The Reality of the 1970's Global Cooling Consensus

[Jack Hays]

Much like disappearing images of Trotsky in Soviet photos, there has been a concerted effort to airbrush the 1970's global cooling consensus out of climate science history. It didn't work.

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth

By Angus McFarlane, There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headinginto a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Introduction Whether or not there was…

. . . In their 2008 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “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.”This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. . . . .
Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08. . . .
Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.
It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. . . . .
It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling. . . .
If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.
References-Global Cooling Consensus.xlsx

 

[Hawkeye10]

Much like disappearing images of Trotsky in Soviet photos, there has been a concerted effort to airbrush the 1970's global cooling consensus out of climate science history. It didn't work.

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth

[FONT=&]By Angus McFarlane, There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headinginto a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Introduction Whether or not there was…

[/FONT][FONT=&]. . . In their 2008 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “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.”This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. . . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08. . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. . . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.[/FONT]
References-Global Cooling Consensus.xlsx
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

And the scientists are like the journalists and the politicians scratching their balls trying to figure out why they are held in such disrepute.

Hopefully we will be there soon with the failed educators who have betrayed us by turning our education systems and universities into indoctrination centers.

 

[Surface Detail]

It's just another pile of illiterate WUWT fückwittery. Take, for example:

"The Sagan et al. (1979) paper is classified as “Neutral” in PCF-08 but the paper states that, “Observations show that since 1940 the global mean temperature has declined by -0.2 K…Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1 K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels.” [Emphasis added]. Therefore, this paper is re-classified as cooling in this review (conforming to the KR-16 classification)."

It is quite obvious to anyone with a basic comprehension of English that the Sagan et al. (1979) paper is not claiming that the Earth will cool. It is clear that Sagan is saying that the Earth would cool if changes in land use were the only effect, but he states quite plainly that this only partially compensates for the increase in temperature due to greenhouse effect. If anything, he is therefore actually predicting overall warming!

 

[Quaestio]

It's just another pile of illiterate WUWT fückwittery. Take, for example:

"The Sagan et al. (1979) paper is classified as “Neutral” in PCF-08 but the paper states that, “Observations show that since 1940 the global mean temperature has declined by -0.2 K…Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1 K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels.” [Emphasis added]. Therefore, this paper is re-classified as cooling in this review (conforming to the KR-16 classification)."

It is quite obvious to anyone with a basic comprehension of English that the Sagan et al. (1979) paper is not claiming that the Earth will cool. It is clear that Sagan is saying that the Earth would cool if changes in land use were the only effect, but he states quite plainly that this only partially compensates for the increase in temperature due to greenhouse effect. He is therefore actually predicting overall warming!

Not this recycled rubbish false claim again?

I remember a thread a few years ago where someone posted a blog post referring to the NoTrickZone climate truther whack-job blog about this same list of supposed papers that 'predicted cooling'. Upon actually reading the papers to check if the claim was true (something climate truthers rarely do), most of them didn't actually 'predict cooling' at at. Just the NoTricksZone truther blog up to it's usual dishonest tricks. And WUWT pseudoscience conspiracy blog parroting the same dishonest "fückwittery" as usual.

 

[Steve Case]

Much like disappearing images of Trotsky in Soviet photos, there has been a concerted effort
to airbrush the 1970's global cooling consensus out of climate science history. It didn't work.
...

People much younger than 60 don't have have the real memory of "Global Cooling" when we
all croak it will have never happened.

If you control the language, you control the argument
If you control the argument, you control information
If you control information, you control history
If you control history, you control the past
He who controls the past controls the future.” – Big Brother, 1984​

 

[Jack Hays]

Take, for example:

"The Sagan et al. (1979) paper is classified as “Neutral” in PCF-08 but the paper states that, “Observations show that since 1940 the global mean temperature has declined by -0.2 K…Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1 K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels.” [Emphasis added]. Therefore, this paper is re-classified as cooling in this review (conforming to the KR-16 classification)."

