In an interview in The Australian (behind The Australian‘s paywall, search for “Gadfly Geoffrey Blainey”) historian Geoffrey Blainey gets his history wrong:

In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be global warming over the next 40 years.

That’s not true, as Ian Musgrave explains.

Comments

  1. #1 Gaz
    November 9, 2011

    Blainey’s new book: “The Tyranny of Making Stuff Up” and the sequel, “The Tyranny of Not Checking Your Facts”.

  2. #2 Jeffrey Davis
    November 9, 2011

    Behind a paywall? Fantastic. Great idea.

  3. #3 Alan
    November 9, 2011

    The first paper to use the term “global warming” and to predict that increasing levels of CO2 would cause it was in 1975.

    Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
    Author(s): Wallace S. Broecker
    Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4201 (Aug. 8, 1975), pp. 460-463
    Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1740491

    In 1981, when I began my career as physicist and first became aware of the problem, very few of my colleagues thought about global warming.

  4. #4 andersand
    November 9, 2011

    yes but Arrhenius was already writing about it in the late nineteenth century I think ..

  5. #5 John
    November 9, 2011

    Allan, until 1975 it was known as “climate change”, which puts lie to the popular denier theory that the socialist nazis at the UN invented the PC term “climate change” when the globe started cooling in 1995/1998/2001/2002/2005/2010.

  6. #6 Alan
    November 9, 2011

    Can anyone point me to a paper that
    a)reports increasing levels of CO2 due to industrial activity
    b)predicts that this will cause warming
    c)pre-dates Broeker

    I’m merely curious: the science of climate change in a) and b) is well-established. I just wonder who first raised the warning flag and when.

    This being the internet, where tribalism and credentialism rules, I wonder if I should establish my bona fides. Search for my name in the Duff thread and in the Jonas thread.

  7. #7 andersand
    November 9, 2011

    I’m not a scientist but I recommend Paul N. Edwards A Vast Machine on the history of climate science, for those who haven’t read it. On around p74, for example, Edwards writes about Arrhenius and Thomas Chamberlin and their various speculations about exactly these questions. No, it’s not quite a “paper” in the contemporary sense … it is the history of thinking about what and why however. It’s a great book, and it’s amazing how few people know the history of climate science.

  8. #8 Michael
    November 9, 2011

    New Ltd has a new CEO, but it looks like the WoS will continue, given he thinks it’s everyone else who has a “glass jaw”.

  9. #9 Stephen Baines
    November 9, 2011

    Alan

    If you want to go to near to origin, try [these]( http://uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.pdf) [two](http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_tellus_1960.pdf).

    You can also look up papers by Guy Callendar, referenced in the Revelle and Suess papers.

  10. #10 ChrisB
    November 9, 2011

    And in the mass media:
    In Time magazine, December 17, 1956, when I was ten;

    In a cover article on “Weatherman Carl-Gustaf Rossby”,

    CO2 Menace
    Another atmospheric variable is carbon dioxide. CO2 is comparatively plentiful downwind from industrial areas such as the Ruhr, and there is a good possibility that man’s fires and engines are adding so much of it to the atmosphere that the world’s climate may be changed drastically by the solar heat that it traps. Rossby wants to find out about this little matter too.

    We were warned.

  11. #11 ianam
    November 9, 2011

    This being the internet, where tribalism and credentialism rules

    Not really.

    I wonder if I should establish my bona fides. Search for my name in the Duff thread and in the Jonas thread.

    Why, did someone in those threads challenge your bona fides?

  12. #12 ianam
    November 9, 2011

    Here is a newspaper article from 1957 that uses the term “global warming” (and “climate changes”) in connection with industrial release of CO2.

  13. #13 cbp
    November 9, 2011

    [Svante Arrhenius discusses warming due to industrial emissions of CO2 in 1908:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect)

  14. #14 MikeH
    November 9, 2011

    Here is a [timeline](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm) from Spencer Weart’s excellent “The discovery of global warming”

  15. #15 JoeG
    November 9, 2011

    Two quotes from the AIP work (@14): “By the end of the 1970s, scientific opinion had settled on warming as most likely, probably becoming evident around the year 2000″ and “G.S. Callendar … in 1938 … presented sketchy evidence that humanity’s use of fossil fuels could be causing global warming through the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide gas. Callendar recalled how nearly every expert on climate rejected his arguments. ‘The idea that man’s actions could influence so vast a complex,” he wrote, “is very repugnant to some.'”
    I guess Blainey doesn’t know how to use Google.

  16. #16 Alan
    November 9, 2011

    Thanks for the commenters who set me straight. I didn’t know the idea has such a long history.

  17. #17 MikeM
    November 9, 2011

    Climate scientist Gilbert N Plass, writing in Scientific American in July 1959, [“Carbon Dioxide and Climate”](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dioxide-and-climate), concludes:

    We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory [of climate warming] against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun’s energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth’s temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth’s temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth’s reserves of fossil fuels.

