Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Quote of the day, academic extremism edition | Main | Greens running scared of debate »
Friday
Dec042015

More on the ice age scare

 

In Quadrant magazine, Tony Thomas has been doing some fascinating research on the 1970s ice age scare.

A great embarrassment to the warming-catastrophic community is that 40 years ago the climatology scare was about cooling and onset of an ice age. Warmists today go, “Pooh! That cooling stuff  then was just a few hyped-up articles in magazines. Cooling never got any traction in the real science community!”

Really? Then explain this away

Read the whole thing.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (89)

Playing a John Cook card
..ie Mis-state your oppositions proposition as one in the strongest terms* - STRAWMAN fallacy
- Then do a head count - POPULUM fallacy
- Do the headcount yourself - CONFIRMATION BIAS fallacy

If 50 papers say there's water on Mars, and 1 says not.
A few months later a landing probe is sitting in a water puddle on Mars, do we still say "ah but we have to go with the 50 papers that's a consensus" ?
* in this case : "skeptics said there was a consensus for catastrophic cooling"
@Phil you didn't answer my question about what the 70's consensus was
..but surely if Connolley made a count he must have had a definition ?

Dec 4, 2015 at 3:33 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Note that the bogeyman was the same back then, industrialization and social progress. They've even brought along the concept of attendant pollution, though it is not a necessary attendant. They've warped badly the meaning of the pollution, now, too.

Is the attack on progress deliberate? Perhaps our grandchildren will understand.
==============

Dec 4, 2015 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

@Phil Got any videos from the 1970's of scientists on TV pleading about global warming ?
- Was Connoley's 'literature review' article peer reviewed itself ?
- Has it been independently replicated ?

Dec 4, 2015 at 3:35 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Wow, you counted every article everywhere, did you? I'm beginning to think you are actually John "97%" Cook in disguise.

Of course not, but Peterson et al did this

we conducted a rigorous literature review
of the American Meteorological Society’s electronic
archives as well as those of Nature and the scholarly
journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). To capture
the relevant topics, we used global temperature, global
warming, and global cooling, as well as a variety of
other less directly relevant search terms. Additionally,
in order to make the survey more complete, even at
the expense of no longer being fully reproducible
by electronic search techniques, many references
mentioned in the papers located by these searches
were evaluated, as were references mentioned in
various history-of-science documents. Because the
time period attributed to the global cooling consenAMERICAN
METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY september 2008 | 1329
sus is typically described as the 1970s, the literature
search was limited to the period from 1965 through
1979. While no search can be 100% complete, this
methodology offers a reasonable test of the hypothesis
that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s
regarding the prospect of imminent global cooling.
Such a consensus would be easily shown by both the
presence of many articles describing global cooling
projections and the absence of articles projecting
global warming.

Recommended reading.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Dec 4, 2015 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Computer Adjusted Climate Science, or CACS, is the only way forward. Dismissing Inconvenient Truths as 'Anecdotal' has been deemed the best defence against inconvenient evidence, and this is all being standardised in Paris, behind closed doors, having been trialled for a year or so on blogs like this.

Can anyone do a search on the use of the word 'anecdotal' in a dismissive context, by climate groupies? Has it risen in the last 6 months?

Dec 4, 2015 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phill Clarke Peer-reviewed articles 1965-1979
7 predicted cooling
44 predicted warming
20 neutral.

So only a total of 71 papers on climate in 15 years. Please tell us how you selected he population of journals to arrive at this sample? Does it include all the peer reviewed papers published in Russian, Chinese, Japanese, German, Polish and Spanish journals and if not why not?

Dec 4, 2015 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpectator

No it wasn't. My goodness, Andrew, you post some utter nonsense on your site.
Dec 4, 2015 at 1:03 PM | and Then There's Physics
==================================================================

Odd then that this youngster in the 70s remembers the scare loud and clear.

Dec 4, 2015 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

And here's one for Mr. Physics...

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/12/3/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-university.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12030100/A-refusal-to-think-freely-is-making-universities-increasingly-irrelevant.html

"As Allister Heath says in the Telegraph today, Universities are quickly making themselves irrelevant. The faculty is overwhelmingly socialist and openly hostile to conservatives, they forbid free speech, most of their work is never even read, let alone cited or used, and as readers here know, much of it is written with political ends in mind."

