# Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056 "2014-01-17T13:47:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/201 "2014-01-28T03:59:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is referring to the ENSO or in other words, el nino, a subset of the whole picture, AFAIK it also includes ocean data that was not very complete until recently. The point I made stands, by not mentioning what Schneider did you are omitting a lot of what he had done. > > [Statement of Stephen Schneider, Climate Change, July 10, 1997](http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm) > What I can say here is that it is really uncalled for to use the own words of a researcher to ignore what he spent a lifetime working with. I have no doubt Mr. Schneider did great work and contributed to scientists overall understanding of the climate. And at the same time respected climate scientists say: **“…reminds us of our limited understanding of the climate system”.** I think you need to call those climate scientists up and tell them they are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/202 "2014-01-28T04:08:13Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > As so often happens, this lie is ironic, in that the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” is actually a warmist claim, a straw man they trot out, and then try to defeat in battle. (and yes, this is far afield from the topic, as all GIGO dominated topics end up) > > But it’s funny, A Google search turns up a few dozen hits, and every single one of them is the same thing, “Because in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming.” > > That’s the only phrase that claims “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”. It doesn’t exist otherwise. You won’t find it on any climate blogs, denialist sites (whatever they are), and especially not in any news stories. Which is why it’s so damn funny. As pointed before, you only show that you do not know how to use Google, and the vomit searches keep piling up. In reality the myth has appeared in many contrarian blogs but usually in passing, the failed point is used to claim that scientists failed before so they are failing again now, and it was used notoriously by Senator Inhofe (R-Denier), George Will, Michael Crichton and others, and yes, many contrarian cites commented approvingly. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/EU_AtHkB4Ms/hqdefault.jpg "3 - Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/203 "2014-01-28T04:11:40Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I have no doubt Mr. Schneider did great work and contributed to scientists overall understanding of the climate. > And at the same time respected climate scientists say: **“…reminds us of our limited understanding of the climate system”.** > > I think you need to call those climate scientists up and tell them they are wrong. Again, the point stands, the scientists consider the models a very good tool to use. And no, you can not cherry pick what Schneider reported. I do not think the ones you are citing will stop using models. And I prefer to see the big picture, sure there are problems with models, but it is really reckless to claim that there are no validations or observational experiments that showed that the models Schneider used were very good to use indeed. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/204 "2014-01-28T04:27:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, the point stands, the scientists consider the models a very good tool to use. And no, you can not cherry pick what Schneider reported. I do not think the ones you are citing will stop using models. And I prefer to see the big picture, sure there are problems with models, but it is really reckless to claim that there are no validations or observational experiments that showed that the models Schneider used were very good to use indeed. Did I ever say not to use the models? Did I ever say not to use observational and natural experiments to validate the models? After all this time you still don’t even grasp the point I made. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/205 "2014-01-28T04:31:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, the point stands, the scientists consider the models a very good tool to use. And no, you can not cherry pick what Schneider reported. I do not think the ones you are citing will stop using models. And I prefer to see the big picture, sure there are problems with models, but it is really reckless to claim that there are no validations or observational experiments that showed that the models Schneider used were very good to use indeed. nothing is being cherry picked. Predictions were made and they didn’t occur. Explanations followed. In order for them to be accurate the explanations need to be made prior to the event. Your faith is admirable but your predictions are based on the ability to model an extremely complex event. It requires full knowledge of the variables and how they interact with each other. It requires the honesty to admit the variability involved due to the sheer complexity of the model. It requires the honesty to include the natural progression of technology which is coming despite your incessant determination to ignore it. We will be switching away from fossil fuels on a massive scale because it’s going to be economically desirable to do so. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/206 "2014-01-28T04:45:28Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Did I ever say not to use the models? No. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Did I ever say not to use observational and natural experiments to validate the models? No. And I already said that before, what is important to me is still the following: > [@RaftPeople](#): > > After all this time you still don’t even grasp the point I made. That does not counter what I said, there is a lot of perspective missed when one goes looking for quotes that omit the big picture where an specific scientist used as an example did verify and worked for a lifetime on that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/207 "2014-01-28T04:51:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > nothing is being cherry picked. Predictions were made and they didn’t occur. Explanations followed. > > In order for them to be accurate the explanations need to be made prior to the event. And Latif and others did so. > [@Magiver](#): > > Your faith is admirable but your predictions are based on the ability to model an extremely complex event. As Richard Alley, Barry Bickmore, Kerry Emmanuel and many other conservative scientists can tell you, it is not faith. > [@Magiver](#): > > It requires full knowledge of the variables and how they interact with each other. It requires the honesty to admit the variability involved due to the sheer complexity of the model. It requires the honesty to include the natural progression of technology which is coming despite your incessant determination to ignore it. We will be switching away from fossil fuels on a massive scale because it’s going to be economically desirable to do so. That is nice, not the issue we are dealing here, but even here you are wrong, I’m on the record for supporting the progress already seen in solar and wind technology, the problem is that Republican deniers use groups like ALEC to prevent the deployment of those technologies. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/208 "2014-01-28T05:17:12Z")
