive myth arose [among skeptics]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. … During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. … There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

William Connolley and colleagues claimed that the determination of scientific “consensus” regarding global cooling and the influence of CO2 on climate during the 1970s could be divined by counting scientific publications that fell into arbitrarily-defined categories which allowed them to intentionally exclude hundreds of papers that would undermine the alleged myth-slaying purpose of the paper.

The PCF08 authors decided that when “quantifying the consensus” (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a “cooling” paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a “full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-’79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn’t a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms … were not considered worthy of classification as a “cooling” paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed “consensus” that said the current (1960s-’70s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.

Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was “imminent”. It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes.

By tendentiously excluding 1960s and 1970s publications that documented global cooling had been ongoing and a concern, as well as purposely excluding papers that suggested the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing is weak or questionable relative to other mechanisms, the authors could brazenly claim that there were only 7 papers published in the scientific literature between 1965 and 1979 that disagreed with the “consensus” opinion that global warming would occur at some point in the future (due to CO2 increases). According to PCF08, there were 44 papers that fell into the latter warming-is-imminent-due-to-CO2 category from 1965-’79, ostensibly entitling them to claim that dangerous anthropogenic global warming projections “dominated” the scientific literature even then.

An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s​

As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-’70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a “cooling” paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.

But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-’79 that endorsed the position that the Earth’s climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific “consensus” by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation), the 220 “cooling” papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).

The 1970s Global Cooling Scare Was Not Mythological​

In reviewing the available scientific literature from the 1960s-’80s, it is plainly evident that there was a great deal of concern about the ongoing global cooling, which had amounted to -0.5°C in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.3°C globally between the 1940s and 1970s.

Of course, this inconvenient global-scale cooling of -0.3°C between the 1940s and 1970s has necessarily been almost completely removed from the instrumental record by NASA (GISS) and the MetOffice (HadCRUT). After all, the observations (of cooling) conflicted with climate modeling. Overseers of the surface temperature datasets (such as the MetOffice’s Phil Jones or NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) have recently adjusted the -0.3°C of cooling down to just hundredths of a degree of cooling. NASA GISS, for example, has reduced (via “adjustments”) the global cooling down to about -0.01°C between the 1940s and 1970s, as shown below. It is likely that, during the next few years of adjustments to past data, the mid-20th century global cooling period will disappear altogether and mutate into a warming period.

LINK

 

[PoliticalChic]

About 14% of scientist who wrote about the subject did. The other 86% predicted warming.

"But Earth was not cooling. An ice age was never imminent. And few scientists agreed with Bryson’s claims, although this hasn’t prevented climate change deniers from using these unfulfilled cooling forecasts to attack the legitimacy of climate scientists today. The new op-ed hire at The New York Times, Bret Stephens, perpetuated the idea on Fox News. “This is just the next stage of preposterous in the global warming story,” said Stephens. “In the 1970s we were supposed to believe in global cooling, in the 1980s it was a nuclear winter, in the 1990s it was mad cow disease. Global warming was the flavor of the decade – I can’t wait to see what the next scare is going to be.”

The Ice Age that never happened - Scienceline

Global cooling forecasts from the 1970s don’t discredit today’s climate science

scienceline.org

What Stephens gets wrong is that most scientists never predicted global cooling. “It’s a myth that scientists in the 1970s widely predicted global cooling,” says Sarah Greene, an environmental chemist at Michigan Tech University. She points to an exhaustive review of climate studies published between 1965 and 1979, which showed that 44 studies predicted global warming and just seven forecasted cooling.

Still, skeptics of modern climate research like Stephens continue to cite the illusory 1970s global cooling census, claiming that today’s researchers must be equally hoodwinked about warming trends. But the present climate consensus is real, and it’s founded upon dramatic advances in climate research, similar to technological leaps made in biomedicine and computing. Climate scientists understand things that we had no idea about 50 years ago, notably, that Earth’s oceans are the primary cause of cooling blips, like those in the 1970s. And perhaps more importantly, they know that Earth’s accumulating heat is hiding in the oceans."

No puzzle about you clinging to the hoaxes your masters have fed you......you never were the brightest.