    Plass’s tentative projection that climate temperature could increase by 3.6 degrees by the year 2000 was wrong, for reasons that are now better understood than they were 52 years ago, but it is clear now that greenhouse gas effects strongly dominate those of volcanic activity and of changes in sun radiance.

    Of course in 1959 Scientific American did not have a web site, but it posted the Plass article online in December 2008, just short of the 50th anniversary of original publication.

  18. #18 clarencegirl
    November 9, 2011

    Surely no-one expected Geoffrey Blainey to get historical fact right?
    We’re taking about Blainey after all- an advanced Google search is beyond him!

  19. #19 jakerman
    November 9, 2011

    Naomi Oreskes has done a good work [looking at this history](http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/professor-naomi-oreskes-explains-the-origin-of-the-global-warming-denialism-hoax/question-2171745/):

    >…in the early 20th century, when Swedish geochemist Svante Arrhenius deduced from Tyndall’s work that CO2 released to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels could alter Earth’s climate. By the 1930s British engineer Guy Callendar had compiled empirical evidence that this effect was already discernible.

    >Callendar’s concern was pursued in the 1950s by numerous American scientists, including oceanographer Roger Revelle [and] Charles David Keeling […] By the 1960s, Keeling’s assiduous measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii demonstrated conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide was, indeed, steadily rising […].

    >One early warning that we “will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate . . . could occur” came in 1965 from the Environmental Pollution Board of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. […] In a special message to Congress in February 1965, **President Lyndon B. Johnson** noted: “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”

    >A second warning came in 1966 from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald […]

    >In 1974, in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, Alvin Weinberg, director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, realized that climatological impacts might limit oil production before geology did. In 1978, Robert M. White, the first administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and later president of the National Academy of Engineering, put it this way:

    >>”We now understand that industrial wastes, such as carbon dioxide released during the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future society.”

    >In 1979 the subject was addressed by the JASON Committee, the reclusive group of scientists with high-level security clearances who gather annually to advise the U.S. government; its members have included some of the most brilliant scientists of our era.

    >The JASON scientists predicted that atmospheric carbon dioxide might double by 2035, resulting in mean global temperature increases of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and polar warming of as much as 10 to 12 degrees. This report reached the Carter White House, where science adviser Frank Press asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second opinion. An academy committee, headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney, affirmed the JASON conclusion: “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

    >It was these concerns that led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and, in 1992

  20. #20 ConnorJ
    November 10, 2011

    Gotta love that paywall! :D

  21. #21 ConnorJ
    November 10, 2011

    Blainey seems to think it’s 1990:

    In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be global warming over the next 40 years. Suddenly they change their minds and say: this is wonderful, look what science has discovered. They never say, look how wrong science was 20 years ago when they were telling us a completely opposite version. I think science is riding more highly than at any previous moment

  22. #22 Donald Oats
    November 10, 2011

    In regards to Geoffrey Blainey, Ian Plimer, George Pell, Rupert Murdoch, and several others of their generation:

    “Have young men ever understood,
    The games that old men play”

    [Rupert Hine, “The Wildest Wish To Fly” (1983)]

  23. #23 JamesA
    November 10, 2011

    The fact that deniers so often resort to historical revisionism in their desperate attempts to ignore current scientific facts tells you a lot in my opinion. But taken in isolation (not read the entire article) notice how misleadingly phrased his quote was; he only refers to the ‘overwhelming majority of scientists’, not climate scientists. He could twist that into meaning that he is referring to science overall, which when referring to a period when climate science was beginning to hit an at-the-time-sceptical mainstream, could be argued, given that he phrase the belief in global warming as a negative. Of course, the implied meaning, that climate scientists themselves actively thought there wasn’t going to be global warming, is utter rubbish.

    Assuming that this is what’s going on in this instance, this kind of thing really winds me up, where somebody uses a statement that could be argued to be factual to implant an implied lie in the collective that goes on to be repeated as fact. Is there a word for it? If not, there should be.

  24. #24 Harry
    November 10, 2011

    Since Blainey is a historian, you would think he would look up the history of the discovery of global warming. Too much like hard work, perhaps. He would rather take the non scientific approach to this issue and just make things up.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    November 10, 2011

    Since Blainey is a historian

    Blainey’s definition of historian appears to be someone who makes up history, someone such as himself.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    November 10, 2011

    I refuse to sign up and pledge money to NI for the privilege noisome experience of reading such garbage.

    I wonder if this paywall thing is beginning to melt as Sydney experience new record night time temperatures?

    What is it with old white males, although I could be considered one myself, that makes them so oblivious to the climatic events around the world (Alaska being hit by a storm surge and Vietnam now suffering floods)? Maybe it is the secure pensions and other sinecures, along with the certainty that they are not going to be around much longer so will miss the worst of Earth’s attempt to shake us off and restore radiative balance.