Well, hey, I guess even the MSM catch up with the rest of us. Universities are a retirement home for the completely unproductive. A sort of care in the community, I guess.

Dec 4, 2015 at 4:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

@Phil Got any videos from the 1970's of scientists on TV pleading about global warming ?

You win the battle of the TV documentaries. But see the BAMS paper for a list of the journal articles that warned of warming - which outnumbered those on cooling 6-1. Also a joint report for the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report entitled UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action summarised the state of climate science thus:

"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know"

But if you insist on example from the mainstream media,
here
is a National Geographic from 1976 telling its readers that climatologists 'cannot predict the future with any assurance', and graphically at least, assigning equal weight to warming and cooling.

Dec 4, 2015 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Ironically, there is in fact reason to be concerned about a coming ice age. We are in an interglacial and are past the typical mid-point length of one. This corresponds to a documented slow cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum of about 6000 to 8000 years ago.
Caught between fire and ice, the human condition.

Dec 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterCraig Loehle

re: Computer Adjusted Climate Science, or CACS

I might suggest a slight edit: Computer Adjusted Climate Analysis, or CACA

Dec 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterCaligula Jones

This an interesting piece written around that time, http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling2.pdf

From the book “Omega –Murder of the Eco-system and the Suicide of Man , Paul K Anderson, 1971
"Controlling the Planet's Climate" J. 0. Fletcher (Rand corporation)

There is indeed mention of CO2 induced global warming, but they were far more worried about cooling.

".......during the first three decades of this (20th) century, the general trend was toward a growing strength of the northern hemisphere circulation, a northward displacement of polar fronts (outer boundaries of cold masses) in both the atmosphere and the ocean, a northward displacement of pack-ice boundaries and cyclone paths movements of large, rotating wind currents), a weaker development of blocking air masses over the continents, and a pronounced aridity of the south central parts of North America and Eurasia. Conversely, recent decades have exhibited opposite trends: a weakening circumpolar circulation, southward shifts of ice boundaries and cyclone paths, and increased rainfall in the south central parts of the continents.

The post-glacial warming culminated in a "climatic optimum" about 4000-2000 B.C., during which world temperatures were 2°-3° C warmer than they are now and rain was much more plentiful in North Africa and the Middle East.

The decline from the warm optimum was abrupt from about 1000 B.C., with cooling continuing to about 400 B.C. This was a period of maximum North African rainfall, which was accompanied by the rapid development of human activity partly induced by climatic stress.

By this time, renewed warming had set in and continued until a "secondary climatic optimum” of A.D. 800-1000, a period characterized by a relatively rainless, warm and storm-free North Atlantic, which made possible the great Viking colonization of Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland. The subsequent climatic decline, during which arctic pack ice advanced southward in the North Atlantic, was abrupt from about A.D. 1300, with one partial recovery around 1500. It culminated in the "little ice age" of 1650-1840. Since about 1840, a new warming trend has predominated and appears to have reached a climax in this century, followed by cooling since about 1940, irregularly at first but more sharply since about 1960.

The periods of general warming were accompanied by increasing vigour of the westerly circulation in both hemispheres, bringing a more maritime climate to the continents, a northward displacement of cyclone paths, and a pronounced warming of the Arctic. The recent cooling trend exhibits a reverse pattern: weakened westerly circulation, more variable and southerly cyclone paths, and a colder Arctic."

"Budyko (see Fletcher, 1966) has argued that, under present conditions of solar heating, the arctic pack ice would not reform if it were removed. Instead, a new and stable climatic regime would be established in which the Arctic Ocean would remain ice-free."

"Budyko.....concludes that, in the event that mean solar radiation over the earth decreases by 1 per cent, the mean global temperature would drop by 5° C, the cooling being reinforced by an advance of the ice boundary by about 10° of latitude in both hemispheres. Should the solar radiation decrease by 1.5 per cent, the global temperature drop would be 9° C, and the ice advance would be 18° of latitude. If the radiation decrease were more than 1.6 per cent the ice boundary would advance past the 50° latitudes in both hemispheres, and the cooling due to the large ice area would cause continued ice growth until all the oceans were frozen. Once such a condition was established, melting would not occur even with a substantially higher solar radiation intensity.

The chapter goes on to describe various geo-engineering proposals at the time to WARM UP the planet, including seeding the Arctic ice pack with soot to create an ice free Arctic Ocean, to reduce the albedo effect. Oh and how about we deflect the Gulf Stream northwards to melt the ice pack?