One more thing: What Latif reports is indeed an acknowledgment of the limitations, what is important though is that pauses were reported before and expected in the climate record; still, there is a lot of the general picture that they are getting right. Confronting the 70’s “apparent” cool down most scientists reported that warming was expected in the future. Now even more experts agree that the current “pause” is not going to last. If more than 97% of doctors told you to take medicine for a condition, you will get a lot of the blame when you get sick by betting that the quack ones will get it right. > **[Just Put the Model Down, Roy](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/)** > > For the past few years, Roy Spencer has had a love affair, of sorts, with “simple climate models”.  After all, who needs some fancy-schmancy global circulation model (GCM) when you can boil down th… ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/209 "2014-01-28T07:41:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Now even more experts agree that the current “pause” is not going to last. It’s not actually a “pause” of course, it’s a slowdown in the rate of average temperature increase, but let’s look at why almost everyone agrees that we’ll soon be back to higher rates of increase. One school of thought here – we’ll call it the “science” school of thought – is that observations show that there has been no corresponding change in external forcings to account for this “pause”, and indeed GHG forcings continue to increase, so energy budget considerations dictate that the extra thermal energy must be going somewhere. The other school of thought – we’ll call it the “denialist” or the “lunatic” school of thought – is that the rapid warming of the 70’s to the mid-90’s was an anomaly, and that the present pattern is the new normal. Here’s why actual scientists are going with the “science” viewpoint. Extensive studies of climate sensitivity from multiple sources – paleoclimate reconstructions, instrumental records, and climate models – all point to a range of climate sensitivity much higher than would be indicated by the record of the past 15 years or so. In fact the idea of trying to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity – a process that takes hundreds to thousands of years – from a 15-year record is ludicrous. The temperature gradient for the overall 20th century would indeed have been even higher had it not been suppressed by sulphate aerosols and other particulates in the 50’s and 60’s. Moreover, the “missing heat” problem is likely accounted for by observations of increased warming in deep ocean layers below 700m in parts of the Pacific and Indian Ocean specifically, and accelerated warming in the Arctic. There is no magic going on here – the heat is still accumulating, and the forcings are still increasing. The result is pretty much inevitable. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/210 "2014-01-28T10:17:22Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That’s an interesting tactic during a debate. It doesn’t really support your position, but it sounds important. Hey, I’ve seen far dumber and more dishonest tactics in debate. Like, say, asserting that you’re right, and when pressed for evidence, saying “your baiting is of a singular and lonely kind, and best ignored” and not presenting any evidence. :rolleyes: Look pal, you think there’s something to it? Then go the route _actual scientists_ with a genuine interest in furthering our understanding go, and _publish it_. How many people here do you think seriously have the expertise to critique your analysis? 1? 2? Maybe 3? And that’s just it - without experts on hand to check you, you could get away with murder! (Of course, you haven’t gotten away with shit, because those people have chimed in and pointed out that it’s crap.) > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Of course, and we shouldn’t even be having a discussion about anything. Just a list of experts to go read. No need for any debate, much less an informative and lively discussion. > > :smack: FX, do you understand the reason we go to the experts on this issue? Because we, as laymen, _do not understand it quite as well_. We’re not studied in the field, we’re not experts, and our statements aren’t reviewed by experts. If you have a legitimate complaint, here’s my advice: _publish it in a peer-reviewed journal so that people who know what they’re talking about can examine it_. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > As so often happens, this lie is ironic, in that the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” is actually a warmist claim, a straw man they trot out, and then try to defeat in battle. (and yes, this is far afield from the topic, as all GIGO dominated topics end up) > > But it’s funny, A Google search turns up a few dozen hits, and every single one of them is the same thing, “Because in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming.” > > That’s the only phrase that claims “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”. It doesn’t exist otherwise. You won’t find it on any climate blogs, denialist sites (whatever they are), and especially not in any news stories. Which is why it’s so damn funny. > **[The 1970's Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/)** > > A compilation of news articles on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s Does the bullet point list for solutions to global cooling at right look familiar? It reads almost like some of the ma… > **[1970s Global Cooling Alarmism](http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html)** > > " Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. " – George Santayana " The scientists and computers at the National O... > **[Don’t Miss it! Climate Depot’s Factsheet on 1970s Coming ‘Ice Age’ Claims](https://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/)** > > Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970’s global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to… > **[1970s Global Cooling Scare: ‘Almost every major climate organization endorsed...](https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/21/1970s-global-cooling-scare-almost-every-major-climate-organization-endorsed-the-1970s-ice-age-scare-including-ncar-cru-nas-nasa-as-did-the-cia/)** > > Visit the post for more. That’s from the very first page of google when I google “global cooling 1970”. I decided to see if ClimateAudit had it, and these popped up: > **[1970s Global Cooling Scare](https://realclimate.science/1970s-ice-age-scare/)** > > NCAR  newsweek\_coolingworld.pdf National Academy Of Sciences  Science News The Milwaukee Sentinel – Google News Archive Search TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com Every major climate organiza… > **[The 1970s called. They want their global cooling scam back.](http://pc.