Global warming denialists favorite decade? The 70s!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This is a video clip from "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" puts to rest one of the canards by global warming deniers: that in the 1970s, scientists predicted a global ice age, and the idea of human based climate change due to increased levels of CO2, well that was a relatively recent idea hawked by Al Gore. As you will see, all of this is utter hogwash. Considering that key committees in the House of Representatives will likely be chaired by AGW denialists, the stakes in the misinformation game by the Right couldn't be higher. I think this is a critical step by scientists, and long overdue!

Popular Mechanics - 1953 / Dr. Gilbert Plass of John Hopkins University: article on CO2 causing global temperature increases.


Bell Telephone Science documentary (directed by Frank Capra) showing ramifications of global warming due to human caused CO2 increases.


President Johnson's scientific advisory report warned of significant temperature increases by the year 2000 due to CO2.




Today in an unprecedented move the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, "plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election."


Lord Christopher Monckton of Great Britain, global warming denialist extraordinaire.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, will be assembling what's called a "fast response" team to rebut denialists. In May of this year, Abraham posted an extensive rebuttal to Lord Monckton's anti-global warming lectures, given around the world (an anti-version of Al Gore, so to speak). Lord Monckton has appeared on Fox News and Glenn Beck's evening show.

Abraham's rebuttal is lucid and compelling and shows in many instances Lord Monckton is outright misrepresenting information on many topics that are favorites to global denialists, including shrinking glacial ice sheets, rising water levels, are polar bear populations decreasing, the Medieval Warming period, Co2 levels, is Solar variance to blame for recent warming etc.

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The idea that global warming had consensus for decades and that there wasn't a widespread belief in the 1970s that global cooling could be occurring.

AGW advocates always run roughshod over the actual arguments. That being we can't accurately predict the extent to which the climate will change based on CO2 alone and that the measures needed to prevent it, if even possible, could be more catastrophic long term.

There's bigger environmental fish to fry. Deforestation for one. But CO2 is the vaguer threat that rallies people to demand strong central autonomy.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Global warming has had a consensus for decades. As for the global cooling in the 70s myth that deniers have spread:


source (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm)

piece by piece.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> The idea that global warming had consensus for decades...

The video is clear that from the early 70's back to the 20's the scientific literature recognized the risk of AGW, but did not have the certainty most people would call a scientific consensus (especially concerning effects) This is made obvious at about time stamp 5:40 where it discusses the National Academy of Sciences study on the matter, as well as subsequent studies of the early to mid 70's. It overtly states that the modern understanding of Glaciation cycles and global warming, the beginning of the current consensus, came not until the late 70's at time stamp 7:40. To say that the video insists that there was a pre-70's scientific consensus as firm as the modern one concerning the reality and effects of AGW would be a straw man. But who knows what you mean by "decades long". 1990 was 2 decades ago. That means the time from then till now is "decades long." What do you think was the consensus of climatologists at the time?

> and that there wasn't a widespread belief in the 1970s that
> global cooling could be occurring.

Moving goalposts. Widespread belief does not equal "scientific consensus", especially when much of that belief is in the mass media. The opinion being debunked is not "there was a widespread belief in the possibility of Global Cooling in the 70's" Its the general statement "in the 70's all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming" The strength of the latter statement is a tuned argument that delegitimizes the current consensus. If someone makes the nuanced statement that "Even though risks of Global Warming had long been recognized, in the 70's a cadre of scientists were concerned with Global COOLING" then there is nothing to argue with. But that more nuanced statement is not so useful a tool in delegitimizing the current consensus, and that is not the argument being rebutted.

> AGW advocates always run roughshod over the actual arguments.
> That being we can't accurately predict the extent to which the climate
> will change based on CO2 alone

What climate scientists (many of who are AGW 'advocates' in that they are politically involved) argue that we can accurately predict the extent to which the climate will change based on CO2 ALONE? Climatologists are generally working with climate models that are pretty complex and account for multiple variables. Without examples, the above is another straw man. Or are you arguing against the scientific consensus and what it implies, because you attribute to "all AGW advocates" some of the irritating debate habits your co-workers happen to have around the water cooler?

> the measures needed to prevent it, if even possible, could be
> more catastrophic long term.

Lots of things COULD be. the question is, what is likely, and why? It could be that moving from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear (a move that must be inevitable anyway) causes more economic dislocation than AGW... of course it could be that the loss of coastal low lands, alteration of regional rainfall, and the cessation of major ocean currents and there attendant effects, causes economic destruction that dwarfs the above scenario so completely as to make it laughable. It could be that both worst case scenarios are over stated. The question is which is more likely, and why.

> But CO2 is the vaguer threat that rallies people to demand
> strong central autonomy.

And here revealed is the real reservation... which isn't a scientific one at all, but a political one. People don't want to believe in AGW because they don't like the implications of the political change avoiding it will necessitate.

I guess there are some people who don't want to believe in bullets because they don't like the implications of what bullets fired from guns will do to them... but guess what?