Dec 4, 2015 at 4:53 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

The 70s were certainly colder, at least here in Ontario, Canada. We moved into our new house about two hours north of Toronto in the first week of December, 1976.

The temperatures for the last two days in November when we started to move were highs of -6 centigrade, and lows of -12. This is in the "snow belt" where cold western winds blow over the warmer waters of Lake Huron's Georgian Bay, so this was accompanied by 25 cm of snow (total of 71 cm. For the month of November). (And I just noticed that Environment's Canada reading for Nov 29 and 30 are identical for temperature, down to one decimal place. Looks like a data quality issue...oh, and another one: Dec 6 and 7 both have a high of 0.0...and a lows of -11.7 and -23.9. Bad, bad data).

Move in day was Dec 8: high of -10.6, low of -31.7. This is from a town 45 minutes south, and I remember that it was actually closer to -40, as we stood, not for long, on the porch and looked at the new thermometer that had both F and C. Some of you will get this...

BTW, this is Toronto's mean for these years. So if you are 40+, this is what you remember of the 70s:

30s 7.400898588
40s 7.482191781
50s 7.959173056
60s 7.155871886
70s 6.909884995
80s 7.436435806
90s 8.218343844
00s 9.057824074
10s 8.784779633

Dec 4, 2015 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterCaligula Jones

Dec 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered Commenter Craig Loehle

Can you imagine the lawsuits in about a hundred years if (stop laughing) we come close to even a high percentage of our "carbon targets" (whatever they are)?

So, we successfully stop "warming", yet the earth keeps on its regular cycles and starts to freeze.

Seriously, you KNOW someone is gonna sue someone, probably a government, when the climate changes BACK to a previous cold climate.

How do the warmunists tell if we are taking 1 degree of human-created heat out, or 1 degree of Mother Nature's heat?

Dec 4, 2015 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterCaligula Jones

Caligula,

That is the genius of the "warmista fear merchants" and it's a behavior I observed in some incompetent executives, set the measure result of your forecast so far into the future that you will not be around when it is adjudicated. QED. Then bombast and salesmanship can have free reign.

Dec 4, 2015 at 5:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Singleton

Forgive such a llong comment (you may delete it) but this was how I began my book The Real Global Warming Disaster in 12009.

Chapter One: How It All Began
Cooling and Warming: 1972-1987


‘A global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind, is a very real possibility and may be due very soon’.
Scientists’ letter to President Nixon, December 1972