  27. #27 Hank Roberts
    November 10, 2011

    > I didn’t know the idea has such a long history.
    > Posted by: Alan

    How long have you been reading about the subject, and where have you been reading? I’m curious how you missed the history.

    Not that anyone’s required to know the history before opining, of course.

    But it’s interesting to know how people get their opinions, and how they get to the point of opining in public without encountering the history — like rushing through the forest of information without ever encountering a tree.

    How _do_ people do this?

  28. #28 MikeM
    November 10, 2011

    Blainey may have been referring to the myth widely believed by climate denialists that “most scientists” predicted global cooling before they predicted warming (proving how confused and unreliable scientists must be).

    There is a grain of truth under the lie. In 1971 the late Stephen Schneider (gasp!) [coauthered a paper](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider), “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, that said:

    However, it is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection… should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

    Over the three decades from about 1940 there had indeed been an apparent drop in global temperature, which was the impetus for this research. Subsequently, Schneider discovered an error in the calculations supporting the conclusion and published a retraction of the paper in 1976. Furthermore, the observed temperature drop, which was actually confined to the northern hemisphere, disappeared as European and Soviet industry cleaned up its act and reduced the level of atmospheric pollution that it produced.

    Blainey may have limited his research to Cardinal Pell’s Gospel According to St Plimer.

  29. #29 adelady
    November 10, 2011

    I suspect that Schneider et al may have been operating in an ‘atmosphere’ favouring cooling because many geologists at the time really were predicting cooling. Not at the headlong pace of current warming, but cooling nevertheless.

    Unfortunately they had their Milankovich/orbital/general geological cycles a bit skew whiff. So they were eleventy millennia off the mark.

  30. #30 chek
    November 10, 2011

    Lionel A said:“I refuse to sign up and pledge money to NI”

    I agree 100%.

    I will never give a penny to Murdoch or any of his organs. I have never bought one of his ‘newspapers’, even when one of his titles is the last available in the shop. I recall my brother was quite annoyed that I didn’t acquire for him a copy of the Microsoft special souvenir edition of The Times the day that Windows 95 was launched, while he was out of the country.

    Unfortunaely, I don’t use a TV either (what’s available to a PC makes up for visual information/entertainment) otherwise I’d also include Sky satellite TV in my list of self prohibitions.

    Ideally, the hacking enquiries here in the U.K. would result in the entire Murdoch clan serving out the rest of their days eking out a meagre living from the prison garden on Devil’s Island.

    So I can only hope that their self-imposed paywall in Australia is a major contributor to their noisome, neo-liberal agenda sliding down the garbage chute of history.

  31. #31 David Horton
    November 10, 2011

    Not surprising to see Blainey among climate change deniers.

    As people have said above, his ignorance on this history is complete.

    The nonsense about the 1970s world getting colder theory often comes up of course. I remember the speculation about pollution and what effect it might be having on climate, and on whether we were due to head back into another ice age and so on. The kind of speculation good scientists indulge in “I wonder if …” “What would happen …” and so on. But there wasn’t much data available in those days. In a sense this kind of scientific curiosity led to the establishment of measuring temps in the air and sea and more extensively on land, and led to the start of computer modelling.

    The result, over 35 years later, as a result of the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists and specialised institutions, is that we do indeed know that CO2 effects are outweighing pollution, and we know what the future holds. To pretend that the situation now in climate science is what it was in the 1970s is a grotesque skewing of historical reality. And Blainey, whatever else he is, not a stupid man, must know that. Shameful.

  32. #32 Chris O'Neill
    November 10, 2011

    In 1971 the late Stephen Schneider (gasp!) coauthered a paper, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”

    Yes isn’t it absolutely appalling that climate scientists were researching factors other than Carbon Dioxide that might affect climate.

  33. #33 jakerman
    November 10, 2011

    >I have never bought one of his ‘newspapers’, even when one of his titles is the last available in the shop.

    In several states in Oz we’ve had no choice. Murdoch has a monoploy in South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. In SA he bought the oppostion paper then owning the only two he closed one.

    Until the internet, if you wanted to find a job or bid for tender or read public anouncments you needed to buy his fiththy rag.

    Even withe the internet if we need to advertise a for a job vacancy we really have little choice but to give Murchod hundreds or thousands of dollars.

    Murdoch’s rag is so distastful that they are giving it away to up their circulation (e.g. comes free daily with gym membership etc.) . But I refuse to take the freebee. I wont add even one more count to their circulation.

  34. #34 Billy Bob Hall
    November 11, 2011

    No John #5 – It is you who are the lier.

  35. #35 adelady
    November 11, 2011

    ” giving it away to up their circulation ” So they’re doing that elsewhere, are they?

    Our local independent supermarket often has them for nothing – initially we thought it was because they had an advertising liftout in there, but they keep on doing it. And my husband actually _brought one home_ from another place the other day.

