The Global Cooling Hoax
Have any of you ever had a global warming conversation with someone only to have them claim that the opinions of scientists are useless because, after all, they were predicting global cooling in the 70s? I have had that happen many times. It’s frustrating because I’ve seen the general trend of the last 130 years that you can easily find on NASA’s website and it clearly reveals a steady increase in the planet’s temperature. But, I’ve struggled with what to make of the 1970s.
Until now.
The problem with the notion that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 70s is that they weren’t predicting global cooling.
Say what?
That’s right, scientists were not predicting global cooling in the 1970s.
As it turns out, it was overwhelmingly the media that predicted global cooling. It is true that global temperatures dropped during the 70s, but that is not to say that scientists predicted that would continue. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of them predicted the opposite, and continue to do so to this day. The American Meteorological Society conducted a fairly exhaustive survey of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles from 1965-1979 and found that only 12% of them predicted global cooling. In the time period listed, seven articles predicted global cooling, twenty could not foresee any change, and forty-four predicted warming.
I think it’s important for people to know this because the best way to combat mistaken notions is with clear-cut numerical data.
BTW, you can find global temperature averages for the last 130 years here.
Thanks so much for this article, whenever the issue of global warming gets brought up in my family group, the older family members always respond with ‘Well in the 70′s they were talking about global cooling, and look what happened there.’
Hopefully this article will convince them to change their minds.
I don’t know, Chris… I’ve seen global cooling in a lot of e-mail forwards…
Great article. What about the earth getting closer to the sun? Why is this never mentioned in the climate change debate? Have I missed it somewhere? Is it because this fact hinders governments from spending billions now on eco-legislation?
I’ve said before, I’m for saving the environment; doing more, using less, supporting local farmers and businesses, but I am against subjecting the masses to morals via policy. This is especially true if climate change is something in which we have very little sway.
lol i am for saving the environment also, i just wont get on the bandwagon like the rest of these that we are gonna csue the earth to cook, when there is plenty of evidence it has been heating up on its own ans has been since created, well before we ever could have affected the climate.
This is purely anecdotal, but in 1995, when the movie The American President came out, they talk a lot about global warming and he even goes so far as to fight for a bill to help curb it. The problem everyone had with the bill was not that global warming didn’t exist, but that the automakers didn’t want their businesses messed with. I realize that it is a movie, but we all know that movies are often reflective of real life. What happened between the mid ’90s and now to make people utterly unaware that global warming does in fact exist?
Kristi do you mean ‘unaware’ or ‘aware’? If you mean the first, I think it’s one of those things that people just don’t like to think about, and it’s not lapping at your front door every day so it’s easy to ignore.
If it’s the second, there have been a number of longitudinal climate surveys that have continued to show average temperatures going up, and in the last ten years or so at an even faster pace. I think the stuff about the polar ice caps melting gets people’s attention–nothing like a stranded pitiful looking polar bear to get you to sit up. Plus the last ten years have seen some really unusual hurricane seasons and tornadoes in places you wouldn’t expect them, so I think some people pay attention to those.
I was more referring to the people that insist that because we’ve had cold snaps later in the year, or a (relatively speaking) cool, wet July here in Arkansas, that global warming doesn’t exist. I’m familiar with the studies, since they were recommended reading when I got my biochemistry degree. What I’m bewildered by, is the sheer number of people who insist that it’s not happening, that it’s a hoax.
Yeah, but do you know the number of people who still think the moon landing was faked?
My partner and I were talking about this this weekend–do you know of another country in the world that takes as much pride in their stupidity as the United States does? I think it was probably exacerbated by an unfortunate exposure to a Larry the Cable Guy routine on the radio. And you really don’t know that kind of thing about a country unless you live there. There might be an Ahmed the Cable Guy, a Yoshinori the Cable Guy or a Jean-Claude the Cable Guy for all I know.
Man induced global warming is a hoax. No doubt about it. Look back into the geological history of the planet. We have been much hotter than now and much cooler many times over the last several million years before man had appeared, or existed in numbers that could have made any difference. Our planet has natural cycles, our sun varies in its output, period.
The green nuts and ecocrazies are attempting to cause a panic by promoting this poorly concealed scam.