As good a place as any to begin this story might be the apocalyptic letter sent by two scientists to the President of the United States in December 1972. What was worrying them was the possibility that the Earth might soon be facing a disastrous shift in its weather patterns.
The two men were Dr George Kukla, a Columbia University astrophysicist and Dr Robert Matthews, head of the Geological Sciences Department at Brown University, Rhode Island. In January that year, along with Murray Mitchell,, the chief climatologist of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, they had convened an international conference of scientists from America and Europe at Brown. So alarmed were they by its conclusions that In October Kukla and Matthews summarised its findings in the leading US scientific journal, Science.
When, two months later, they wrote to President Nixon, they wanted to warn him that the world’s climate might be about to go through a change for the worse, by an ‘order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind’.
As other scientists were coming up with similar fears around this time, it was not long before the story was picked up by the media, In 1973 it was being reported by Science Digest, In 1974 the BBC made it the subject of a a major two-hour television documentary, The Weather Machine. In June that year the science section of Time magazine was recording how ‘a growing number of scientists’ were beginning to suspect that ‘the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years’ – droughts, flooding, abnormally mild winters - might be the harbingers of ‘a global climactic upheaval’.
‘There are ominous signs’ reported Newsweek the following year, ‘that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes may portend a dramatic decline in food production – with serious implications for just about every nation on earth’.
Newsweek quoted a report by the US National Academy of Sciences that ‘a major climactic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale’. The evidence cited for such a change ranged from a two-week shortening since 1950 of the English grain-growing season to ‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’ in the US, where in 1974 ‘148 twisters killed more than 300 people’.
The fear they were all expressing, of course, was not that the earth was warming but that it was dangerously cooling. It had been noted that, for more than three decades, average temperatures across the globe had been dropping.
As a New York Times headline put it ‘Scientists ponder why world’s climate is changing: a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable’. Time reported how ‘telltale signs are everywhere – from the unexpected thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo’. The 1975 Newsweek article, entitled ‘The Cooling World’, asserted that evidence to support predictions of global cooling had now ‘begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it’.
The Science Digest article in 1973 had been headed ‘Brace yourself for another ice age’. This described how, as the earth gradually cooled and the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica grew, winter would eventually last the year round, cities would be ‘buried in snow and an immense sheet of ice could cover North America as far south as Cincinnati’. In 1975 Nigel Calder, a former editor of the New Scientist, wrote that ‘the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind’.
Although some of the scientists who feared that the Earth might be heading for a dramatic cooling believed that its causes were entirely natural, others, such as Paul Ehrlich in his apocalyptic bestseller The Population Bomb (1968), were already suggesting it might be due to the activities of man.
In 1971 a young Columbia University PhD, Stephen Schneider, was joint author of a paper in Science comparing the predicted effects on global temperatures of human emissions of carbon dioxide and ‘aerosols’, minute particles being added to the atmosphere in ever increasing quantities by the burning of fossil fuels on which modern industrial civilisation was based.
Potentially by far the more damaging of the two, the paper suggested, would be the effect of the aerosols, which could lower global temperatures ‘by as much as 3.5 °C’. Sustained over ‘a few years’, they believed, such a decrease would be ‘sufficient to trigger an ice age’. Their conclusions were based on the calculations of another young PhD with a particular interest in computer models, Dr James Hansen.
For several years the fear of global cooling continued to inspire a spate
of articles and books, such as Schneider’s The Genesis Strategy (1976) and Climate Change and World Affairs by a British diplomat Crispin Tickell. The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? (1976) by the US science writer Lowell Ponte, warmly endorsed on the cover by Schneider, claimed that ‘the cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations’. ‘It is a cold fact’, he wrote, that ‘the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years’.
But then quite suddenly, in the late 1970s, global temperatures began to rise again. The panic over global cooling subsided faster than it had arisen.

Dec 4, 2015 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterChristopher Booker

Phil Clarke, in all the time I have spent in academia or industry, I never met a single person who presented a 'count' of papers that they (or some of their mates) considered to be evidence in support of the thesis they were proposing.

Not one person.

And for a good reason. Science doesn't work that way. And it isn't taught that way. Think about it, at least a bit, please: Something novel, whether right or wrong, must, necessarily, be in a minority of one. How is progress to be made?

Only people without good evidence who are tying to manipulate perceptions, especially mass-media perceptions, do such counting. They are people who don't understand how science progresses. It is not a democracy, yet that is ironic because many presenting the global-warming alarm claim to be acting for the greater good while systematically ignoring the welfare of the general populace and their indifference at the ballot box.

Dec 4, 2015 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

michael hart Dec 4, 2015 at 6:43 PM

"Something novel, whether right or wrong, must, necessarily, be in a minority of one. How is progress to be made?"

Probably not a true Einsten quote, but FWIW:

"THE SCULPTOR Jacob Epstein tells this story:

"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book.

"Were I wrong," he said, "one professor would have been enough."

Dec 4, 2015 at 7:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterCaligula Jones

In fact, regardless of the arguments and memories of both sides, I can say with assurance that the consensus of 100% of scientists is that we are in an interglacial and that the ice will return, for sure. One day. Of course, when it does there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, and that is why it is not a good scare story to make money by. Maybe it had some mileage on the power and control front but catastrophic warming caused by Mankind just has so much potential on all fronts that it must be true.

Dec 4, 2015 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

...the unexpected thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland ...
So we know (well, we've always known really, but the "scientists" chose to "forget") that we have been measuring the state of the Arctic ice for the last 35 years based on an "unexpected thickness".
And we also know that CO2 is the cause of the unprecedented cooling of the 1970s just as it was the cause of the unprecedented warming of the 90s and no doubt of the unprecedented pause of the 2000s.
I'm sure we have experts to hand who can explain all these things. I can barely contain myself!

Dec 4, 2015 at 7:36 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Its called the cooling myth for a reason. [sic] (Phil Clarke, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM)
Well… yes. Could it be that the sheeple who are now bleating about warming are embarrassed that some people can remember when they were bleating about cooling?

Now, what are the odds that the warming we are being warned about now will become another “myth” in a few decades, as we plummet towards another ice age? (No doubt caused by some nefarious human actions – not sure if CO2 will still be the culprit de jour, but, who knows?)

