This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The alarmists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's, now it's too much warming! Why should we believe them?
Answer:
It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970's but a very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. On the other hand, in the 1970's, 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.
Quite simply, there is no comparison. I'm sure you could find better evidence of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion.
If you want some additional detail, Real Climate has discussed this, and William Connelly has made a hobby of gathering everything that was written about global cooling at the time.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Daily headlines, avalanche of scientific articles, United Nations treaties or commissions, G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions and institutional pronouncements does not make scientific evidence.
E.g. The global consensus used to be for "the Sun revolving around the Earth" while minority thought the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Posted by: Sarah | September 8, 2008 12:47 PM
Hi Sarah,
Please see the "There is no evidence" article.
"Eg. ..."
Indeed. Notice how better ideas emerge over time to become the new consensus. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has slowly emerged over the last 100+ years and is not disputed by serious scientists in the field anymore. The future is much less certain, but CO2 driven warming is a settled issue now.
Do you now doubt that the earth really does revolve around the sun?
Posted by: coby | September 8, 2008 1:48 PM
There was every reason to believe that the universe revolved around the earth. How else could we have stayed fixed on a speeding planet? It was not until Newton came up with his laws of motion that folks started to settle down and accept the notion.
Hey, how do we know what some bright guy might come up with in the future? Best to keep the door open aye? That's what science is about after all. Consenus is like a cancer.
Posted by: Tim Jenvey | February 6, 2009 7:09 PM
Hey, how do we know what some bright guy might come up with in the future? Best to keep the door open aye? That's what science is about after all. Consensus is like a cancer so why even call it out. Just reinforces the insecurity which is on show here.
Posted by: Tim Jenvey | February 6, 2009 8:27 PM
Tim,
Such detached intellectual curiosity would be fine if there were no human consequences to our activities. The existence of a consensus is not significant for the scientific pursuits, which will continue, but it is significant for formulating policy.
(Hope I'm not sounding too insecure)
Posted by: coby | February 7, 2009 3:17 PM
You say that "The existence of a consensus is not significant for the scientific pursuits, which will continue". I'm pleased to hear that and trust that we will see this site encourage this.
Otherwise this must be branded a political website.
Let's leave policy to the politicians and give them the complete spectrum of the science we have in the true character of the discipline.
Oh, and I apologize in advance, you do sound insecure:) Thanks for taking time to reply.
Posted by: Tim Jenvey | February 7, 2009 10:13 PM
As an aside to the main issue here, I have always found the use of the word 'consensus' interesting in the global warming debate.
The dictionary definition varies from 1 more than half, to an overwhelming majority. That makes it the perfect word for those who wish to give the impression that 'the science is settled' and that only a few fringe crazies disagree, when in actuality there are far greater numbers who disagree with the current dogma.
A recent poll by Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union (not exactly a right wing think tank) revealed that 10% of scientists in earth-related fields didn't even believe we are warming. And 18% didn't believe man had a significant effect.
Posted by: grecri | February 8, 2009 8:44 PM
Just for reference, here's the study cited by grecri (I believe).
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I think this is a particularly important quote from that study that grecri did not point out:
"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
Also, the conclusion:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
Posted by: Adam | February 9, 2009 11:16 AM
Using your definition of consensus as in a process, there is another step required before making policy and declaring "CO2 driven warming is a settled issue now". That's called “unanimity”.
The use of the word, “consensus” allows folks to agree for the sake of the whole. In which case it is not "settled".
In my view science cannot/should not "settle" anything. We are using it in ways for that which it is not intended.
Posted by: Tim | February 11, 2009 10:57 AM
There may be a few exceptions, but clearly the vast majority of policy decisions are made without being unanimous.
Science can not "settle" what policy should be, but it can certainly settle any questions about what reality is, at least for those to whom reality still matters.
About agreeing for the sake of the whole, I think this is a valid point. Please see here for a discussion of that.
Posted by: coby | February 11, 2009 5:28 PM
I agree that policy decisions will always be a compromise by their very nature.
We are talking here about science.
In your reply above you mention that science delivers 'reality'. I again question you understanding of science. Science only comes up with concepts and theroies based on what we can observe. It does not even get close to reality. What is space, time, light, mass, etc. ???? Not a clue.