For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Mark Simone

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gotta love the ignorance of the politically driven announcements of denialists of the reality of what we are seeing today. Extreme weather events across the world, wildfires, floods, and extreme storms. And no, in the 1970's the scientists did not proclaim we were in the midst of global freezing. They did say that the aerosol pollution was cooling us at that time, but they predicted that the GHG's we were emitting would soon lead to a warming. We cleaned up the aerosols, and continued the unchecked emission of GHG's and sure enough, we got a very large increase in warming. An increase that is today accelerating.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have scientifically willfully ignorant people repeating the statements of the most ignorant President and administration in our history.

Another maroon chimes in........still swallowing the Kool-Aid




"... an article by award-winning climate activist Michael Shellenberger, in which he apologizes "for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years."


Authored by Michael Shellenberger via Environmental Progress (emphasis ours)

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare


On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
• The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
• The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
• The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
• Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
• Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
• We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
• Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism"

​

Forbes Censors Award-Winning Environmentalist's Apology Over Three-Decade 'Climate Scare' - So Here It Is

"We environmentalists have misled the public."

www.zerohedge.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

From your article:



She and others sure missed a lot of published papers that were well over 200 that talked about the cooling being real heck I think they were flat out LYING!

Here is a much bigger list of 285 cooling papers they amazingly failed to see, first the background to this part 1 post LINK:

EXCERPT, then a big list of published papers follows Part 2 LINK, Part 3 LINK is a continuation of the list of published cooling papers.

===

View attachment 1140420

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.

Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.

A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.


After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a “consensus” manifesto in 2008 that claimed to expose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened.

Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.

The Concoction Of ‘Consensus’ Achieved Via Exclusion​

The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:


William Connolley and colleagues claimed that the determination of scientific “consensus” regarding global cooling and the influence of CO2 on climate during the 1970s could be divined by counting scientific publications that fell into arbitrarily-defined categories which allowed them to intentionally exclude hundreds of papers that would undermine the alleged myth-slaying purpose of the paper.

The PCF08 authors decided that when “quantifying the consensus” (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a “cooling” paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a “full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-’79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn’t a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms … were not considered worthy of classification as a “cooling” paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed “consensus” that said the current (1960s-’70s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.

Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was “imminent”. It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes.

By tendentiously excluding 1960s and 1970s publications that documented global cooling had been ongoing and a concern, as well as purposely excluding papers that suggested the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing is weak or questionable relative to other mechanisms, the authors could brazenly claim that there were only 7 papers published in the scientific literature between 1965 and 1979 that disagreed with the “consensus” opinion that global warming would occur at some point in the future (due to CO2 increases). According to PCF08, there were 44 papers that fell into the latter warming-is-imminent-due-to-CO2 category from 1965-’79, ostensibly entitling them to claim that dangerous anthropogenic global warming projections “dominated” the scientific literature even then.

An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s​

As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-’70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a “cooling” paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.

But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-’79 that endorsed the position that the Earth’s climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific “consensus” by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation), the 220 “cooling” papers published between 1965-’79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).

The 1970s Global Cooling Scare Was Not Mythological​

In reviewing the available scientific literature from the 1960s-’80s, it is plainly evident that there was a great deal of concern about the ongoing global cooling, which had amounted to -0.5°C in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.3°C globally between the 1940s and 1970s.

Of course, this inconvenient global-scale cooling of -0.3°C between the 1940s and 1970s has necessarily been almost completely removed from the instrumental record by NASA (GISS) and the MetOffice (HadCRUT). After all, the observations (of cooling) conflicted with climate modeling. Overseers of the surface temperature datasets (such as the MetOffice’s Phil Jones or NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) have recently adjusted the -0.3°C of cooling down to just hundredths of a degree of cooling. NASA GISS, for example, has reduced (via “adjustments”) the global cooling down to about -0.01°C between the 1940s and 1970s, as shown below. It is likely that, during the next few years of adjustments to past data, the mid-20th century global cooling period will disappear altogether and mutate into a warming period.

LINK

The gullibility is terminal with those sort.

