# George Will and the 1970s-Style Global Cooling 'Scare' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2009, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944 "2009-02-15T12:36:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/61 "2009-02-16T18:02:53Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Then why do you discount research done by Exxon? Yes, they have an interest in disproving AGW. But if you see ‘Exxon’ next to the name and discount it, you are **not** judging the research, you are judging the **people**. Not to put words in **Chronos** ’s mouth, but he never said he’s discounting research done by Exxon. He’s the one that insisted on peer-reviewed articles, not just polls of climatologists, precisely to avoid judging the issue by the people involved. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/62 "2009-02-16T18:06:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Besides, in science, it’s the research itself that’s important, not the people doing it. So you would agree that the published, peer-reviewed papers of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer should not be discounted because of the identities of their authors? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/63 "2009-02-16T18:10:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center website, as quoted. If you actually go to their website, you’ll see they are _very_ specific about stating the Feb 15th date. If you read the quote, and then follow the very next link, they actully fess up that ice was about the same on Dec31, 2008 as it was on Dec 31, 1979. A little bit of cherry picking going on. FWIW, here’s a chart from their website about global ice. Pretty enlightening. [http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg](http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg) Given the huge monthly variations in global ice, it’s pretty easy to cherry pick which month you want to use to support any position you’d like. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/64 "2009-02-16T18:14:08Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Not to put words in **Chronos** ’s mouth, but he never said he’s discounting research done by Exxon. Maybe, but then why use the phrase ‘crazies and Exxon shills and other unreliable folks’? It certainly seems he’s lumping their research in with the others. But if not, I’ll retract. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/65 "2009-02-16T18:19:22Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > If you actually go to their website, you’ll see they are _very_ specific about stating the Feb 15th date. If you read the quote, and then follow the very next link, they actully fess up that ice was about the same on Dec31, 2008 as it was on Dec 31, 1979. A little bit of cherry picking going on. > > FWIW, here’s a chart from their website about global ice. Pretty enlightening. > [http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg](http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg) > > Given the huge monthly variations in global ice, it’s pretty easy to cherry pick which month you want to use to support any position you’d like. I’m getting on to work, so I don’t have time to read the relevant articles right now, but at first glance it seems to me that one of the current problems is that it’s warming faster in the year. Dec 31st is dead in winter. So long as the temp stays below a threshold it’s going to have the same amount of ice. Feb 15th is approaching spring and presumably feels the effects of yearly warming. If it is getting warmer on Feb 15th you can actually see the effects. Does that make sense? 1° when it’s -20° doesn’t impact ice. But one degree when it’s 32° can cause melting days or weeks earlier. Like I said, I might be off target since I don’t have time to read the links, but it seems like the time of year does certainly matter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/66 "2009-02-16T18:39:54Z")
> [@](#): > > …it’s pretty easy to cherry pick which month you want to use to support any position you’d like So, then, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center is lying in order to embarrass renowned climatologist George F. Will? Gee, I dunno… ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/67 "2009-02-16T19:11:09Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I don’t have much more to add to the OP’s very good deconstruction of the “global cooling” myth except to point out that there is also a [more recent RealClimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/langswitch_lang/in) article discussing a paper that Connelley and co-author have now published documenting that even during the 1970s the peer reviewed literature had many more articles on global warming than cooling…So, not only was there no consensus on global cooling, it wasn’t even close to being a majority opinion in the peer-reviewed literature! As someone who has brought up the cglobal cooling scare of the 70’s here on the Dope and been told that it was media hype and not scientific hype, I did some looking into it… and found that appears to be the case. I remember even finding an article on scientists testifying before congress about global warming in 1982 (not that far from the 70’S). Looks like it was media hype. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/68 "2009-02-16T19:56:39Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Maybe, but then why use the phrase ‘crazies and Exxon shills and other unreliable folks’? It certainly seems he’s lumping their research in with the others. But if not, I’ll retract. It looked more like he was applying concrete examples of the more general set “people who are deliberately doing bad science due to either applying a predjudice to the interpretation of the data, or to _deliberately subverting_ the data with malice aforethought”. But if you don’t like the specifics, you could probably just interpret him as saying that he likes the peer-reviewed journals because they filter out bad science. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/69 "2009-02-16T21:02:23Z")
I have no problem at all with Exxon doing science. In fact, we’d probably be better off if they did more of it. My problem isn’t with Exxon funding scientists, but with them funding _shills_, that is, people who are stating results based on what Exxon is paying them to say, rather than on what the research actually indicates. How do we tell the difference between the two? One method is the peer review process. It’s not perfect, of course: Some good science will get improperly rejected, and some bad science will get improperly accepted. But it’s better than just listening to everyone without any filters. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/70 "2009-02-16T21:16:50Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Why articles? Why not 5% of climatologists? Because if it’s not peer-reviewed, it’s just, like, their opinion, man! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/71 "2009-02-16T21:19:37Z")