  36. #36 lord_sidcup
    November 11, 2011

    Although it didn’t cover Australian newspapers, [the conclusions of the Reuters Institute ‘Poles Apart’ report](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15639767
    ) of climate ‘scepticism’ in the media are apposite to the Australian’s WoS:

    The weight of this study would suggest that, out of this wide range of factors, the presence of politicians espousing some variation of climate scepticism, the existence of organised interests that feed sceptical coverage, and partisan media receptive to this message, all play a particularly significant role in explaining the greater prevalence of sceptical voices in the print media of the USA and the UK.

  37. #37 Lionel A
    November 11, 2011

    chek:

    ‘Ideally, the hacking enquiries here in the U.K. would result in the entire Murdoch clan serving out the rest of their days eking out a meagre living from the prison garden on Devil’s Island.

    I, in turn, agree 100%.

    Unfortunately I think reality will play out differently with commentators in the Guardian taking MP Tom Watson to task for his description of James Murdoch as being, ‘the only Mafia boss in history who was unaware of his running a criminal enterprise’.

    The comments, at the end of the Guardian piece, gave Alexander Chancellor short shrift though.

  38. #38 Mal Adapted
    November 11, 2011

    Lionel A:

    What is it with old white males, although I could be considered one myself, that makes them so oblivious to the climatic events around the world (Alaska being hit by a storm surge and Vietnam now suffering floods)?

    One blogger’s take: What’s Up With Conservative White Men and Climate Change Denial?

  39. #39 Lionel A
    November 11, 2011

    That ‘What’s Up With Conservative…’ link failed for me but this one works:

    One of the Climate Denial Crock series

  40. #40 Another Kiwi
    November 11, 2011

    You don’t think it could be connected to …MONEY!?!? Do you?

  41. #41 ConnorJ
    November 11, 2011

    [You don’t think it could be connected to …MONEY!?!? Do you?]

    Probably more to do with Blainey seeing an avenue to continue the assault in his “culture war” against “teh Left”

  42. #42 OMG
    November 12, 2011

    You got to laugh, low level, largely unpublished IT teacher tells well known, heavily published historian he has the history wrong.

  43. #43 Somerville
    November 12, 2011

    OMG’s comment made me think of something once said by Sir Arthur C Clarke to the effect of the older and more distinguished the individual the more likely it is that their present-day pronouncements are wrong, also known as Clarke’s Axiom. A bit of the google and I found that my memory wasn’t quite right, the actual quote

    When a distinguished but elderly statesman states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    As I was looking about, I came upon another rather relevant quote; Mark Twain writing about the late 19th C fad over pre-Columbian explorers in North America.

    The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probable that if they continue we shall soon know nothing at all about it.

    Certainly seems applicable to some of the more prominent “commentators” in the climate change debate, and I’m not pointing at actual scientists and researchers but specifically those who have claimed unearned expertise in the field.

  44. #44 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 12, 2011

    Actually I think “OMG” only happens to “recognize” the authority of Blainey because he likes what Blainey is saying.

    If Blainey were to tell the truth, his authority suddenly won’t matter to “OMG”.

    — frank

  45. #45 Olaus Petri
    November 12, 2011

    When looking back at the ice age prophesy in the 70s one will find that there (among real climate scientist) were few that were adamant about it. It was just a hypothesis among others. When we, in ten years or so, look back at the global warming….sorry climate chan…sorry climate disruption prophesies one will find that the real climate scientist not were dead sure about it. It was just a hypothesis among others.

    :-)

  46. #46 Chris O'Neill
    November 12, 2011

    Certainly seems applicable to some of the more prominent “commentators” in the climate change debate, and I’m not pointing at actual scientists and researchers but specifically those who have claimed unearned expertise in the field.

    That’s one of the points Barry Bickmore makes in his “return from the darkside”. In it he points out that Monckton, for example, invites people to check out what he’s saying but of course the people who want to believe him never do, in spite of them calling themselves skeptics.

    Same with Blainey, no-one who wants to believe him (the self-styled “skeptics”) ever checks out his claim. They’re just fair-weather skeptics.

  47. #47 Chris O'Neill
    November 12, 2011

    Olaus Petri:

    When looking back at the ice age prophesy in the 70s one will find that there (among real climate scientist) were few that were adamant about it. It was just a hypothesis among others.

    It was a prophesy about what would happen IF aerosol pollution continued to increase. Fortunately humanity did not act stupidly then.

    When we, in ten years or so, look back at the global warming prophesies one will find that the real climate scientist not were dead sure about it.

    Sure if you say so. This will only come about IF, like in the 70s, humanity stops acting stupidly.

    :-)

    You’re not funny you’re just an idiot.

  48. #48 John
    November 12, 2011

    Ten years, Olaus Petri? What do you expect to happen in ten short years?