Thanks for making an interesting exchange....
Posted by: Tim | February 14, 2009 5:33 PM
Tim,
There was nothing particularly interesting or informative about this exchange. It was the usual misrepresentations we see AGW deniers use all over the blogosphere.
You began with "consensus is a cancer"... This is another conspiracy theory-type argument against AGW. Consensus is not a goal of science, but it is typically a result. And in the case of AGW, this result has allowed us to progress to a point where we can now take political action to try and reverse or slow its affect on our planet.
Next you repeat an old straw man argument that the scientific consensus somehow inhibits future scientific research. This is a complete misunderstanding (or more likely, misrepresentation) of the scientific method. A scientific consensus can be a fragile thing, only as strong as the evidence supporting the theory. The first time someone provides real evidence for a competing theory, or one of the predictions of the theory fails, the consensus will melt away.
Finally, I'm not sure what to make of the last response where you question the relationship of science and reality. The primary purpose of science is to provide us with useful models of reality, and a method for testing them. And don't fall into the trap of believing that just because you are incapable of observing realities like "space, time, light, mass, etc." that no one can. There are many ways to observe reality, and physicists do it every day.
Posted by: mikatollah | February 15, 2009 12:47 PM
You are right. There is nothing interesting or informative. You say "The first time someone provides real evidence for a competing theory, or one of the predictions of the theory fails, the consensus will melt away"
I will say the consensus will not be allowed to 'melt' away even with the contradictory evidence piling up and scientist moving to the non-AGW camp.
You will say the science is settled and the scientists are moving to the pro-AGW camp (come to think of it, maybe you won't, as I have not heard of any).
On science vs. reality that's a philosophical question and this is clearly not a forum for that.
Thanks for the exchange.
Posted by: Tim | February 16, 2009 9:14 PM
"The first time someone provides real evidence for a competing theory, or one of the predictions of the theory fails, the consensus will melt away."
In theory! (pun heh)
In reality, science is more like dogma than most scientists would like to admit. It often takes a generation change for a highly ingrained idea to fade away, even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.
This is especially true of softer sciences that are more observational in nature than experimental. You can't reproduce an experiment on the earth's climate, after all.
Posted by: Gigs | February 16, 2009 9:41 PM
There can be no discussion about science vs. reality in this forum or any other... because the conflict exists only in your mind.
"Soft science" is another concept that is misapplied here. It is a legitimate term, but it refers to academic science and experiments that can't be reproduced. The physics of climate change can be observed in any science lab.
Come on Tim, words have meanings. By definition science is the opposite of dogma. Now I will grant you that there have been bad actors over the years who couldn't give up their favorite theory despite the evidence against it. But even they eventually give it up or die and the consensus will follow the evidence. In the case of climate change, it is not a theoretical exercise that we can afford to let drift around for generations. It is happening now and we have to deal with it.
Science is never settled. The question of AGW is settled to a point where we now must take action, but climate science goes on each day. As for your "mounting evidence against AGW", that is a creation of the right wing media. Watch it if you want because its pretty funny and can be entertaining, but if you want answers that can be backed up by the science, stick around here.
Posted by: mikatollah | February 17, 2009 7:45 AM
Well you place me with good company!! Einstein had a lot to say on the 'Illusion of Reality' and tried unsuccessfully to come up with a 'unified field theory' to address the issue.
Climate cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. Period. This is delusional.
Science is the new dogma. It has been hi-jacked.
Right wing media aye? Please read the two sides of this debate in American Physical Society (APS): http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807
Volume 37, Number 3 and the two “Articles”. Then tell me this is Right Wing Media. I can swamp you with more.
Posted by: Tim | February 17, 2009 1:37 PM
Hi Tim,
Read about that APS article here.
Before swamping us with editorials from non-experts (and in the case of Monkton, bonifide crackpots) why don't you have a look at this list of scientific agencies and organizations with relevant expertise and come back with even two examples of similar institutions that disagre with the IPCC's conclusion?
BTW, your reply to mikatollah is a strawman. No one mention reproducing climate in the lab. Why not address the actual point that science describes and explains reality, which should then inform policy. Existential questions about what is space and time are fun to think about, but meanwhile practical decisions must be made.