Not so bad as all that, **Chronos**. I suspect, but cannot prove, that a lot of the current ammunition we have at hand is a result of honest funding, but faulty presumption. The Exxon people likely sincerely believe that they are innocent of planetary rape, and offered funding to prove it, content and sincere in their belief that such impartial research would show them blameless. So, they hired respected and competent scientists, fulling expecting the results would favor their opinions. When they didn’t, \*then \*they went looking for shills. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/72 "2009-02-16T21:23:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I have no problem at all with Exxon doing science. In fact, we’d probably be better off if they did more of it. My problem isn’t with Exxon funding scientists, but with them funding _shills_, that is, people who are stating results based on what Exxon is paying them to say, rather than on what the research actually indicates. How do we tell the difference between the two? One method is the peer review process. It’s not perfect, of course: Some good science will get improperly rejected, and some bad science will get improperly accepted. But it’s better than just listening to everyone without any filters. Is Richard Lindzen a shill? Should his peer-reviewed papers be discounted? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/73 "2009-02-16T21:28:57Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So you would agree that the published, peer-reviewed papers of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer should not be discounted because of the identities of their authors? Who’s discounting their peer-reviewed articles? Of course, _Energy and Environment_ is not a peer-review journal. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/74 "2009-02-16T21:54:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Is Richard Lindzen a shill? Should his peer-reviewed papers be discounted? I do not know Richard Lindzen. Maybe he is a shill; I don’t know. But if he’s gotten peer-reviewed papers published, then we should pay heed to them, even if he does happen to be a shill. This still does not mean assuming that they’re absolutely correct (an assumption which should never be made of any scientific finding), but intellectual honesty requires that we pay heed to any results which make it through the filters, regardless of our personal opinions. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/75 "2009-02-16T22:06:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I do not know Richard Lindzen. As far as I know, he is a professor at MIT and a prominent “skeptic.” > [@](#): > > But if he’s gotten peer-reviewed papers published, then we should pay heed to them, even if he does happen to be a shill. This still does not mean assuming that they’re absolutely correct (an assumption which should never be made of any scientific finding), but intellectual honesty requires that we pay heed to any results which make it through the filters, regardless of our personal opinions. I’m glad to hear you say that. It seems that many people are rather dismissive of his work based on ad hominem reasons. Ditto for Roy Spencer. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/76 "2009-02-16T22:35:31Z")
I’m with Nate Silver on this one: I may often disagree with Will but I’ve usually found him to be smart and honest; his lying now is depressing and frankly puzzling. I do not care if you accept the current clear consensus or are one of the few persistent global climate change deniers (we can just play the tape for one of those debates again) - the novel issue here is the untrue claim that there was some scientific consensus in the past about a particular subject that clearly _never existed_, the _making shit up_ to support his claim, and the cherry picking of quotes _out of context_ to make something that is not true appear as if it is. Assume you think he is right in his conclusions, are his tactics, as enumerated above, anything other than reprehensible? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/77 "2009-02-16T22:57:54Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So you would agree that the published, peer-reviewed papers of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer should not be discounted because of the identities of their authors? That’s an easy one: of course. And in fact, other climate scientists have discussed the published peer-reviewed research of Lindzen and Spencer extensively in their own published peer-reviewed research. (One example is the work of Bing Lin investigating Lindzen’s hypothesized “iris effect”, discussed [here](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris2.php).) Nobody’s suggesting that a published paper should be automatically ignored just because of the name that’s attached to it. On the other hand, if a particular scientist has an extensive track record of producing research that is publishable but flawed, so that s/he seldom or never in the long run succeeds in establishing a line of argument that is generally accepted as credible, colleagues and readers are entitled to take that track record into account when assessing that scientist’s overall reliability. I for one would not want self-described “skeptics” like Lindzen and Spencer to stop publishing in peer-reviewed journals as long as they can produce publishable research, even if upon examination their conclusions persistently turn out to be wrong. Erroneous hypotheses are very useful in a developing discipline, as they test the field’s error-checking mechanisms and prevent people from getting complacent about the conventional wisdom. And of course, if Lindzen or Spencer or another skeptic manages to produce an anti-AGW hypothesis that convincingly appears \*\*non-\*\*erroneous, they will have done climate science and the whole world an immense service. So far, however, the major anti-AGW hypotheses that they’ve published in peer-reviewed journals all seem to fall into the category “intelligent, sincere, and wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/78 "2009-02-16T23:15:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > IMO? When around 25% of **peer reviewed scientific articles** are bucking the consensus, then we should listen. > > ETA: Hell, I’ll be stupidly generous: when **5%** of accredited climatology journal articles take an unambiguous “No AGW” stance, the time will come to re-evaluate. See how easy it was to pick a number. 5%. I’ll keep my LED candles lit and drive my 38 mpg econobox until then. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/79 "2009-02-16T23:27:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, then, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center is lying in order to embarrass renowned climatologist George F. Will? Gee, I dunno… I’m always leary when I see specific dates in a climate discussion. I’d be more interested in the average ice coverage between winter seasons and that’s what I would expect from a University. I’d also like a qualifier on the yearly span of time because we just came out of a hotter solar cycle and the satellite data is relatively new. All that should be explained and matched to predicted models. AFAIK, any claims, from either side of the issue, involve a rediculously small time frame. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944/80 "2009-02-16T23:29:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > See how easy it was to pick a number. 5%. I’ll keep my LED candles lit and drive my 38 mpg econobox until then. But this is just silly snarking. Your original question about what’s the minimum number required _“to acknowledge that their are legitimate voices of dissension”_ is absurd on its face. Only **one** legitimate voice of dissension is required to force such an acknowledgement, and in fact, that acknowledgement now exists. Everybody recognizes that there are legitimate scientists offering valid critiques and plausible alternatives to particular aspects of the mainstream hypotheses about global warming. What you seem to be trying to do is to elide the distinction between “acknowledgement of legitimate voices of dissension” and “recognition of serious challenge to the fundamental agreement on the key scientific issues of global warming”. The former currently exists. The latter does not, and the prospects of its future existence are not looking bright. So, make sure that your 38 mpg (That’s what you consider high mileage? :dubious: ) “econobox” is in good shape, because you’ll likely be driving it a while. But please turn off those unnecessary LED candles and just put up a picture of candles instead; it has just as much symbolic value and uses zero electricity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-will-and-the-1970s-style-global-cooling-scare/485944.md?page=5)