  49. #49 Olaus Petri
    November 12, 2011

    Thanks for the kind words Chris.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. The CAGW-gospel will be tuned out when people stop being stu-pid. And they are becoming more and more sane. Soon can we, retrospectively, chek that few real climate scientist were convinced that science was settled.

    :-)

  50. #50 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 12, 2011

    Olaus Petri:

    Which part of “Geoffrey Blainey gets his history wrong” do you not understand?

    — frank

  51. #51 Olaus Petri
    November 12, 2011

    Dear John, in ten years I predict that the kidnapped CO2-hypothesis will be back in a scientific milieu – where it belongs – and then purged from ideology and politics (e.g. deltoids).

  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    November 12, 2011

    Olaus Petri:

    The CAGW-gospel will be tuned out when people stop being stu-pid.

    Do you always prove you have the IQ of an idiot? Humanity stopped acting as stupidly in the 70s by reducing aerosol pollution. If humanity wants to stop acting as stupidly now it will reduce CO2 pollution just as it reduced aerosol pollution in the 70s. Unfortunately, if enough of humanity is like Olaus Petri then it will continue to act stupidly.

  53. #53 Dave H
    November 12, 2011

    Olaus Petri doesn’t actually know *why* AGW is to be disbelieved – he is just adamant that it is, he is impervious to any evidence to the contrary, and he ridicules anyone that does not share his convictions.

    The epitomy of skepticism, I’m sure.

  54. #54 john byatt
    November 12, 2011

    “But it’s interesting to know how people get their opinions, and how they get to the point of opining in public without encountering the history — like rushing through the forest of information without ever encountering a tree.
    How do people do this?”
    Posted by: Hank Roberts

    Yesterday I had to let the solar man into the house next door to finish off the installation, we got to talking about climate change and all he knew was that they had changed it from global warming to climate change.

    After explaining a few things to him he became interested, gave me his email and asked for some info.

    I emailed him aip org history of CO2 greenhouse effect, he will get back to me after he reads it.

    The next place i will send him will be john cook’s skeptical science to read through the misunderstandings of the sceptics.

    After that the PIOMASS graphic of Arctic sea ice volume heading for zero by 2015 should give him something to relate to.

  55. #55 Richard Simons
    November 12, 2011

    Chriss @46

    It was a prophesy about what would happen IF aerosol pollution continued to increase. Fortunately humanity did not act stupidly then.

    As I recall, at about the same time there were calculations on the effects of the Milankovitch cycles. On this basis it was said that, if other conditions were unchanged, Earth would enter a new ice age in about 12,000 years (or failing that, 120,000 years). Journalists then combined the two ideas, became thoroughly confused and forgot the conditional statements.

  56. #56 jakerman
    November 12, 2011

    Olaus compare your guess with the facts. Here are the pertinent facts: compare [1970s](http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm) vs [a Consensus](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm).

    Your prognostications are baseless fluff.

  57. #57 Fran Barlow
    November 12, 2011

    A couple of things on the history …

    CO2-forced warming wasn’t commonly called “climate change until about 1981. Until then it was often described as “climatic change” as in Gilbert Plass’s paper in August 1955 (‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’)

    As Climate Crock of the Week points out November 1939 may be the earliest reference to climate change as a descriptor for the CO2 forcing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    November 12, 2011

    [Peter Sinclair’s video on the subject of 70s ‘cooling’](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/search/2/XB3S0fnOr0M) deserves a mention.

    On another matter:

    >>I didn’t know the idea has such a long history. Posted by: Alan

    >How long have you been reading about the subject, and where have you been reading? I’m curious how you missed the history.

    I’m curious also, given that Alan is apparently a physicist who has been working longer in science than I have, although not by too many years. If we’re letting trained and working(?) physicists miss this basic history, then there is definitely something wrong in the communication process.

    [Olaus Petri](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5814791), your quantification valve has blown (amongst a number of others…). [Jakerman has attempted to enlighten you ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5817252), however, so do yourself a favour and take note.

    Oo, and if you’re so sure that AGW is going to be proved a scam, then you must be champing at the bit to [accept one of my wager alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133). Which one suits?

  59. #59 ChrisC
    November 13, 2011

    …largely unpublished IT teacher …

    Oh, for heaven’s sake, learn the difference between IT and Computer Science. Hint: one is the study of computation, and is more closely related to mathematics that any other field. Once you’ve got that under your belt, then we can talk about why the rest of your post it wrong.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    November 13, 2011

    > Actually I think “OMG” only happens to “recognize” the authority of Blainey because he likes what Blainey is saying.

    Muller could relate some personal experience with that phenomenon.

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    November 13, 2011

    > Once you’ve got that under your belt, then we can talk about why the rest of your post it wrong.

    I beg to differ. The rest of the comment was *right*. It *is* so astonishing that Blainey got the history so badly wrong, and was schooled on it by (amongst others, no doubt) a non-historian, that the only viable response is resigned laughter.