HAVE YOU INFORMED THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS OF THIS NEW INFORMATION?
i just poseted information from the scientific consenus backing hiom up so he doesn not need to inform them, they already know.
Exactly what is it that the “ecocrazies” are inducing this panic for pray tell? Ah ah ah, no scurrying for an answer from Rush Limbaugh, you have to answer this one with a real thought from your own head. Let’s see what you come up with.
are we talking the ecocrazies that are probabnly huge hypocrits? or does everyone of them not drive? have solar power, and not do all the stuff they claim is destroying the envioronment, i wouuldnt say they are doing anything purposely to induce panic, just mislead by information they want to see not information that backs up the contrary also. no diff than people saying aliens abduct from their research and those saying its fake. That big foot exoists from reserarch and it doesnt. It is all picking and choosing what information you want to follow.
well if there is global warming it muat not be hitting here, cuz our temps have been 10 degrees lower this yeah than the average for here. and it is warmer this winter than last winter…
Well maybe it’s just hitting over in Russia where they had that terrible rash of wildfires.
Look, global warming works on the aggregate – that is average earths temperature as measured by many thousands of points around the world.
This comment is just as dumb as Sean Hannity holding up Al Gore’s book against the snow during Snowmageddon.
And furthermore, extreme abnormalities in weather patterns seem to confirm that a climatic event is occurring.
so the earth wasnt warming anywhere before the last ohhh say 2-300 years before combustion and fossil fuel burning was really getting going? and so im guessing also since the invention of cars, factorys and such it must have skyrocketed and not been the same warming as before them correct? i am willing to bet it was warming well before factorys and cars were around to make a supposed diofference. but no one tends to look that far back. and sure why ot beloieve al gore, after all he did invent the internet right? and if u challenge his theory face to face which you should have every right to he replys with cursing and vulger replys. yeah thats credible man,. btw how much of his movies money went to saving the environment and how much went to him?I am sure he lives in a solar powered home, drives an electric car, and flys a hang glider to all his trips as opposed to all the things that we supposedlt do to casue this
not to mention there are also “scientific communities” that debunk the theory also. but hey loets all jump on the bandwagoin and only look at what we want, cuz of course no one can be right except the ones we shoose to believe.
While there have been a fluctuation of global temperatures, the trend currently is hotter and quicker – that’s the problem.
The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It’s no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann’s Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media
Gauging by the unique style of your previous contributions, I had a hunch that you didn’t write this or actually could parse what was being said. So I Googled what you wrote and its a verbatim rip off of http://www.climatesciencewatch.org.
I suspected it was more a trip down pseudo science lane…. Shawn I was curious why you have adopted a position in the absolute scientific minority?
Interestingly, I found this passage you quoted was heavily used among people who believe that climatologists are engaged in a massive conspiracy. I think the problem is that the pseudo scientific paragraph gives an illusion of credibility and authority, when in fact experts in the field can easily respond.
While I realize this is only an assumption supported by various reasonable inferences, I have not responded to the actual science. I am curious to see if my hypothesis is correct when I actually begin to look for rebutting arguments.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their “Adjusted Data” for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century. They over- selected the temperature stations from the urban areas. Also, scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. The former director there stated that global temperatures essentially have not changed in the last 15 years.
a million plus years ago the erarth was in an ice age, it is now far from that, let me guess that t rex in his suv destroyed the ice age and melted all the ice? earth hs been warmingf well before man could contribute to it.
also lool i have heard that is the global wrming theorists deal, if its getting warmer its because of global warming, of its colder than normal its global warming, cant have it both ways, and yes sure the warth is wamring, but like i say been doing it long before we came around. and wouldnt stopeed if we werent
Sorry, you are wrong, you can have it both ways according to anomaly maps.
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/509984main_201111_anomaly_maps.jpg
Articles need to be balanced, not slanted in one direction. Present both sides. Then tell what each side’s issues are. You will see where the science has been distorted, that the peer review process is somewhat “hijacked” and that the media plays to one side only. There is now a good case to say increases in CO2, with a lower heat capacity than than Air, Oxygen, water vapor or Nitrogen, actually cools instead of warms the atmosphere.