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-197os-called-they-want-their-global.html)** > > A New Zealand libertarian blog about Austrian economics, organic architecture, romantic realist art, Ayn Rand, Frank Lloyd Wright, Ludwig Von Mises > **[\- Bishop Hill blog - 1970s global cooling alarmism](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/1/1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html)** > > This is a guest post via Andrew at Popular Technology.net. It outlines just how much media hype t... Never mind that I’ve seen the argument trumpeted countless times on forums as a dismissive response to global warming. It’s on virtually _every_ denialist blog. What did you even look for to not find anything? What was your search term? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/211 "2014-01-28T11:23:34Z")
**ENOUGH!** The rule in this forum is to refrain from accusing one’s opponent (or even one’s associate) of lying. The next accusation or implication that another poster is lying will get a Warning rather than a Mod Note. **[/Moderating]** ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/212 "2014-01-28T12:42:37Z")
Isn’t global warming ALWAYS progressing faster than expected? I mean, we get these threads every year. Climatoloists should be able to predict global warming well by now. Are we ever going to get a “global warming going as fast we expected?” 🙂 P.S: I won’t mention the lull, because it makes people sad. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/213 "2014-01-28T13:48:02Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Isn’t global warming ALWAYS progressing faster than expected? I mean, we get these threads every year. Climatoloists should be able to predict global warming well by now. > Are we ever going to get a “global warming going as fast we expected?” 🙂 > > P.S: I won’t mention the lull, because it makes people sad. I think you’re missing some key points here, starting with the point being made in the OP. What climatologists have been able to do well and consistently is assess the net climate forcing due to human activity, which tells us the net energy balance of the earth and specifically the amount of additional heat energy being constantly added. Translating this heat energy into predictions of temperature rise is much more complicated because it has to account for many positive and negative feedbacks which are numerous and non-linear, like carbon cycles feedbacks, feedbacks from melting polar ice, and many others. And some of this thermal energy can be hidden and not immediately reflected in measured land-atmosphere temperature – as the OP suggests, some of it can lead to undetected accelerated warming in the high arctic, or circulation changes can lead to more or less ocean warming than usual. Since the oceans are responsible for on the order of 95% of the earth’s total heat uptake, even small changes in this balance can lead to significant temporary changes in the rate of land temperature increase. There are unique phenomena involved in deep-ocean warming and this is harder to measure than sea surface temperatures. So yes, we have a pretty good idea of the earth’s net increased heat uptake, but – flippant comments aside – predicting year-to-year temperature increase is much more difficult, especially in the short term where chaotic variabilities in the above factors can be significant. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/214 "2014-01-28T14:57:37Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Never mind that I’ve seen the argument trumpeted countless times on forums as a dismissive response to global warming. It’s on virtually _every_ denialist blog. What did you even look for to not find anything? What was your search term? 😕 Thank you for that **Budget Player Cadet** , I did mention that many blogs pressed that issue for awhile and it is clear that many of those sources are a reason why people like senator Inhofe repeat those whoppers. The point to get here is that we should not forget how the contrarian media is also seeding the conditions for false equivalencies that then are repeated by the politicians or worse, even media outlets like FOX. As for FX, claiming that I was pushing a lie when that item was so easy to check takes the cake, will see if it is taken back. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/215 "2014-01-28T16:04:58Z")
It’s just as I said, none of the pages linked to contain the claim , they don’t even contain the phrase “All climate scientists”. The claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” is actually a warmist claim, a straw man they trot out, and then try to defeat in battle. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [The 1970's Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today – Watts Up With That?](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/) > [Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism](http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html) > [Don’t Miss it! Climate Depot’s Factsheet on 1970s Coming ‘Ice Age’ Claims – Climate Depot](http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/) > [1970s Global Cooling Scare: ‘Almost every major climate organization endorsed the 1970s ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA’ — Sound Familiar?! – Climate Depot](http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/21/1970s-global-cooling-scare-almost-every-major-climate-organization-endorsed-the-1970s-ice-age-scare-including-ncar-cru-nas-nasa-as-did-the-cia/) > > That’s from the very first page of google when I google “global cooling 1970”. I decided to see if ClimateAudit had it, and these popped up: > > [1970s Global Cooling Scare | Real Climate Science](http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/) > [Not PC: The 1970s called. They want their global cooling scam back.](http://pc.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-197os-called-they-want-their-global.html) > [http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/1/1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/1/1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html) > > Never mind that I’ve seen the argument trumpeted countless times on forums as a dismissive response to global warming. It’s on virtually _every_ denialist blog. What did you even look for to not find anything? What was your search term? 