    Oh, wait, the OP was being sarcastic? My mistake… ;-)

  62. #62 Bigelow
    November 13, 2011

    Where is Blainey getting it wrong?

  63. #63 Bigelow
    November 13, 2011

    “I beg to differ. The rest of the comment was right. It is so astonishing that Blainey got the history so badly wrong”

    No its not astonishing because he didn’t get the history wrong, you did. Nor is it likely that Geoffrey Blainey would get this history wrong. He’s an historian, and this is not something he would get wrong. Its more like something you would get wrong.

    Back in those days, people acknowledged openly that we were in a brief inter-glacial, so it was more than natural to think of the cold snap of the 70’s to be part of the known downward trend in temperature.

  64. #64 ChrisC
    November 13, 2011

    Bigelow @ 62

    “Back in those days, people acknowledged openly that we were in a brief inter-glacial, so it was more than natural to think of the cold snap of the 70’s to be part of the known downward trend in temperature.”

    Rather than just making stuff up and declaring it “history”, you could, ummm, you know, find what science was [actually saying](http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm) in the ’70s.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    November 13, 2011

    > He’s an historian, and this is not something he would get wrong.

    FAIL. Classic ad hominem fallacy.

    > Back in those days, people acknowledged openly that we were in a brief inter-glacial, so it was more than natural to think of the cold snap of the 70’s to be part of the known downward trend in temperature.

    Except that Blainey’s comments were not about interglacial timescales; they were about “the next 40 years”.

    And back in the ’70’s *as following the links will demonstrate* the possibility of anthropogenic warming was a far larger topic in the literature than cooling. If you want to specifically argue about 1970 rather than the popular meme of “scientists predicted cooling in the ’70’s”, then Table 1 of the article linked to in the linked post demonstrates that there was more attention paid to warming in the literature in the few years before 1970 than cooling – and that doesn’t include all the research from back in the 19th Century through to the late ’60’s predicting that greenhouse gases may cause significant warming on much much shorter timescales than interglacials.

  66. #66 Bigelow
    November 13, 2011

    The point is that you are wrong and Blainey is right. The “following links” don’t demonstrate that Blainey is wrong, because he’s not wrong.

    Its still the standard understanding that we are in a brief interglacial. So you don’t know what you are talking about.

  67. #67 Bigelow
    November 13, 2011

    “A far larger topic”

    A far larger topic? Get serious mate. You are obviously engaged in fraud here.

  68. #68 Chris O'Neill
    November 13, 2011

    He’s an historian, and this is not something he would get wrong.

    It’s amazing how easily supposed skeptics trot out argument-by-authority when it suits them.

  69. #69 OMG
    November 13, 2011

    Chris..O
    Are you still unemployed.? Been a long time through booms and busts

  70. #70 ChrisC
    November 13, 2011

    Recognising that I may as well argue with a tree stump

    The point is that you are wrong and Blainey is right. The “following links” don’t demonstrate that Blainey is wrong, because he’s not wrong.

    Blainey stated in his article “In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be going to be global warming over the next 40 years…”. This is incorrect, as the evidence in Skeptical Science link demonstrate. Global Warming was an identified phenomena in the ’70s, and the number of papers that predicted warming during that decade significantly outnumbered those that predicted cooling or neutral conditions. This was clearly presented in the SkSc link.

    “Its still the standard understanding that we are in a brief interglacial. ”

    “Brief” on geological time scales. “40 years”, is obviously, not a geological time scale. If Blainey was trying to make the distinction between long time scale orbital climate forcing and short/medium term anthropogenic forcing, as you seem to imply, he did a piss-poor job.

    “So you don’t know what you are talking about.”

    All you’ve done on this thread is make blanket assertion, without providing any rational basis, much less hard evidence, for them. So, you’re “very likely” (to use IPCC speak) to not know what you are talking about.

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    November 13, 2011

    > The point is that you are wrong and Blainey is right.

    You keep saying it, but you keep failing to demonstrate it.

    Why, you almost sound like Blainey ;-)

  72. #72 Chris O'Neill
    November 13, 2011

    Are you still unemployed.?

    Never been unemployed.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    November 13, 2011
  74. #74 Olaus Petri
    November 13, 2011

    Fellas, thanks again for your kind words. That said, the dif between the ice age prophesy and the global warming (or what the latest label is) prophesy is rather minor. Both are based on scientific hypothesis’ being kidnapped from the lab. The major dif is in scale.

    One only has to read the “Jonas thread” to see that the CAGW is more of a sociological product than a scientific one. A lot of opinions and beliefs (from non climate scientists), and little of hard facts, which, is normal if dealing with a hypothesis. And that’s OK in the lab, but nonsense and sometimes even dangerous in a milieu alien to it, ergo the society as such where people can turn question marks into undisputed facts, e.g. Deltoid. In other words is the hypothesis then easily converted into a belief system more resembling a religion or cult than science. That, in turn, undermines critical thinking and hence our ability to be objective). Again the “Jonas thread” is a perfect lens making this phenomenon stand out in relief. Deltoids can’t handle a rational approach from a critical mind and therefore start name calling in lack of better arguments.

