Can we stop claiming that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s?

Question

This is simply a widespread myth. A nice summary here:

"In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

If you don't believe this, William Connelly has made a hobby of gathering everything that was written about global cooling at the time here:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Go see for yourself. Most scientists made no predictions. Can we stop perpetrating this myth now please?

Not surprisingly, global warming deniers are missing the point as usual.

"a small amount of scientific speculation"

There is also a small amount of scientific speculation that the current global warming is NOT caused by humans. The comparison is not between '70s cooling predictions and current warming predictions, but with '70s cooling predictions and current global warming skepticism/denial!

And "I heard about it in grade school" is irrelevant. I'm talking about scientists, not the media.

Deniers keep talking about a political agenda too. I'm talking about scientists, not politicians. Anyone who thinks scientists are creating a giant global warming hoax because of a political agenda needs to either take off their tinfoil hat or go have a convention with the UFO and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Answer 1

I read articles in Scientific American and other periodicals, back in the 1970s, about the expected cooling trend. I understand completely and agree with what you are saying.

That science shows the earth is heating instead only highlights anthropogenic causes.

ExxonMobile offered $10,000 to any scientist willing to submit a paper denying global warming. A handful of scientists accepted this offer, creating an echo chamber of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations. To date they have spent more than $30 million on their propaganda campaign. What is their incentive? In 2006 their profit margin exceeded that of any company in US history. Heck, that $30 million is a tiny fraction of just their tax subsidy. The UK Royal Society and several US science organizations have censured them for this activity.

Another interesting fact: A survey of 2000 peer reviewed articles concerning climate changed did not include a single one that questioned man's contribution to global warming. This isn't because there is some sort of secret collusion between scientists, but because despite the ExxonMobile offer (and plenty of other offers), there are no compelling data against global warming.

A second survey of 600 newspaper articles (popular press-no review) showed 53% questioning man's contribution to climate change. In a misguided effort towards impartiality, the press has created the impression there exists a controversy in scientific circles where there actually is none.

The present administration has seen fit to censor and rewrite scientific reports on climate change to satisfy their own political agenda. Other antiscience actions adopted by this administration resulted in a letter of admonition signed by 80 Nobel Laureates and hundreds of other concerned scientists.

Answer 2

There are some climate change skeptics that will keep referencing the 'global cooling scare' of the 1970's as a means of refuting the current global warming scare. Similarly they make reference to the warming on Mars, increased solar output and other similar claims that have no bearing on the current warming trend. Fortunately there are also many skeptics who realise that 'global cooling' was never the big deal that some skeptics would like it to have been and as such don't refer to it. If you go to any of the scientific skeptic sites you'll not find any reference to global cooling in the context that it is often referred to on here. What you may well find is that in the coming months the number of references to global cooling steadily declines. A year ago many skeptics argued that the world was actually cooling, six months ago those same skeptics said the world was neither warming nor cooling, more recently they've been saying that the world is warming but it's not caused by humans and now they've started saying that we are causing the planet to warm but it's not a bad thing and there's nothing we can do about it. There's a distinct lack of consistency in some of the skeptics arguments and in time global cooling may well go the same way that many of the past arguments have gone.

Answer 3

I love the con answers here. Oh yes it is all about money. Yeah since most of those scientists are academicians and get paid a university salary, money has nothing to do with it. Sure they get research grants, but that money goes to research because if they don't produce results they will get no more grants. The scientists don't get to buy a bigger a house. I am sure some con who has never worked in academic research like I have will come here and tell me I am wrong because Rush told them so.

Advisor Guy said "No, because the links you provide show that some scientists did predict an ice age then."

Name one, I did not see any. The writers of the articles may have, but I did not see any direct quote or reference from an actual accredited scientists.

I have no problem looking at other theories but the whole argument that scientists predicted an Ice Age in the 70's is a horrible argument since it never happened. If you want to argue global warming use good arguements, not this crap.

