- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
CHILLING POSSIBILITIES- Read the original article on Climate Change as it was posted in the 1975 edition of Science News.
The reasons to disbelieve that humans are causing global warming are many and varied, skeptics say. For example: Natural factors such as long-term variations in solar radiation are causing the rise in worldwide average temperature. The urban heat island effect is skewing modern weather data, so the warming observed in recent decades isn’t real. And besides, not long ago experts all believed the Earth was cooling, not warming.
Actually, research has shown that many such ideas are bogus. While changes in solar output have slightly increased global average temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the planet-warming effect of man-made greenhouse gases is about 20 times larger (“Heated dispute” letter, SN: 10/27/07, p. 271). And although cities are warmer than neighboring rural areas, that phenomenon doesn’t mask recent warming trends in long-established cities (“Don’t blame the cities,” SN Online: 9/5/08).
Now, new research also skewers the global warming skeptics’ claim that, in the 1970s, scientists believed that an ice age was imminent. Researchers of the day had discovered that Earth had been cooling since the 1940s. Some believed that continued increases in the amount of planet-cooling aerosols kicked up or emitted by human activity — dust and smog, for example — could easily tip the planet into an ever-deepening cycle of cooling, skeptics have repeatedly pointed out. That wave of concern was obviously a false alarm, the skeptics note, so maybe today’s scientists are equally mistaken about global warming.
Not true, climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.
The findings were “a surprise to us,” Peterson says. For decades the “skeptics had repeated their argument so often and so strongly that we misremembered the tenor of the times.”
When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers —“a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue,” says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades’ cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population.
But even a cursory review of 1970s media accounts shows that there was no consensus about global cooling among journalists, either, Peterson says. In May 1975, the headline of a New York Times article warned that “major cooling may be ahead.” Three months later, another headline in the same paper — atop a feature written by the same reporter — stated that two recent journal articles “counter [the] view that [a] cold period is due.”
When skeptics do cite a research paper that predicted the
possibility of global cooling, it is almost invariably a 1971 article in Science
coauthored by
But soon after the paper was published, new information emerged, Schneider says. First, the global cooling effect of aerosols wasn’t as large as estimated, in part because the tiny particles appeared in high concentrations over only about one-fifth of the planet, primarily around major cities. Second, Schneider adds, scientists discovered that many other minor constituents of the atmosphere — including methane, ozone and man-made gases such as chlorofluorocarbons — have the same warming effect that carbon dioxide does.
By the late 1970s, these realizations, along with insights from studies of the cooling effects of aerosols spewed from an Indonesian volcano in 1963, helped climatologists better estimate the balance between greenhouse gas warming and aerosol-induced cooling. This rapid evolution of understanding, says Schneider, is a testament to the self-correcting nature of the scientific process — a question is posed, data are collected, analyses are performed and then opinions and theories are modified, if need be, based on results of the research.
When global warming skeptics draw misleading comparisons between scientists’ nascent understanding of climate processes in the 1970s and their level of knowledge today, “it’s absolute nonsense,” Schneider says. Back then, scientists were just beginning to study climate trends and their causes, and the probability of finding evidence to disprove a particular hypothesis was relatively high. Nowadays, he contends, “the likelihood of new evidence to overthrow the concept of global warming is small. Warming is virtually certain.”
Most climatologists have long shared a feeling that
discussions in the 1970s about global cooling were common in the media but not
in scientific journals, says Richard Somerville, a climatologist at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in
Despite the lopsided tally of journal articles that
predicted global warming versus those that foretold a long-term cooling trend,
the new findings may not sway many hard-core skeptics, says Alan Robock, an
atmospheric scientist at Rutgers–New
1870s
Efforts to collect global temperature records begin
First analysis to show long-term warming trend
First recognition that Earth, on average, had been cooling for two-plus decades
The balance between aerosols’ cooling and greenhouse gases’ warming effects is clear
Found in: Climate Change and Science & Society
- Perkins, S. 2007. Heated dispute. Science News 172(Oct. 27):271. [Go to]
- Perkins, S. 2007. From Bad to Worse: Earth's warming to accelerate. Science News 171(Feb. 10):83.