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    November 13, 2011

    >One only has to read the “Jonas thread” to see that the CAGW is more of a sociological product than a scientific one. [Blah blah blah…]

    So, Olaus Petri, why won’t you take advantage of the opportunity to fleece me, and accept [one of my wager alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133)?

  76. #76 Olaus Petri
    November 13, 2011

    Bernie, I don’t mind you being religious man. You can believe in a doomsday soon to come for all I care. What I don’t like is your missionary work trying to impose your fire and brimstone belief system onto others.

    But I can’t be mad at you. You are blessed with an authoritarian personality.

  77. #77 John
    November 13, 2011

    Olaus is frightened of both opposing views and reality.

  78. #78 John
    November 13, 2011

    >One only has to read the “Jonas thread” to see that the CAGW is more of a sociological product than a scientific one.

    As “CAGW” is a term only used by deniers, I fully agree with this statement as your language says a lot more about you and your ideology driven beliefs than it does about us.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    November 13, 2011

    Olaus Petri

    whenever we see somebody use the CAGW acronym in a post we understand only too well that ideological blinkers are involved – at best, and downright malfeasance at worst. For those that use such terms are trying to ensure that this monstrous crime against humanity continues to gather pace. The crime is that of delaying action to reign in GHG emissions and other activities that are stripping the planet of increasingly scarce resources. Increasingly scarce because of the damage being caused makes it much harder for many of the essential resources to be renewed quickly enough to sustain us.

    We are no longer harvesting the planet’s resources but mining them. To understand the true significance of this fact then I suggest a reading of Jared Diamond and in particular ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed’, which incidentally is the new longer title of a new edition.

    Every period of increased drought, flooding etc. reduces the planet’s ecosystems ability to recover. We are now in a new geological age – the anthropocene because of how rapidly we are driving species to extinction. You should consider some recent literature on that very topic, I have already mentioned examples in other threads.

    As for why GHGs have the effect they do why don’t you drink deeply at the information presented at the site to which, for some strange reason, your moniker here links. Whilst you are there note the books that show up in the right-hand side bar and try studying these.

    You will then understand why your continued obstinate wilful ignorance draws a few choice, and accurate epithets in reply.

  80. #80 tmcm
    November 13, 2011

    >Deltoids can’t handle a rational approach from a critical mind and therefore start name calling in lack of better arguments.

    What exactly is a ‘Deltoid’? Is that somebody who posts here? In that case it seems to be Tim Lambert and eventual guest posters (such as John Mashey). Or is it somebody who replies to these posts? Considering your number of reactions in the last few months, you are a convinced ‘Deltoid’, one that fits your own description completely. Congratulations.

    Funny that some always have the tendency to put people in boxes (Warmers, Deltoids, etc.), which apparently eliminates the need to go into a meaningful discussion with them. Probably some binary processes are going on: we good, they bad. Groupthink is strong in these self-proclaimed critical minds.

  81. #81 OMG
    November 13, 2011

    I’ve never beat a woman, Bernard J. If I did I would be a convicted wife beater like you.

  82. #82 Turboblocke
    November 13, 2011

    Yesterday I had to let the solar man into the house next door to finish off the installation, we got to talking about climate change and all he knew was that they had changed it from global warming to climate change.

    Remind that chap that the IPCC was set up in 1988. And tell him what the CC stands for.

  83. #83 Olaus Petri
    November 13, 2011

    Dear Lionel, I understand that fruits of crime taste bitterly. If you are not one of those believing that everybody (not convinced that science is settled regarding the CO2-hypothesis) are right wing science hating a-holes that don’t care about environmental issues, I suggest you ask Tim to remove your latest post.

    Anyhow, the CAGW acronym fits rather well with the Goregones flying around crying in the “Jonas thread”. Chek, Bernie, Jeffie H, Stu, LB, Wow and what not are obsessed (abscessed?) with some kind of illuminati theory that explain to them why people don’t swallow their unscientific propaganda stunts about armageddon. It ain’t pretty.

    Most of their anger is based on the fact that they are losing ground, and they will continue doing so. Real science is gaining momentum, making itself noticeable in the unscientific smog produced by the leading bunch of white, heterosexual, middle-aged guys in their hunt for status and prestige, like many deltoids.

    I’m sure you all mean well, but sites like this one is feeding on conspiracies and semi-religious beliefs that construct imaginary dichotomies with no ground in reality. Just like a sect.

  84. #84 Chris O'Neill
    November 13, 2011

    Olaus Petri:

    construct imaginary dichotomies with no ground

    What does this have to do with Blainey making up history?