Posted by: coby | February 17, 2009 2:05 PM
You are obviously taking about a tongue in cheek quote attributed to Einstein: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." You put the emphasis on illusion when you should have focused on persistent. Einstein was famous for tweaking the media of his day with little bites of scientific wisdom that he knew they would print and debate. And just because he failed to find a unified theory of everything doesn't disconnect science from reality.
Reality may be stranger than we imagine, or maybe even stranger than we can imagine, but that in no way lessens the value of science as a tool for sorting out what is real and what is not.
I clicked on your link and look what I found on the front page (second paragraph):
"The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution" does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society."
I totally agree with the above, but I'm not sure why you would direct me to a site so hostile to AGW deniers argument (that there is no scientific consensus)...
Posted by: mikatollah | February 17, 2009 2:17 PM
Wow. A broadside within an hour of posting. You guys are impressive.
I was not referring to a “tongue in cheek quote attributed to Einstein”. I agree that media bites are not very useful.
mikatollah wrote - “The physics of climate change can be observed in any science lab”. My response was not a straw man.
An APS editor requests input on a topic about which he says "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion........" He receives at least two replies and publishes one for and one against. Seems perfectly reasonable. However, his bosses feel the need to put up health warnings. This begs the question: why do they feel the need to do that? Surely they should let the articles stand on their merits in the true discipline of science. More importantly – what did you think of the articles?
And sadly the name calling has crept in: “bonifide crackpots” (you probably meant “bonafide”). So this is a good point for me to exit.
Posted by: Tim | February 18, 2009 6:41 PM
Tim, duly noted that you decline to offer anything more than editorials by non-scientists as evidence of the alleged scientific debate about this topic.
Since you object to my opinion of Monkton, why don't you tell us what it is in his APS newsletter essay that you find convincing? A true sceptic examines arguments for their logic and factual content, not merely for confirmation that there is a "debate". What did Monkton write that you find convincing?
Posted by: coby | February 18, 2009 10:32 PM
Tim said the following:
'Science is the new dogma. It has been hi-jacked.'
That pretty much sums it up. If you don't trust that science can say anything meaningful about our world (any more), then you don't even bother about learning what science has to say about climate change.
You believe they cannot any more and even if they could you believe they are pressured into it anyway (at least for climate science). This leaves ample room for a debate based on arguments.
There are by the way many consensuses in science: e.g that the earth revolves around the sun, that evolution is happening, that water boils at 100 degrees (Celcius),... if there is any debate about these issues, it is about the how and the specific circumstances and to get a deeper understanding. The same seems to be happening with climate science. Yes, there is debate but not any more about the if, but about the exact details. The idea that a consensus in science is by definition a bad thing is absurd. Science would really be delayed if one would have to investigate everything that has already been done before (I stress the word 'everything in the last sentence'). This of course does not mean that a consensus will never to toppled (history shows that a false consensus will topple).
Of course you can still choose to challenge all these consensuses I have mentioned before.
Posted by: kristof | February 19, 2009 4:17 AM
Problem is: If you say that 92,6% of those who have published more than 50% of their articles in the field, you will get exactly the career-minded people who are ready to say what IPCC wants to hear. Frankly, I am surprised so few believed in warming.
I would be much more interested in hearing what the people who have NOT been paid off by the IPCC have to say.
But then, alarmism is a religion, with its own high priests, and their well-paid flunkies.
Posted by: Svempa | April 29, 2009 3:44 PM
Svempa -
This isn't Free Republic. If you're going to posit a global conspiracy, you're going to have to provide some evidence.
Posted by: Adam | April 29, 2009 4:02 PM
Great article from the American Meteorological Society (via Daily Kos). The "global cooling in the 70s" myth rests upon this James Schlesinger quote:
"judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end... leading into the next glacial age."
But the full quote reveals Schlesinger was referring to a 20,000 year timeframe, not rapid global cooling; in fact, the conclusion was that global warming is the real threat:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/27/785796/-Dispelling-Climate-Research-Myths:-The-1970s-global-cooling-consensus
Posted by: AK | September 29, 2009 10:02 AM