# "The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157 "2013-06-28T19:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/21 "2013-06-29T07:26:28Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because… > > Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind. > > However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms. What do you think is more likely, that virtually ever PhD level expert on Earth is wrong, or that you, a completely untrained novice sees something they didn’t think of? Seriously, accept for a moment that the vast majority of climate scientists think the world is heating as a result of man’s activities. Why would you think you know anywhere near enough to scoff? Do you honestly think no one brought up the lava, ice thing? Do you call up brain surgeons and advise them too? ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/22 "2013-06-29T09:26:55Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because… > > Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind. > > However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms. This argument is _incredibly_ dumb. It’s like saying “I don’t believe in man-made mass death, because mass human die-outs happened before World War I”. Or “There’s no way this mass blackout was caused by an EMP detonation because there have been mass blackouts in the past without EMP detonation”. It doesn’t even begin to address the actual evidence involved in determining _why_ people think the current warming is anthropogenic, it _demands_ a complete lack of understanding as to why previous warming happens, and is basically based on ignorance of past, present, and future. Seriously, cut this bullshit out. Warming in the past was caused by various forms of forcing; the current dominant forcing is _human greenhouse gas emissions_. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/23 "2013-06-29T11:03:35Z")
When I go camping, I don’t bother to put out my campfire when I leave. After all, forest fires happen naturally all the time, so \*clearly \*humans can’t cause forest fires. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/24 "2013-06-29T14:19:10Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because… > > Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind. > > However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms. I’ll be a little kinder… Most of what you wrote here is correct. The earth’s climate has changed tremendously without our “help” in the past. However, that does not preclude the fact that it is changing now because of what we are doing and it is changing more rapidly than ever before. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/25 "2013-06-29T14:45:01Z")
Whether or not it’s caused by people, we need to behave as if our actions have impact. To do otherwise would be foolish, as we don’t have a backup planet. If we ruin Earth, we are SOP. Many technologies or culture shifts would benefit us even if there is no global warming link. Lots and lots of reasons why using oil, for example, is bad for our planet. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/26 "2013-06-29T15:39:37Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > When I go camping, I don’t bother to put out my campfire when I leave. After all, forest fires happen naturally all the time, so \*clearly \*humans can’t cause forest fires. Post and username combo for the win! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/27 "2013-06-29T15:40:03Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Whether or not it’s caused by people, we need to behave as if our actions have impact. I don’t think that’s a reasonable position. If we don’t know, then you can’t expect people to act. Furthermore: > [@](#): > > To do otherwise would be foolish, as we don’t have a backup planet. If we ruin Earth, we are SOP. ACC is not going to “ruin Earth”. Some places will be more habitable and some places less. The problem is, lots of people live where it’s going to be less habitable. > [@](#): > > Many technologies or culture shifts would benefit us even if there is no global warming link. Not necessarily, if you’re poor-- which most people on the earth are. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/28 "2013-06-29T15:45:12Z")
Poor people everywhere will certainly benefit from the development of fusion power and other clean technologies. Same way that poor peoples’ live have been enhanced by gasoline engines. It’s slower than in rich nations, but there. Somalia or downtown (modern) Detroit is better off with internal combustion than if they had horses. > [@](#): > > ACC is not going to “ruin Earth”. Some places will be more habitable and some places less. Habitable, farmable places aren’t really in abundance. You’re right that we may gain some as well as lose some though. It’s not a gamble I personally want to take. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/29 "2013-06-29T16:23:51Z")
I still see the typical jerkiness of humans not allowing immigration as one big reason why I think a lot of death and unrest is coming, it does not need to be. But while I’m an optimist on humanity continuing to progress, I’m a pessimist regarding several regions of the earth as I think most countries will prefer those regions of the earth to slide into chaos rather than allow the free movement of people needed to minimize that future unrest. Of course population control is and should be part of the solution, but guess who are opposed to that also for conservative reasons? Most of the same voices that deny anthropologically driven climate change also accuse the proponents of going for “one child” China totalitarian control when family planning is mentioned. > **[Right-wingers bash Gore for wanting women to have access to birth control](https://grist.org/population/2011-06-22-population-right-wingers-bash-gore-for-supporting-birth-control/)** > > The right-wing media is all aflutter over Al Gore saying that we should educate girls, keep kids from dying, and make birth control available to women. Keep that in mind the next time a “do nothing” repeats the population control issue as a distraction, because many are on the contradictory record of opposing also population control because contraceptives and abortion are involved and also opposed by the normally extreme conservatives that \*\*also \*\*do not like the recommended solutions to control emissions. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/30 "2013-06-29T16:59:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Lately we’ve been having [threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=683193) talking about how we should respond to the imminent extinction of the human race as a result of climate change. Unfortunately it seems that the human race may be around a bit longer than was initially reported. The title of this thread is the conclusion of [a recent article](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions) in The Economist which is well worth reading in its entirety. For those too busy to do so, here’s a summary: > > [ul] > [li]Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions have soared in the past decade.[/li][li]Meanwhile, according to Dr. James Hansen “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”[/li][li]Some have speculated that the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gasses may be going into the ocean, but the ocean isn’t cooperating. Its temperature trends is flat as well. Since most ocean temperature measurements are near the surface, it’s possible that the deep ocean is heating somewhat.[/li][li]Mainstream climate science, as embodied by the IPCC, has predicted a rise of between 2 and 4.5 degrees (celsius) by midcentury, with an average prediction of 3 degrees. A compilation of twenty climate models has given a range of predicted global temperatures for every year.[/li][li]The actual temperatures for 2012 are at the very lower level of the range of predictions. If temperatures do not increase soon, then they’ll be entirely beneath the predicted range.[/li][li]“Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C.”[/li][li]“Its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C.”[/li][li]“Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data.”[/li][li]There are two main types of climate models: general circulation models (GCMs) and energy-balance models. The later have the advantage that they can easily be adjusted based on recent climate data; the former cannot. The IPCC predictions are based on GCMs.[/li][li]“In contrast, the Norwegian study was based on an energy-balance model. So were earlier influential ones by Reto Knutti of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich; by Piers Forster of the University of Leeds and Jonathan Gregory of the University of Reading; by Natalia Andronova and Michael Schlesinger, both of the University of Illinois; and by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Centre (who is also a co-author of the new Norwegian study). All these found lower climate sensitivities. The paper by Drs Forster and Gregory found a central estimate of 1.6°C for equilibrium sensitivity, with a 95% likelihood of a 1.0-4.1°C range. That by Dr Aldrin and others found a 90% likelihood of a 1.2-3.5°C range.”[/li][li]“Lastly, there is some evidence that the natural (ie, non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought. A recent paper by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests that ‘the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century’.”[/ul][/li] > The Economist says “that does not mean the problem is going away” and that policy solutions to global warming are still needed. I agree. However, good policy requires all the facts. I think it’s best if everyone knows about the recent research predicting a smaller temperature rise than what mainstream science predicted, and if we definitely don’t run around like chickens with our heads cut off, making predictions of impending extinction. You’re wasting your time. There is no information that will dissuade the religionists on climate change (which I accept as fact). They see it as a rationalization for doing things they’d like to have done, and some of which we should be doing regardless. But you see their interpretation of the data arguing for leftist dreams like that we should allow “the free movement of peoples around the globe”. :rolleyes: Like I said, don’t waste your time. I hesitate to even add this to this thread because I know it will result in a palisade of regurgitated and re-regugitated cites from the evangelists. Just give 'em an “Amen, brother” and go and enjoy the day. To the evangelists, Preach it harder and longer brothers and sisters. You’re just one cite away of convincing everyone that the sky is falling. TYPE LOUDER! ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/31 "2013-06-29T17:09:45Z")
