Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[wyly]

I imagine if he were pushing for 'global cooling', we would have evidence and would have heard of it by now.

considering his public reputation if this were true it would have surfaced long ago...in the 70's Suzuki was busy with genetics, climate advocacy wasn't part of his agenda...

[wyly]

I'm with you on this one! Wyly has just 100% contradicted my own personal experience from living through those years and also having always been a science buff!

I don't doubt your perception of it wildbill it just wasn't reality...at the time a cooling planet was the public and media perception not the scientific communities view, warming was....

[RNG]

The 'Ice Age' scare is one of the weakest planks that extreme skeptics, read deniers, have in their arguments... it's been disproven time and time again...

Yes it has been, but that it was a concern, at least in the public's eye during the '70's is a fact.

From: http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=a94b56a5-5df2-4982-ba0b-7724efb31338&p=2

t turns out that there were a number of articles in newspapers and popular magazines that alluded to the possibility of an impending ice age if the cooling trend since the 1940s continued.

For example, the Globe and Mail ran a story on Dec. 10, 1974, titled "Does man trigger trouble in the world's climate cycle?", which stated that an ice age was one possible outcome of continued cooling. Time magazine was also a main proponent of the theory with its article "Another Ice Age?" published on June 24, 1974. These, by and large, occurred several years after the article by Rasool and Schneider was published.

Obviously at the time there were a few scientists who held the opinion that the observed increase in human-produced aerosols was of sufficient concern to warrant action to mitigate against potential sustained cooling. The opinions of an outspoken few would have been received eagerly by a popular press looking for headline-grabbing stories to capture their readers' interest. Nevertheless, these opinions did not count as valid scientific analyses and so did not make it into the scientific literature.

[waldo]

Yes it has been, but that it was a concern, at least in the public's eye during the '70's is a fact.

other than your desire to foster, to help perpetuate the 70's global cooling myth... what's your point... what's your end game in continuing to beat the drum for global cooling? Oh... right? Carry on.

[RNG]

other than your desire to foster, to help perpetuate the 70's global cooling myth... what's your point... what's your end game in continuing to beat the drum for global cooling? Oh... right? Carry on.

I'm not beating the drum for global cooling, I'm using this and the mandating of lean-burn car engines in the '70's as an indication that current thinking can be wrong, and premature over reaction can be harmful.

[Saipan]

I don't doubt your perception of it wildbill it just wasn't reality...at the time a cooling planet was the public and media perception not the scientific communities view, warming was....

Media panic just like today?

So where is either the cooling or warming?

[Keepitsimple]

The 'Ice Age' scare is one of the weakest planks that extreme skeptics, read deniers, have in their arguments... it's been disproven time and time again...

You might want to peruse the articles I posted a short time ago.....as they say, if people don't learn from History, they are bound to repeat it:

http://www.masterres...care-revisited/

Or how about Leonard Nimoy's old program "In Search of".....here's his program on the coming Ice Age:

http://www.minnesota...e-in-1970s.html

Or how about this one - extracted articles from the New York Times - showing warming and cooling predictions over the last 150 years.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

[Michael Hardner]

Or how about Leonard Nimoy's old program "In Search of".....here's his program on the coming Ice Age:

http://www.minnesota...e-in-1970s.html

You can take your science from Spock or the NY Times (I imagine that you don't usually depend on that paper for much) but they're just pop culture artifacts, in the end.

[Keepitsimple]

You can take your science from Spock or the NY Times (I imagine that you don't usually depend on that paper for much) but they're just pop culture artifacts, in the end.

Just trying to re-enforce the fact that for several years back in the 70's, there in fact WAS a siginicant part of the scientific community (though perhaps not a majority - I really can't say) who genuinely believed that we were entering a long cooling cycle. I found the New York Times excerpts to actually be more interesting - going all the way back to 1850 - they show how "common" climate change used to be before it took on it's latest political manifestation. Although the New York Times may not be YOUR cup of tea today, there is no denying that they have been a significant newspaper throughout American history.

[Michael Hardner]

Although the New York Times may not be YOUR cup of tea today, there is no denying that they have been a significant newspaper throughout American history.

It's significant as a newspaper, but there wasn't anything significant in the way of publications or scientific support for the idea. Compare that to today when hundreds of paper on climate change are published, with consensus showing that warming is happening.

[waldo]

You might want to peruse the articles I posted a short time ago.....as they say, if people don't learn from History, they are bound to repeat it:

http://www.masterres...care-revisited/

Or how about Leonard Nimoy's old program "In Search of".....here's his program on the coming Ice Age:

http://www.minnesota...e-in-1970s.html

Or how about this one - extracted articles from the New York Times - showing warming and cooling predictions over the last 150 years.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

Simple... are you deef?

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...even in the 60's or 70's...public hysteria over a couple of magazine articles, even at that time a warming planet was the dominant view... but the idea of a warming planet wasn't very exciting or newsworthy to a scientifically illiterate media and public...

Been busy but here you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

wyly, yet again? We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling:

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

[Saipan]

But we patiently wait for the global warm up and - nothing

[Keepitsimple]

It's significant as a newspaper, but there wasn't anything significant in the way of publications or scientific support for the idea. Compare that to today when hundreds of paper on climate change are published, with consensus showing that warming is happening.