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:04 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Re: Kevin Marshall @ 3:15 PM.
Mathews 1976 as illustrated in the well known contemporary National Geographic graph shows a decline of ~0.5C 1940-1976 for the NH compared to a decline of ~0.12 according to HADCRUT3 NH.
Employing virtual history and fooling around on woodfortrees, if Hansen hadn’t got his hands on the data I reckon the linear trend 1940 - 2014 would now stand at ~0.2C instead of ~0.7C.

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

Christopher Booker

Newsweek quoted a report by the US National Academy of Sciences that ‘a major climactic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale’. The evidence cited for such a change ranged from a two-week shortening since 1950 of the English grain-growing season to ‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’ in the US, where in 1974 ‘148 twisters killed more than 300 people’. 
The fear they were all expressing, of course, was not that the earth was warming but that it was dangerously cooling.

The NAS report emphatically did not project a likely global cooling, that's a fabrication. See the excerpt above and this, from the foreward: .we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…

Booker also likes The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? (1976) by the US science writer Lowell Ponte

Here's the foreward to that tome, by Reid Bryson (my bold):

The Cooling will be controversial, because among scientists, most of the matters it deals with are hotly debated. There is no agreement on whether the earth is cooling. There is not unanimous agreement on whether is has cooled, or one hemisphere has cooled and the other warmed. One would think that there might be consensus about what data there is - but there is not. There is no agreement on the causes of climatic change, or even why it should not change amongst those who so maintain. There is certainly no agreement about what the climate will do in the next century, though there is a majority opinion that it will change, more or less, one way or the other. Of that majority, a majority believe that the longer trend will be downward. Nevertheless, it is an important question, as this book points out, and it is time for some of the questions to be settled. Lowell Ponte has summarized the data and theories very well, and has reasonably concluded that a rapid change in Earths climate is possible, perhaps even likely, within the next few decades, and that this would have serious consequences for mankind.

Booker presents a characteristically myopic and biased narrative, painting a picture of a world scared by the prospect of imminent cooling, however an examination of his selective quotes show that the reality was in fact a lack of agreement amongst scientists, and as the Peterson paper shows, in the literature there were more studies projecting warming than cooling.

Talcum powder, though, that stuff is scary.

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, in all the time I have spent in academia or industry, I never met a single person who presented a 'count' of papers that they (or some of their mates) considered to be evidence in support of the thesis they were proposing.

Read the paper.

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Well… yes. Could it be that the sheeple who are now bleating about warming are embarrassed that some people can remember when they were bleating about cooling?

There is simply no comparison, The 'cooling scare' consisted a few articles in the media; scientific opinion was split, in the literature most papers were about warming but also conceded that prediction/projection was highly uncertain.

Now we have a scientific consensus with support in the high nineties, built on tens of thousands of studies and endorsed by 100% of professional scienttifc association on the planet.

Dec 4, 2015 at 8:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I also remember the ice age scare of the 1970's whilst studying geology at university. It was hyped for a good 10 years.
Besides Steve Goddard's excellent research into these abundant reports, here's another good compendium of the hype. I recall one "solution" being spreading carbon soot over the entire Arctic to facilitate melting. The proffered solutions for the the alarmist predicted life threats were just as expensive and ridiculous as they are now.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html?m=1

Dec 4, 2015 at 9:01 PM | Unregistered Commentermikegeo

There seem to be a few more than the two copies of that AAS report available in Australia. Not many more, but more.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/7560221?q&versionId=8700148

Dec 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnonyMoose

I wonder whether that 1976 AAS report is protected by copyright, or whether it can be rescued from oblivion by copying.

Dec 4, 2015 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnonyMoose

***snigger***

Thank you for proving my point, PC!

Dec 4, 2015 at 9:38 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

"Now we have a scientific consensus with support in the high nineties, built on tens of thousands of studies and endorsed by 100% of professional scienttifc association on the planet."

Not only that, but I understand our best minds have come up with a simulation proclaiming the climate conference will be a success.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/latest-climate-activists-stage-die-role-playing-35573588

They will, no doubt, be as successful as climate modelers have been with the climate, since of course, they will define what they mean by "success" after-the-fact.

Note: that link is a dynamic feed from the conference, so you might have to scroll down. The top story right now is Robert Redford adding to Phil's consensus of brilliant people who all think alike.