 

[BlindBoo]

In reviewing the available scientific literature from the 1960s-’80s, it is plainly evident that there was a great deal of concern about the ongoing global cooling, which had amounted to -0.5°C in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.3°C globally between the 1940s and 1970s.

Of course, this inconvenient global-scale cooling of -0.3°C between the 1940s and 1970s has necessarily been almost completely removed from the instrumental record by NASA (GISS) and the MetOffice (HadCRUT). After all, the observations (of cooling) conflicted with climate modeling. Overseers of the surface temperature datasets (such as the MetOffice’s Phil Jones or NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) have recently adjusted the -0.3°C of cooling down to just hundredths of a degree of cooling.

Global Temperature - Earth Indicator - NASA Science

An annual analysis of air and sea surface temperatures tracks changes to the Earth's average global temperature.

climate.nasa.gov

Time and Newsweek sold many copies of their pulp based on that myth. Fact is we are still in the middle of an Ice Age.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No puzzle about you clinging to the hoaxes your masters have fed you......you never were the brightest.



For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Mark Simone

Here is another running of 12 pages of well supported sources active list of prediction failures coming from warmest/Alarmists fools that were stupid and utter failures.

Failed Prediction Timeline​

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

Global Temperature - Earth Indicator - NASA Science

An annual analysis of air and sea surface temperatures tracks changes to the Earth's average global temperature.

climate.nasa.gov

Time and Newsweek sold many copies of their pulp based on that myth. Fact is we are still in the middle of an Ice Age.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is why I laugh at you because you replied to a long list of cooling papers that were published in the 1960's and 1970's thus you made a fool of yourself in your utter failure thus my post remains unchallenged.

I never said anything about us being in a glaciation world and never disputed that it is a warming world now.

You need slow down and take your time reading.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Didn't you figure out they were just pullin' your chain when you saw this??????????

June 07, 2024 12:00 AM​

Only 8 EV charging stations operating under $5 billion U.S. program The federal government committed billions of dollars to a program that would help states create a network of charging stations in 50-mile intervals along interstates. More than two years later, only eight stations are open." Only 8 EV charging stations operating under $5 billion U.S. program www.autonews.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

katiecouric

22h
The EPA has drafted a proposal that would reverse a 2009 decision that established that greenhouse gas pollution endangers human lives.

The decision, known as the “endangerment finding”, is the “federal government’s only tool to limit the climate pollution from vehicles, power plants and other industries that is dangerously heating the planet”, according to the New York Times.

A 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, ruled that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse emissions and led to the “engagement finding” by the agency.

 

[Oddball]

Gotta love the ignorance of the politically driven announcements of denialists of the reality of what we are seeing today. Extreme weather events across the world, wildfires, floods, and extreme storms. And no, in the 1970's the scientists did not proclaim we were in the midst of global freezing. They did say that the aerosol pollution was cooling us at that time, but they predicted that the GHG's we were emitting would soon lead to a warming. We cleaned up the aerosols, and continued the unchecked emission of GHG's and sure enough, we got a very large increase in warming. An increase that is today accelerating.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have scientifically willfully ignorant people repeating the statements of the most ignorant President and administration in our history.

 

[EMH]

continuing with the OP


6. when W, the worst traitor in US history, appointed left wing Zionist Fascist Chuck Schumer pal Mikey Mukasey as AG in 2007, the FBI fraud prosecution of CO2 FRAUD got flushed... another great example of the OP's "conservative" "hero" in action...

7. then it was homO's turn...

Thread 'The credibility of Barack - and hence Kamala and the Democrats : issue Climate Change'

Sep 1, 2024

Barack is clearly a big fan of the Co2 FRAUD.

Prior to 2010 Barack said Climate Change is the greatest threat. Then there was two years of silence...

obama climate silence 2010 2012 - Google Search

The Silence of US President Obama on Climate Change-A Serious Ethical Lapse?

Editor’s note on the following entry. On the very day that the following entry was posted, President Obama mentioned climate change for the first time in a long time in a speech at the Unive…

ethicsandclimate.org

Then in 2012 once again Climate Change was the greatest threat according to...

• EMH
• Replies: 157
• Forum: Politics

• 

 

[ChemEngineer]