[Go to] - Perkins, S. 2008. Don't blame the cities: Urban heat islands not responsible for global warming [Go to]
- Perkins, S. 2006. Limited Storage: Lack of nutrients will constrain carbon uptake. Science News 169(Apr. 15):229. [Go to]
- Perkins, S. 2004. Warmer climate, decreased rice yield. Science News 166(Jul. 10):29. [Go to]
- Perkins, S. 2001. Can banking carbon cool the greenhouse? Stockpiling carbon dioxide in plants and soil may be effective only for the short term, if at all. Science News 158(Dec. 16):396. [Go to]
- Peterson, T.C., W.M. Connolley, and J. Fleck. 2008.
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Sept.):1325. [Go to]


That is total nonsense, of course.
Uncertainties about climate issues is no excuse for outright denial. The challenge now is to make climate models as accurate as possible, so of course scientists will criticize each other's models, even while acknowledging the reality of the man-made global warming hypothesis.
Denialists get great mileage by appealing to commonly held prejudices rooted in laziness. And that's why they are so resented.
Scott Manhart
It looks like I get a second chance after all since my previus post didn't seem to get in.
Among things for which there is absolutely no evidence at all:
A man being created from dirt by a super-being
A woman being created from his rib
Talking snakes
Fruit that gives the eater great knowledge
A single man saving the world from a flood with his boat
People living for 800 years or more
Burning bushes that talk
People turning into pillars of salt for turning around and looking at ht smoking ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah
People rising from the dead.
Freshly-risen dead being beamed up to heaven
Nonetheless, I am fairly religious and believe all of that. Not because someone offered proof, but because I understood that my own personal knowledge cannot possibly be all that there is, no matter how well I edicate myself.
The first step in your discovery of the truth (or not) of Human-Caused climate change is certainly not going to come in the form of a carload of geeks in lab coats dropping off a stack of books, charts and diagrams at your door.
Generally, if one wishes to obtain knowledge, one must first seek it. You must look, Mr. Galt - certainly the evidence is all around you, as there is no disagreement amongst scientists about it, despite what those who can't see past themselves would have you believe.
Everything in the world is made of things that the average person will never see or experience in any meaningful way - atoms, molecules, and so on. At this very moment, your body is being penetrated by hundreds of particles of cosmic radiation, yet you don't feel a thing.
Deriding the educated as "elitists" brings nothing to the table but the behavior of children calling each other named in the schoolyard. We "elitists" (and goodness, has the connotation of that word changed in the last few years) are working hard to solve this problem, and suppose when it is found, and the evidence becomes clear to even the most hard-headed, that there is precious little room at the inn for the people who stood in the way of this progress? Suppose the solution can be localized and these elitists keep it for themselves?
The worst thing that happens if we prepare and nothing happens is that there is a lifestyle improvement. On the other hand, if we don't prepare and it's every bit as bad as predicted, millions - perhaps even billions will die. A simple cost/benefit analysis would seem to send even a skeptic to the bookstore.
Just two weeks ago, more money was thrown at greedy Wall Street bankers, who are at this very moment paying it to themselves in the form of bonuses. This money is more than has been used to educate our children for the last decade or so. It also represents about the next five years or so of your tax dollars. All the money ever spent on climate science is a mere drop in this bucket. Imagine what a new generation of better educated young people could have done instead. In light of the $700 Billion sweepstakes (10x the US GDP), the $50 to $100 of the average individual's taxes going to climate science is the proverbial drop in the ocean. It's one thing to worry about how one's tax dollars are spent - I for example would like to see less spent overseas and more here at home - but quite another to quibble over pennies while hundred dollar bills are blowing away in a tornado.
Mr. Galt, waiting for a carload of scientists to drive up to your house to drop off a pile of books, charts, and computer models is likely to be a long, long wait. If you want to know, you have to look. By the time its on the TV news, it will be far, far, far too late.