Dec 4, 2015 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

Strange isn't it that Phil did not embolden the next sentence, which suggests that the majority view was for future cooling.

Dec 4, 2015 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

It is good to know that I am not the only one to have been subjected to some mass hallucination in the 70s about global cooling.

Now the warmists are trying to pretend it never happened, but they can't adjust memories as easily as temperature records. How much money has been spent on writing reports denying the existence of the global cooling scare?

My first recollection of someone trying to airbrush global cooling out of the record was that highly experienced purveyor of propaganda, William M. Connolley in about 2009/10 (?). I do not know if he was the first to realise what a problem for warmist indoctrination Global Cooling was, but he must be very proud that his hard work was not wasted.

Dec 4, 2015 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@mulderm, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:36 PM

Nice find. Back in the 70's the oil was also about to run out supposedly. Put the 2 things together and it was pretty scary. It helped me to learn not to trust authority of any shape or form, a lesson that has significantly helped me over the subsequent years. Now it is pavlovian and whenever I hear a phrase like "cast iron guarantee" or "97% of scientists say" or "it's worse than we thought" etc etc etc my immediate reaction is "Who, what, when, where, why and how?" and to start digging for facts, corroboration and rebuttals. Anyone who has failed these tests gets filed under untrustworthy and worse.

I was rather young then, but I do remember BBC's Blue Peter covering this and explaining what a new Ice Age (aka Global Cooling) would mean. Very scary predictions, very similar to today's BBC/MSM very scary predictions on Global Warming - summary: we will all die.

The lesson I learned was "Do not trust politicians, msm etc; question what they say and research the issue"

Dec 4, 2015 at 11:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPcar

Listen up commenters!

This is the party line:

There is simply no comparison, The 'cooling scare' consisted a few articles in the media; scientific opinion was split, in the literature most papers were about warming but also conceded that prediction/projection was highly uncertain.

Phil Clarke has said it 3 times so it must be true. It comes from an impeccable source, the Weasel-in-chief, and is designed to protect the reputation of all those climate scientist who couldn't make up their mind.

The remaining five impossible things you must believe before breakfast will follow in due course.

Dec 5, 2015 at 12:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

Lewandowsky is probably preparing a paper already stating that only people over 50 can remember the global cooling scare in the 70s, and it was triggered by defoliants used in the Vietnam war leading to disturbed minds and memories around the world, including James Hansen, Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, Crispin Tickell, and probably Prince Charles and Richard Nixon.

The rest, as they say in global warming circles, is just anecdotal evidence, and can be disregarded.

Dec 5, 2015 at 1:35 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Here's a nice fat irony; adaptation and preparation for cooling would be a lot more cost effective than for warming, degree for degree. Nevermind the senseless, and catastrophic policy planning for warming mitigation, miscast as it is for the role of villain. A warmer earth sustains more total life and more diversity of life. The upper limit of the beneficial warming has never been found in paleontology, and that same paleontology demonstrates, every time, the detriment of cooling.

We've gone completely mad worrying about the pitiful little bit of warming we can do. We've ignored the bountiful greening, all in the insane(unsanitary) pursuit of power, money and fame. We've succumbed completely unnecessarily to fear and guilt, when we should be thanking and praising our inadvertent Human Carbon Cornucopia.

James Hansen has, and Stephen Schneider had(I presume the past tense) a lot of blame for the perverted path that climate science took, on board the train political. There are others much more numerous to blame, but these two stand out among the scientists.

And we're at half precession, in a fading Holocene. Please, Gaia, just a little more fire before the ice.
==================

Dec 6, 2015 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

AnonyMoose:

I wonder whether that 1976 AAS report is protected by copyright, or whether it can be rescued from oblivion by copying.

I have an officially scanned copy converted to PDF from the academy archive that I purchased direct from them following an email discussion some years ago. As I mentioned up thread, I had always been interest in obtaining a copy as I had seen it referenced in a soil science book in the early 1990's.

The scanned copy does not contain any copyright notice on any page, as far as I can see.

Dec 7, 2015 at 4:23 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

The Phil Clarkes of the world may deny it but who cares since the rest of us can turn to this:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

and find out what the scare was like back in days of 1970's

You can not fool all the people all the time...

Dec 8, 2015 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterPethefin

PC seems to rely on pretending he is in Orwell novel where he can rewrite history on demand.

Feb 8, 2016 at 3:14 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>