  85. #85 Olaus Petri
    November 13, 2011

    Chris, sorry for not mentioning you in my last post. Please forgive me.

  86. #86 jakerman
    November 13, 2011

    The I thought it was impossible, but are the arguments presented by denialist actually worsening?

  87. #87 Chris O'Neill
    November 13, 2011

    Olaus Petri:

    sorry for not mentioning you in my last post

    What do I have to do with Blainey making up history?

  88. #88 Alan
    November 13, 2011

    A clip from a 1958 documentary, the claims in the clip are based on a report to the US government by the National Academies of Science.

  89. #89 chek
    November 13, 2011

    J., it’s like they’re spewing their little ideological brains out onto the pavement and expecting you to admire the splat.

    white, heterosexual, middle-aged guys

    Oh how wrong can you be, Oluas/Olaus who can’t even spell his sock correctly.

    You’re most likely thinking of the little clique of young groomed chicken ignorants that Jonas is cultivating.

  90. #90 Olaus Petri
    November 13, 2011

    Sorry Chek, didn’t know you were a black, homosexual, teenager. It doesn’t make my point less valid though. The biggest loud mouths in the climate scare sect tends to be withe, heterosexual, middle-aged guys. You can be the exception from the rule, if it makes you feel better.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    November 13, 2011

    > The I thought it was impossible, but are the arguments presented by denialist actually worsening?

    Nah, they just go in cycles, you know? It’s all natural variation. Or something. But no trend. (That would require some originality or at least novelty, and there’s zero of that in Olaus’ latest rants.) Besides, any trend you do detect is fr@udulent. I mean, would you rather believe me or your lying data and the lying liars who have the cheek to “peer-review” the data and the methods used to generate and validate it?

  92. #92 chek
    November 13, 2011

    Petri, your ability to deduce is poorer than your grasp of science or the concept of topics, hard to believe as that may be.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    November 13, 2011

    > Olaus is frightened of both opposing views and reality.

    He’s also apparently frightened of putting his money where his mouth is.

    But that’s entirely normal for those who cry “CAGW is a religion” in the apparent expectation that people will think that claim is a valid argument/observation.

    And he’s just as unwilling to address Blainey’s fallacious claims and would apparently prefer they were no longer the topic of discussion.

  94. #94 ianam
    November 13, 2011

    You got to laugh, low level, largely unpublished IT teacher tells well known, heavily published historian he has the history wrong.

    Yes, we do laugh at morons like you and their ad hominem fallacies.

  95. #95 Billy Bob Hall
    November 13, 2011

    Have I won the internet yet ? :-)

  96. #96 MikeH
    November 13, 2011

    Alan @ 86
    That clip was fascinating. For the movie buffs, it is part of a science documentary series made for Bell Labs by famous US director [Frank Capra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Capra#Later_films_.281950-1961.29).

    From the description.
    “For FIFTY YEARS scientists have known about global warming. This exerpt is from the well known educational documentary “Unchained Goddess” produced by Frank Capra for Bell Labs for their television program “The Bell Telephone Hour.” It was so well made, that it went on to live a continued life in middle school science classrooms across the nation for decades.”

  97. #97 Bernard J.
    November 14, 2011

    [OMG](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_76.php#comment-5824430).

    You still haven’t succeeded in getting any facts correct. Your second sentence’s verb, adjectival noun, and noun are each wrong. Three mistakes in three consecutive words – that must be almost a record…

    It seems that you don’t like it when you are accused of the sort of unpleasant things that you happily accuse others of. If you have such a fragile glass jaw, why did you accuse Chris O’Neill of being unemployed, eh?

    Oh, that’s right – you’re a troll.

    And a troll that is wrong, stupid, and inclined to ad hominem and hypocrisy. You’ve scored four from four – at least you have that of which to be proud…

  98. #98 ChrisC
    November 14, 2011

    Deltoids can’t handle a rational approach from a critical mind and therefore start name calling in lack of better arguments

    Rational (adj)

    1. Having or exercising the ability to reason;
    2. Of sound mind; sane.
    3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior.
    4. Description of a method of argument by which an apparent moron deluges inane statement after inane statement and/or makes unsupported assertions, without once addressing the either the topic at hand, or presenting any evidence, at all, for their pointless, off topic blather. Then declaring victory.

    Hmmm…. seems like you’re using definition 4. Not one I was previously aware of. Seems we’ve all learned something.

  99. #99 Lionel A
    November 14, 2011

    OP Opined,

    Dear Lionel, I (dire tribe from ‘Also U Tripe’ expunged). Just like a sect.

    whilst looking in the glass watching himself run around like the Red Queen shouting, ‘Off with their heads, off with there heads.’

    What a whack-job you are.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    November 14, 2011

    PS Also U Tripe,

    Whilst you are on about white middle aged males on a hunt for status and prestige you may like to consider the latest in odium from that already well know for odium pair who have managed to dig their gutter even deeper.

Current ye@r *