😕 None of those pages contain the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”, they don’t even contain the phrase “All climate scientists”, which is what I pointed out. They do contain things like “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…. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, 1972″ –National Geographic, November 1976, p.595. They contain a lot of facts, and abundant evidence concerning the situation during the extreme global cooling. [The 1970's Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today – Watts Up With That?](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/) But not a single page, beside the warmist ones, contains the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”. Saying they do is a myth. A straw dog. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/216 "2014-01-28T16:07:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > P.S: I won’t mention the lull, because it makes people sad. You might think it would make the people scared to death over Global Warming happy. You would think it is GOOD NEWS EVERYBODY!, rather than something to despair over. Why is that, do you think? Why are the alarmists so angry we are not seeing catastrophic global warming? Cheer up alarmists! It’s not as bad as was predicted! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/217 "2014-01-28T16:30:49Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s just as I said, none of the pages linked to contain the claim , they don’t even contain the phrase “All climate scientists”. The claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” is actually a warmist claim, a straw man they trot out, and then try to defeat in battle. > None of those pages contain the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”, they don’t even contain the phrase “All climate scientists”, which is what I pointed out. > > They do contain things like > “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…. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, 1972″ –National Geographic, November 1976, p.595. > > They contain a lot of facts, and abundant evidence concerning the situation during the extreme global cooling. [The 1970's Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today – Watts Up With That?](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/) > > But not a single page, beside the warmist ones, contains the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”. Saying they do is a myth. > > A straw dog. :rolleyes: [http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/03/video-barrasso-inhofe-tag-team-on-1970s-new-ice-age-exposure-of-holdren/](http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/03/video-barrasso-inhofe-tag-team-on-1970s-new-ice-age-exposure-of-holdren/) > [@](#): > > I’m old enough to remember when scientists issued alarms over a coming Ice Age that would wipe out life on Earth on a massive scale. Senator John Barrasso’s memory holds up pretty well, too, and he reminded everyone of the consensus in the 1970s that the climate had begun to cool so significantly that, er, the world needed massive government interventions in energy production and consumption to survive it. Barrasso quotes from Newsweek and Time articles of the period. Senator Tom Udall attempts to ride to EPW Chair Barbara Boxer’s rescue by introducing an article that claims the global-cooling consensus of the 1970s was a “myth,” and Boxer urges Udall to add it to the record. But that’s just the set-up Jim Inhofe needed to complete this two-man demolition of “consensus” and to expose the main White House adviser on climate change as a chronic crank, as the Daily Caller reports: > [@](#): > > “Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” said Barrasso. “So if we had committed the same amount of taxpayer resources and government manpower that the administration now wants us to commit to prevent global warming — if we’d done that prevent global cooling, we wouldn’t be the most prosperous nation on earth.” … > > Still later, Inhofe got into the science debate by citing a 1971 study by Dr. John Holdren, who just so happens to be President Obama’s advisor on science technology. In that study Holdren wrote, “The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here.” Holdren went on to write that the effects could “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.” > > A visibly satisfied Inhofe then turned to Boxer, and stated, “So even the president’s people are agreed with me, Madam Chairwoman!” Yep, doubling down on claiming that me and others are liars. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/218 "2014-01-28T16:56:44Z")
If the current sidetrack from the topic was that some doubters/skeptics/deniers/politicians are using “Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” to dismiss the current predictions, that is certainly true. It has nothing to do with the topic, but it’s certainly true. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/219 "2014-01-28T17:03:02Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If the current sidetrack from the topic was that some doubters/skeptics/deniers/politicians are using “Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” to dismiss the current predictions, that is certainly true. > > It has nothing to do with the topic, but it’s certainly true. You still need to take it back, if you had check the video you would had seen that Michael Crichton used the line of “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” and he even had an MIT scientist claiming that, and instead of leaving that in the fiction section, Crichton stood by that and more when speaking at denier conventions. > **[RealClimate: L’état de confusion de Michael Crichton](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/#sthash.kWloLKdv.dpuf)** > > RealClimate: In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a... And so it goes for Inhofe, and Will. And it is really grasping at straws to claim that that was not the gist that deniers were making when talking about the “consensus” of then. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/220 "2014-01-28T17:39:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You still need to take it back, if you had check the video you would had seen that Michael Crichton used the line of “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” and he even had an MIT scientist claiming that, and instead of leaving that in the fiction section, Crichton stood by that and more when speaking at denier conventions. That may be true, but it doesn’t appear in the links above, nor on any of the “denier” blogs, which is also off topic. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=12)