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?

Answer 1

The book was called "The Cooling" It was written by Lowell Ponte. I read it after seeing him on the Tonight Show. He had been a weather analyst for the CIA during the Viet Nam war, and worked on techniques like cloud seeding over the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

His argument had two parts. One is that ice ages come in a 10,000 year cycle and we were at the point where temperatures should begin to rend downward (which was true), and that warming would lead to more evaporation of water at the equator, which would lead to more snowfall at the poles, which would lead to more land area on average covered bu snow each year, and therefore more of the sun's energy reflected back out into space. There are still a few people who adhere to this theory, but it's obviously not what is happening.

This link describes the book (which is real) and the various myths that have grown up around it (which are not)

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

Good to know.

I was just thinking, one of your responders mentioned as a jab at you that the global cooling movement had enough sway to cause the clean air act that cut down on our use of sulfurous coal. I believe this was supposed to show that "fake" environmental scares do have power to make changes and that is why global warming is bad.

However, I fail to see what is the negative outcome of cutting down on our use of highly polluting coal. If in 30 years, scientists say "oops, we were wrong, sorry you all cut back on your energy use and stopped polluting as much because you thought the planet was going to warm." would that really be such a bad outcome? We would have cut our pollution, increased quality of life and health, created new and innovative technologies and jobs, and been responsible stewards for the planet and its varied array of lifeforms.

How is this bad?

Answer 4

It's not entirely a myth. There still remains the possiblity that a new ice age might arise from global warming, according to the theory that the thermohaline conveyor may shut down as the climate warms.

It's kind of dumb to use it as an argument since there is a shred of truth to it. I think they were kind of on to something back then, it's just that now we're beginning to see the whole picture a bit better.

Answer 5

Yeah I don't care about the 70's I care about now, and there isn't enough proof now to claim that Global Warming is caused by humans, and I don't know where you get these stupid ideas that humans are the cause of about 90% of all CO2, but what ever it is your smoking you need to find something else to do because that makes no sense. Because if that is true then the north and south poles should loose all there ice by the end of next year, and we will all be dead the year after that from the earth imploding.......

Answer 6

You're 100% wrong about the known fact that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s, but you are absolutely right about the overblown hysteria and pseudoscience through the reliance of "consensus", "institutional pronouncements", summits, treaties, and commissions. Climatologists had a lot more credibility back then...

Answer 7

Whether or not there was consensus is not the point. The media said there was. Just like now the media is saying there is consensus, when in fact most scientists say they are undecided.

You say there is a consensus. The fact is as long as there is intimidation of scientists to support the popular view, you have no credibility.

Answer 8

Here's another article.

Answer 9

The only difference between your quote from the 70's and what is happening now with global warming is the involvement of the United Nations. That is what makes the current situation so dangerous.

Answer 10

there wasn't an Internet to spread alarmist news, or umpteen billion dollars up for grabs in grants to study GW in the 70's......

there was however, enough credence given to the theory of GC that it was at least half the reason ( smog being the other) for the Clean Air Act to be passed, cutting WAY down on high sulfur coal use in America....