No denying that (mostly)....but surely we can sometimes stay above the fray and just find some articles to be interesting. That's what I found about the historical excerpts from the Times.

[TimG]

It's significant as a newspaper, but there wasn't anything significant in the way of publications or scientific support for the idea. Compare that to today when hundreds of paper on climate change are published, with consensus showing that warming is happening.

The number of papers on climate change today is entirely a result of governments who made it clear that they wished to fund that kind of research. A choice that was made because there were political agendas that would benefit from a belief that climate change was happening and it was caused by man. Nobody figured they could benefit politically from the cooling theory so there was no incentive to fund the research hence fewer papers. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

It's significant as a newspaper, but there wasn't anything significant in the way of publications or scientific support for the idea. Compare that to today when hundreds of paper on climate change are published, with consensus showing that warming is happening.

"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."

the media ran with the sexier story, why would anyone be afraid of warmer weather...who in Canada or northern USA wouldn't welcome warmer weather, another ice age, not so much...

Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

The number of papers on climate change today is entirely a result of governments who made it clear that they wished to fund that kind of research. A choice that was made because there were political agendas that would benefit from a belief that climate change was happening and it was caused by man.

just a hunch but I suspect the potential for an end of civilization scenario was a strong enough political agenda to fund research to investigate that possibility, it would be incredibly irresponsible for any government to ignore that potential...if a government is going to bring about drastic social and economic change it would like to be very sure that it's necessary...you wouldn't accept one or two peer reviewed papers sufficient for a change in direction so how can you question mountains of papers and data to confirm what climatologists believe is happening ...

Nobody figured they could benefit politically from the cooling theory so there was no incentive to fund the research hence fewer papers.

that's absurd the research isn't directional, data collection isn't directed at warming or cooling, the data determines the direction...a cooling planet is equally disasterous as warming the funding incentive would be the same... Edited October 1, 2010 by wyly

[Saipan]

consensus showing that warming is happening.

Where??

[samcin]

The scare mongers speak of climate change like it's a bad thing. Somehow we are supposed to control climate and stabilize it. Must we absolutely have control over everything? Climate change is a natural occurrence. It's been getting warmer since the last ice age, with some fluctuations, and the planet has survived thus far. The global warming issue (now conveniently termed climate change) has nothing to do with saving our planet and everything to do with carbon credits that fill the pockets of the elite. They create a crisis and then provide the solution; and the solution is always about taking your money. Yes, they found a way to tax the air we breathe by billing us for the CO2 we exhale. Everything green on this planet absorbs Co2 and the more of it in the environment the greener the planet. They have it backwards; CO2 does not cause warming but rather warming causes CO2 levels to temporarily increase. The planet will usually warm through increased solar activity which in turn increases the population of oxygen breathing species which in turn emit more CO2 which causes increased vegetation which absorbs the increased CO2 which provides us with more oxygen to breath. That’s the reality; but you can’t bring reality to the bank.

[wyly]

They have it backwards; CO2 does not cause warming but rather warming causes CO2 levels to temporarily increase.

your hypothesis has more than a few holes in it....CO2 can follow temp or it can drive temp, go talk to any chemist (just not RNG)...

The planet will usually warm through increased solar activity which in turn increases the population of oxygen breathing species which in turn emit more CO2 which causes increased vegetation which absorbs the increased CO2 which provides us with more oxygen to breath. That’s the reality; but you can’t bring reality to the bank.

there has been no significant increase in solar activity for some time about 30 years, but still the temp and CO2 goes up...in a typical planetary warming an increase in CO2 comes after an initial warming but there is on average an 800 year delay...unlike today where CO2 is rising before temps...

I'm guessing you finished high school in 1950-55?

[Saipan]

there has been no significant increase in solar activity for some time about 30 years, but still the temp and CO2 goes up...

Where does the temperature go up?

[jbg]

Remember the crisis we were warned about in the mid 70s. The sky was also falling in 1975. The scenario then is slightly different than the doomsday scenario we presently have to stomach.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Ah yes, the fear of the day. The right reaction is to ........... panic.

[jbg]

Remember the crisis we were warned about in the mid 70s. The sky was also falling in 1975. The scenario then is slightly different than the doomsday scenario we presently have to stomach.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

I especially love this quote from the article you linked:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Notice the role for "planners" on both the "cooling" and "warming" go-round? These "planners" are probably brighter than us, maybe all-knowing. </sarcasm>

Edited October 1, 2010 by jbg

[jbg]

Wyly, which time were you right?

:lol: ad hominem attacks always the method of those who are scientifically clueless...

OR

you best find a thread where knowledge is optional you're out of your depth here...

[jbg]

The 'Ice Age' scare is one of the weakest planks that extreme skeptics, read deniers, have in their arguments... it's been disproven time and time again...

The only trouble is I personally remember being fed that scare in high school during the early-to-mid 1970's.

[jbg]

The scare mongers speak of climate change like it's a bad thing. Somehow we are supposed to control climate and stabilize it. Must we absolutely have control over everything? Climate change is a natural occurrence. It's been getting warmer since the last ice age, with some fluctuations, and the planet has survived thus far.

Finally another dose of sanity.