It is quite obvious to anyone with a basic comprehension of English that the Sagan et al. (1979) paper is not claiming that the Earth will cool. It is clear that Sagan is saying that the Earth would cool if changes in land use were the only effect, but he states quite plainly that this only partially compensates for the increase in temperature due to greenhouse effect. If anything, he is therefore actually predicting overall warming!

That's what you wish it said, but wishing doesn't make it so.

 

[Quaestio]

Not this recycled rubbish false claim again?

I remember a thread a few years ago where someone posted a blog post referring to the NoTrickZone climate truther whack-job blog about this same list of supposed papers that 'predicted cooling'. Upon actually reading the papers to check if the claim was true (something climate truthers rarely do), most of them didn't actually 'predict cooling' at at. Just the NoTricksZone truther blog up to it's usual dishonest tricks. And WUWT pseudoscience conspiracy blog parroting the same dishonest "fückwittery" as usual.

Here's Jack's thread from 2 years ago with the same nonsense claims. Check out where real skeptics actually started reading the NoTrickzone list and found surprise surprise- almost none of the papers 'predicted future cooling'. Some just discussed past or current cooling. There was no "consensus" on future cooling in the 1970s/ Just a small number of scientists who were concerned that man-made aerosols/pollution/nuclear winter could cause cooling.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...al-cooling-science-1970s.html?highlight=1970s

Here's my post where I started reading the papers starting at the end of the list:

You read a claim on a climate truther conspiracy blog: "What follows is a list of over 285 papers published during the 1960s, 70s and 80s showing there was a near consensus of an imminent global cooling", 'opened a couple' and are totally convinced the 'number is real!'.

Try actually reading ALL those papers - especially starting with the papers at the end of the list and working backwards. I'm up to the 20th 'paper' working from the other end of the list (there are now 307 on the list) and so far NONE of them are saying that there will be "imminent global cooling"

Your unscientific approach, extreme confirmation bias, and laziness leads you to being fooled very easily into un-sceptically believing whatever claims you read on climate truther conspiracy blogs.

This is typical of how myths, conspiracies, and pseudoscience claims by climate truthers get spread around the internet.

There are also plenty of posts from other people who started reading random papers on the list and found they weren't about predictions of future cooling at all.

Just more rehashed blog post dishonesty copied and pasted by Jack from his favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's Jack's thread from 2 years ago with the same nonsense claims. Check out where real skeptics actually started reading the NoTrickzone list and found surprise surprise- almost none of the papers 'predicted future cooling'. Some just discussed past or current cooling. There was no "consensus" on future cooling in the 1970s/ Just a small number of scientists who were concerned that man-made aerosols/pollution/nuclear winter could cause cooling.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...al-cooling-science-1970s.html?highlight=1970s

Here's my post where I started reading the papers starting at the end of the list:


There are also plenty of posts from other people who started reading random papers on the list and found they weren't about predictions of future cooling at all.

Just more rehashed blog post dishonesty copied and pasted by Jack from his favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.

From the OP link:

[FONT=&quot]It should be noted that KR-16 states that there were over 285 cooling papers. However, many of these papers were deleted from the current review as not being relevant. For example, several papers were either outside the 1965-1979 reference period or they emphasise the minor role of CO2 but do not consider climate trends.[/FONT]

 

[Quaestio]

Jack's thread from 2 years ago was good fun to read again. Both he and Lord of Planar got their gullible conspiracy asses handed to them on a plate....over and over again.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack's thread from 2 years ago was good fun to read again. Both he and Lord of Planar got their gullible conspiracy asses handed to them on a plate....over and over again.

You have a rich fantasy life.

 

[Quaestio]

From the OP link:

[FONT="]It should be noted that KR-16 states that there were over 285 cooling papers. However, many of these papers were deleted from the current review as not being relevant. For example, several papers were either outside the 1965-1979 reference period or they emphasise the minor role of CO2 but do not consider climate trends.[/FONT]

Actually most of that list of papers on the NoTrickZone blog post were not 'relevant' because they did NOT support the dishonest blog claim that there was a "consensus" in the 1970's about "imminent global cooling". Just more copied and pasted lies from Jack.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually most of that list of papers on the NoTrickZone blog post were not 'relevant' because they did NOT support the dishonest blog claim that there was a "consensus" in the 1970's about "imminent global cooling". Just more copied and pasted lies from Jack.