Answer 4

The truth of science is that you can be wrong and right at the same time. The article that you are talking able were scientific wondering that was miss reported. They wrongly (so it seems now ) wondered if the increase in temp, would cause a increase in snow fall, since the temp in the cold limits the amount of water in the air that would limit snow fall, with temp increase the air could hold more water causing increased snow that would then correct the temp by reflection more heat . It now seems that the temps have increase to the point were that is no longer possible. In other words the science now shows that the increasing temp has reached a level were it rains more in the north and snows less.

Answer 5

Yeah well Dana I think your a denier your self for you don't want to know both sides of a story all you want is your side and if people don't like your side then they are 100% wrong. Wow didn't you learn anything in college besides being wrong all the time and throwing a temper tantrum to get your way.
Besides the 1970's have nothing to do with today, because if you want to start throwing jabs lets talk about Al Gore, and how he not only uses three times more energy then the average person, he only does it to get attention and with out Global Warming no one will remeber who is. Besides one or two websites mean nothing, you can find just as good information against Global Warming so show some really proof which you can't so go home and cry to mama. I'm sure she will make it all better :)

Answer 6

No, because the links you provide show that some scientists did predict an ice age then. I think you are comparing the level of scientific agreement on the subjects rather than just "scientists". There is a big difference but majority's of any field have been wrong throughout history (think of the use of shock treatments in Psychiatry in the old days or the lack of political specialists predicting the fall of the USSR). Once politicians started pushing "global warming" to justify tax increases I knew there was "something rotten in Denmark". New studies have shown that the earth was much warmer thousands of years ago than previously though and now more scientists are unsure what's going on...if anything.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain

Answer 7

Thank you. I actually remember a conversation on my school bus in 1977, a particularly cold winter. Someone had heard a (as in ONE) scientist say that there's a coming ice age - the quote was part of an evening news segment - but there was most certainly not a concensus, and that one conversation was the last I ever heard about it... until creating an account here on Yahoo Answers some 29 years later.

Answer 8

At the first Earth Day people held signs warning us that man made pollution was causing global cooling and we were heading for an ice age. Time Magazine had a cover story about it. Liberal scientists were all screaming that we must stop air pollution or we would shade the planet and we would all freeze
Funny how liberals like you tell educated people they are telling lies when what we are doing is remind you liberals how wrong liberals were 30 years ago when liberals were saying we were going to freeze. You are the one spreading a myth when you say there was no global warming scare. The big difference is that in the time since then liberals have gained more power and now they can spread their lies to scare more people than liberals did in the 1970s when liberals were screaming about how we would all freeze soon.
I'm old enough to remember the 1970s. I lived through the global cooling scare. Where were you in the 1970s. You claim to know so much about that time. Where were you then?

Answer 9

The 'Ditto-heads' are 'true believers'. If they're told that climate change is a hoax, then they believe. Never mind that entire governments, most major corporations and every military that plans to be operational in the 21st century has taken climate change into account. The Canadian government is attempting to claim an ice free 'Northwest Passage' as their territorial waters...a claim the US disputes. The US navy is already prepared to patrol an ice free artic ocean. The facts concerning climate change are not in dispute. The climate change deniers seem to have more of a problem with the messengers than the message. Already most of them concede there is a change underway...now they're just saying that human activity isn't a part of the equation. When conforonted by these people just smile and nod your head...it's not worth wasting time over.

Answer 10

Its funny but consensus is a political term not a scientific one. As a matter of fact it flies in the face of good scientific process to say that evidence is irrefutable. Good science always leaves the debate open but you little Marxists need to stifle any contradictory research or theory because if we actually look at the very suspect science we will find that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that A) The planet is warming at an unnatural rate and B) that the human animal has any effect on said warming.

But keep trying to stifle that science. I find it amusing that you great believers in science refuse to accept other theories and data.

How do climatologists justify their $5billion dollar just in the US government funding without saying their position is the truth. It happens all the time, someone asks you to get results with an agenda you find evidence to support that agenda be it right or wrong.

How can you separate the politics from the science, it is politically motivated science. The Kyoto protocols were promoted by the UN a political organization. The entire global warming campaign was started as a political cudgel to suppress mining riots in the UK. Global warming is not science it is politics that uses scientists to support it.