As noticed before, when they accuse the proponents of this of being evangelists or just followers of religion, what they are really saying is that they ran out of ideas. Not to mention that in context that point is really dumb as the ones using religion are the ones that deny the science and the recommended solutions. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/) [QUOTE= Senator Inhofe] Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. [/QUOTE] [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44958.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44958.html) > [@](#): > > Rep. John Shimkus is standing by a controversial comment that global warming isn’t something to worry about because God said he wouldn’t destroy the Earth after Noah’s flood. > > The Illinois Republican running for the powerful perch atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee told POLITICO on Wednesday that his understanding of the Bible reaffirms his belief that government shouldn’t be in the business of trying to address rising greenhouse gas emissions. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/32 "2013-06-29T17:23:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You’re wasting your time. There is no information that will dissuade the religionists on climate change (which I accept as fact). They see it as a rationalization for doing things they’d like to have done, and some of which we should be doing regardless. But you see their interpretation of the data arguing for leftist dreams like that we should allow “the free movement of peoples around the globe”. :rolleyes: > > Like I said, don’t waste your time. I hesitate to even add this to this thread because I know it will result in a palisade of regurgitated and re-regugitated cites from the evangelists. Just give 'em an “Amen, brother” and go and enjoy the day. > > To the evangelists, Preach it harder and longer brothers and sisters. You’re just one cite away of convincing everyone that the sky is falling. TYPE LOUDER! I’d just like to note that this post is from someone who thinks that his layman’s understanding of a complex issue is superior to the thousands of working scientists in the field. Your ignorance isn’t as good as someone else’s knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/33 "2013-06-29T17:34:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’d just like to note that this post is from someone who thinks that his layman’s understanding of a complex issue is superior to the thousands of working scientists in the field. You are incorrect, as usual. But, according to your line of thinking (and ignoring the fact that I _agree_ that man has/is playing a roll in climate change), back in the 70s we should have enacted global policies to prevent the word from cooling. After all, the scientists were concerned about the coming of a mini ice age. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Your ignorance isn’t as good as someone else’s knowledge. I know how much you like a simple, black and white world, but a good bumper sticker needs to be shorter. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/34 "2013-06-29T17:39:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As noticed before, when they accuse the proponents of this of being evangelists or just followers of religion, what they are really saying is that they ran out of ideas. You want an idea, here you go: don’t over react. What you “think” and “know” are not the same thing. And the hubris of your position—both politically and scientifically—reminds me of the time “scientists” thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Can I get an “AMEN”? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/35 "2013-06-29T17:39:48Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > I have never believed in man made global warming/cooling… Not once, even for a moment. Why? Well, because… > > Earth was once covered in molten lava and a significant portion of it was once completely covered in ice. In between the two extremes there has been every incremental variation possible - all before mankind even arrived on the scene. Variation, extremes, and cataclysmic landscape changing extinction level weather events are the norm for planet Earth and it has had nothing to do with mankind. > > However, I do believe in overpopulation. I also believe that we are filling the land up with trash and the water/air up with contaminants that can and do have an adverse affect on biological organisms. Well Earth has only been entirely molten lava a few times very early in our history and it had nothing to do with climatological factors. My understanding is initially when the Earth came together most of it was molten just from the heat and energy of all the dust and elements that had collected together in a big sphere to form the proto-earth. Then it cooled. Then later a large planet-sized object slammed into Earth and the immense reaction caused the entire Earth to be molten again for awhile, and also the heavier elements from both planets fell into the Earth while some of the ejecta spun off and coalesced into a smaller body that got locked in orbit with Earth (the moon.) There has been wide climatological variance in Earth’s history. I’m particularly interested in climate change over many millions of years myself, but let’s not misrepresent it–the Earth was never covered in molten lava due to climatological factors. We have had times of snowball earth and times where there was basically no ice coverage through natural climatological processes, but let’s not overstate it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/36 "2013-06-29T17:47:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But, according to your line of thinking (and ignoring the fact that I _agree_ that man has/is playing a roll in climate change), back in the 70s we should have enacted global policies to prevent the word from cooling. After all, the scientists were concerned about the coming of a mini ice age. Not directly comparable. I remember the 70s “Ice Age” talk, it was akin to talk now about “apocalypse when the Earth’s magnetic field reverses” talk. Yes, some people who were vaguely scientists were talking about a new Ice Age in the 70s, just like some were warning about the effects of the Earth’s magnetic field reversing polarity here recently. But in neither of those cases did it become a major issue, with large bodies of concerned scientists meeting together, forming committees and organizations to research it. Nor did it produce hundreds and hundreds of reams of scientifically accepted peer reviewed studies. It was basically an idea that was based in part on some small set of cold