In the manner of Donald Trump, claims without evidence.

 

[Quaestio]

You have a rich fantasy life.

It's kind of sad that so much of your life is spent mindlessly copying and pasting blog posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs. Ever thought of another hobby that would at least be productive? Maybe basket weaving?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Much like disappearing images of Trotsky in Soviet photos, there has been a concerted effort to airbrush the 1970's global cooling consensus out of climate science history. It didn't work.

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth

[FONT=&]By Angus McFarlane, There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headinginto a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Introduction Whether or not there was…

[/FONT][FONT=&]. . . In their 2008 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “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.”This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. . . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08. . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. . . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.[/FONT]
References-Global Cooling Consensus.xlsx
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

What is this supposed to prove? That there was a socialist conspiracy in the 60's and 70's exploiting global cooling or that you are just anti-science because you do not understand the progression of knowledge?

 

[Quaestio]

In the manner of Donald Trump, claims without evidence.

In the manner of Trump, you are projecting your own flaws on to others.

The evidence is that blog list of papers themselves. None of which you read.

 

[Jack Hays]

What is this supposed to prove? That there was a socialist conspiracy in the 60's and 70's exploiting global cooling or that you are just anti-science because you do not understand the progression of knowledge?

I doubt socialism had anything to do with it. The point is that claims of "consensus" today are no more impressive than they were then.

 

[Jack Hays]

In the manner of Trump, you are projecting your own flaws on to others.

The evidence is that blog list of papers themselves. None of which you read.

I present evidence, you deflect and deny.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I doubt socialism had anything to do with it. The point is that claims of "consensus" today are no more impressive than they were then.

That would be false equivalence though so you need to find an actual logical argument to get anywhere. To help you understand: You are that the consensus today in science about any a testable theory is invalid because a longtime ago the scientific consensus on that theory was incorrect. Or that the consensus in science on the model of the solar system is invalid because the consensus in science at onetime was entirely wrong. Its just really poor logic with a mile wide hole in it. Ive watched you attack climatology for a while now and I have to say that it just makes you look like a conspiracy theorist since every time you site lame ass information. If you want to be taken seriously and not just sound like a zealot, you should compile your own research (not just keep citing right wing propaganda). You know do some science for a change rather than just denouncing it. I get it you do not believe an field of science because of your political beliefs or whatever. But why should I listen to you? WHy should I toss out an entire field of science based on right wing propaganda alone? Is it because among climate denial zealots there is an consensus?

 

[Jack Hays]

That would be false equivalence though so you need to find an actual logical argument to get anywhere. To help you understand: You are that the consensus today in science about any a testable theory is invalid because a longtime ago the scientific consensus on that theory was incorrect. Or that the consensus in science on the model of the solar system is invalid because the consensus in science at onetime was entirely wrong. Its just really poor logic with a mile wide hole in it. Ive watched you attack climatology for a while now and I have to say that it just makes you look like a conspiracy theorist since every time you site lame ass information. If you want to be taken seriously and not just sound like a zealot, you should compile your own research (not just keep citing right wing propaganda). You know do some science for a change rather than just denouncing it. I get it you do not believe an field of science because of your political beliefs or whatever. But why should I listen to you? WHy should I toss out an entire field of science based on right wing propaganda alone? Is it because among climate denial zealots there is an consensus?

The scientists whose views I find persuasive are neither right wing nor propagandists. Indeed, to the extent their politics are known, they seem to be Euro-style Social Democrats. They publish peer-reviewed work in prestigious journals.

The "consensus" argument is an escape from science, not an affirmation of it. It is no more valid today than it was in 1970.

 

[Quaestio]

I present evidence, you deflect and deny.

Sure Jack.

So, if you don't want to try basket weaving as a hobby, how about trying lawn bowls? At least you would get some exercise instead of spending so much of your life mindlessly copying and pasting thousands upon thousands of blog posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.