Unfortunately, in recent years, our country has fractured across all manner of ideological, dogmatic lines. Maybe some people think that this is a good thing. I don't. This, and many other issues call for unified action at every level of society. Something that cannot happen until we begin to heal these fractures.
Its OK to be a skeptic. But a skeptic who refuses to educate him/herself... That's not a skeptic, that's just being hard-headed.
So, Mr Galt, and those like you, feel free to be hard-headed, but at least be honest and say so instead claiming to be a skeptic.
I don't ask for proof as that would be non-scientific I have been told repeatedly.
What I desperately want is some evidence that would overturn my experience of the increasing cold.
Just a piece of evidence that would let me go back to my business and relax in the knowledge that CO2 being declared a dangerous pollutant, draconian taxes need to be implemented to counter same and dragging us back to the caves will save mankind.
One piece of evidence that shows that CO2 increases have made temperatures rise. At all.
Their problem is not that science is faulty. Their problem is that they lack a mindset that recognizes reality and prefer to live in their own little cocoons of fantasy.
Carl Sagan said it best when he talked about how scientists will change their minds when presented with proof, not as often as they should, but it happens on a daily basis. Nonscientists, on the other hand, absolutely refuse to change their minds when shown their mistake prefering to live in their cognitive dissonance where their lives and well-being may be at stake, but their little minds are well-balanced.
Just a little glimpse of what _anyone_ is "doing" with the "science" would be nice. And if you could provide, say, a shred of "evidence" to back up the claims of some that the amazing gas of life, CO2, is capable of performing even more miraculous gymnastics that could/will cause runaway warming, that would be gratefully received also. Then we could go home, nurse our wounds and let "the big boys" get back to their science.
If the science is settled why succumb to resentment when faced with differing opinion? Why not just ignore us? Surely we will wither on the vine. Just get on with your science.
Until such time as someone produces a definitive breakdown of how CO2 can possible damage the biosphere, with or without raising temperatures, some of us will continue to rail against the injustices, taxation and "mitigation" foisted upon us by agenda driven fundamentalists.
Learn to live with us if you cannot produce a single believable reason why we should just stand here and meekly accept your grace's proclamations - because some of us are not going away. We are angry at your claims, we are outraged that you feel that _we_ must prove _your_ crazy theory for you and we are mystified when called names like "denier" by supposedly impartial "scientists".
There is no rush to "study climate change" - it isn't going away anytime soon. Global warming seems to have slowed down a lot recently but if it floats your boat so be it. Just don't attempt to beat up the rest of us with your unfounded fears. Please grow up.
Just a little glimpse of what _anyone_ is "doing" with the "science" would be nice. And if you could provide, say, a shred of "evidence" to back up the claims of some that the amazing gas of life, CO2, is capable of performing even more miraculous gymnastics that could/will cause runaway warming, that would be gratefully received also. Then we could go home, nurse our wounds and let "the big boys" get back to their science.
If the science is settled why succumb to resentment when faced with differing opinion? Why not just ignore us? Surely we will wither on the vine. Just get on with your science.
Until such time as someone produces a definitive breakdown of how CO2 can possible damage the biosphere, with or without raising temperatures, some of us will continue to rail against the injustices, taxation and "mitigation" foisted upon us by agenda driven fundamentalists.
Learn to live with us if you cannot produce a single believable reason why we should just stand here and meekly accept your grace's proclamations - because some of us are not going away. We are angry at your claims, we are outraged that you feel that _we_ must prove _your_ crazy theory for you and we are mystified when called names like "denier" by supposedly impartial "scientists".
There is no rush to "study climate change" - it isn't going away anytime soon. Global warming seems to have slowed down a lot recently but if it floats your boat so be it. Just don't attempt to beat up the rest of us with your unfounded fears. Please grow up.
It looks at several flip flops in the media starting with cooling reports in 1895. Science News is mentioned on pages 4 and 12 thanks to the cover story (I remember the cover!) from March 1, 1975. I guess SN counts as media and not journal, so that means SN was part of the problem. :-)
Please login or register to participate.