years in the United States and some data and it never got further than that, it was never taken seriously by the scientific community. If there had been genuine global cooling that had kept going on and on and on most likely you’d see all kinds of organizations like we have now for Climate Change but discussing what we could do to stop a new Ice Age. There were a few television programs that ran in the 70s that were “popular science” type documentaries and basically were playing to sensationalize, I believe one was narrated by Leonard Nimoy. That’s by far where most people get this idea we had worries of an Ice Age in the 70s. It was never taken all that seriously by the mainstream scientific community. Global warming on the other hand started to get steam as early as the 80s and especially by the early 90s. It has grown since then because scientific consensus has been built over many years. This stuff didn’t just start with the Kyoto Treaty or the IPCC or Al Gore, that stuff was at the tail end of a decade or more of tons of research. Research that has been built on for years after that. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/37 "2013-06-29T17:48:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are incorrect, as usual. Am I? > [@](#): > > But, according to your line of thinking (and ignoring the fact that I _agree_ that man has/is playing a roll in climate change), back in the 70s we should have enacted global policies to prevent the word from cooling. After all, the scientists were concerned about the coming of a mini ice age. All stop. This is not a true thing. There was never scientific consensus about an imminent ice age. [Global cooling - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling) > [@Wikipedia](#): > > This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. You are misinformed. Please stop repeating that information. The people who told it to you were liars trying to convince you of things that are not true. > [@](#): > > I know how much you like a simple, black and white world, but a good bumper sticker needs to be shorter. Which is just absurd, since conservatism is about simple moral choices. I’m a liberal, and if anything, I weigh nuance too much in my decision making. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/38 "2013-06-29T18:11:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are incorrect, as usual. > > But, according to your line of thinking (and ignoring the fact that I _agree_ that man has/is playing a roll in climate change), back in the 70s we should have enacted global policies to prevent the word from cooling. After all, the scientists were concerned about the coming of a mini ice age. > > I know how much you like a simple, black and white world, but a good bumper sticker needs to be shorter. This is conclusive evidence that in reality you are clueless, regardless of your claim of accepting the science. Back in the 70’s most scientists predicted that warming was coming, even the few that suggested cooling was coming did so by overestimating the negative forcing coming from aerosol particles. Those few scientists recognized the mistake and by 1980 the consensus on warming turned into a super one. [http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html](http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html) > [@](#): > > But was there ever a consensus over global cooling in the 1970s? > > A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. > You can also read summaries on RealClimate and on ScienceNews, though if you’re interested in how the myth of global cooling was turned on its head, it is well worth reading the researchers’ own version, which is freely available (as a PDF). > > In other words, it appears there was not a scientific consensus over global cooling. So what created the fuss? > > Possibly a careful selection of news items by certain politicians. According to the version of the study currently available online: > > > [@](#): > > > > When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage. That is where US Senator James Inhofe turned for much of the evidence to support his argument in a Senate floor speech in 2003 (Inhofe 2003). Chief among his evidence was a frequently cited Newsweek story: “The Cooling World” (Gwynne 1975). So, once again, you need to take it with the rotten sources and politicians that misguided you. But as experience shows me, the usual with happen, you will only get upset with the ones that report on what the scientists say, not with the ones that are fooling you. BTW, you can not use your plain ignorance as an excuse, this item was reported for years and I even posted it many times before: > **[What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?](https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm)** > > \1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/39 "2013-06-29T18:21:21Z")
So **Martin Hyde** is mostly correct, the only nit is that it was in the 50’s when the warning was made by a few scientists of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, because it was found that the assumptions of how CO2 captured radiation were not correct. And then in the 70’s already most scientists predicted that warming was coming, even when the popular media got it wrong. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/40 "2013-06-29T20:31:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are incorrect, as usual. > > But, according to your line of thinking (and ignoring the fact that I _agree_ that man has/is playing a roll in climate change), back in the 70s we should have enacted global policies to prevent the word from cooling. After all, the scientists were concerned about the coming of a mini ice age. ´Demonstrably bullshit. This is not, and never was, true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157.md?page=3)