 

[Jack Hays]

If not basket weaving as a hobby, how about trying lawn bowls? At least you wold get some exercise instead of spending so much of your life mindlessly copying and pasting blog posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Surface Detail]

That's what you wish it said, but wishing doesn't make it so.

Oh, come on, Jack. It's simple English comprehension!

If effect A partially compensates for effect B, which is the larger effect?

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, come on, Jack. It's simple English comprehension!

If effect A partially compensates for effect B, which is the larger effect?

". . . at least partially compensating . . ." very much leaves open the possibility of cancelling altogether.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The scientists whose views I find persuasive are neither right wing nor propagandists. Indeed, to the extent their politics are known, they seem to be Euro-style Social Democrats. They publish peer-reviewed work in prestigious journals.

The "consensus" argument is an escape from science, not an affirmation of it. It is no more valid today than it was in 1970.

It is ironic that you attack the concept of "consensus" while confirming those that you find persuasive as being "peer-reviewed work in prestigious journals". That mt\y friend is actually called "consensus".

It is also interesting though that the argument that you are making about "consensus" is also predominant Conservative propaganda. You may claim whatever you want about people that you find "persuasive" But that is merely your opinion and you seem to want to shift the "consensus" to what Conservatives have been drilling into their base for years now. That does not sound like science to me, it sounds like an an attempt to socially persuade a political opinion over the top of an entire field of science. Hence the OP's obvious attack on "consensus" rather than an hypothesis or even a proposition. You have made post after post where its always attacking climatology then posting links to some extremely biased site. Or using half truths and biased opinions, pretending that is science. I have not seen one poster that you convinced of anything on this subject. Its always other posters pointing out your logical mistakes or echo chamber conservative circle jerks. Sure there are dishonest climatologists and for many years the green party saw climate as an opportunity. That does not make the entirety of climatology bogus though or some liberal conspiracy.

Straight up I have problems with alarmist predictions that seem more like fear mongering than anything. The problem is that between political forces on both sides of the isle climatology is under attack. This is a bad thing. Logic though has stopped me from joining either side of the political debate over the climate. I go on what has been tested and proven. Not arguments that require me to have confirmation bias to go there. For me to accept your argument that a "consensus" is an escape from science requires me to ignore science and go with your ignorant understanding of the science community.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is ironic that you attack the concept of "consensus" while confirming those that you find persuasive as being "peer-reviewed work in prestigious journals". That mt\y friend is actually called "consensus".

It is also interesting though that the argument that you are making about "consensus" is also predominant Conservative propaganda. You may claim whatever you want about people that you find "persuasive" But that is merely your opinion and you seem to want to shift the "consensus" to what Conservatives have been drilling into their base for years now. That does not sound like science to me, it sounds like an an attempt to socially persuade a political opinion over the top of an entire field of science. Hence the OP's obvious attack on "consensus" rather than an hypothesis or even a proposition. You have made post after post where its always attacking climatology then posting links to some extremely biased site. Or using half truths and biased opinions, pretending that is science. I have not seen one poster that you convinced of anything on this subject. Its always other posters pointing out your logical mistakes or echo chamber conservative circle jerks. Sure there are dishonest climatologists and for many years the green party saw climate as an opportunity. That does not make the entirety of climatology bogus though or some liberal conspiracy.

Straight up I have problems with alarmist predictions that seem more like fear mongering than anything. The problem is that between political forces on both sides of the isle climatology is under attack. This is a bad thing. Logic though has stopped me from joining either side of the political debate over the climate. I go on what has been tested and proven. Not arguments that require me to have confirmation bias to go there. For me to accept your argument that a "consensus" is an escape from science requires me to ignore science and go with your ignorant understanding of the science community.

Peer review is not (or should not be) consensus. Done properly it is quality control. Done poorly it degenerates into consensus enforcement.
I don't seek consensus of any sort.
Climate science is not a conspiracy, but it is bedeviled by confirmation bias and a lack of rigor.