What the climate scientists said in 1975

[BlasterBates]

It's always interesting to see how scientists develop their views over time.

Climate scientists views in 1975

One wonders what they maybe saying in 10 or 20 years from now.

[AtW]

You sound like a broken record Blaster.

[EternalOptimist]

You sound like a broken record Blaster.

I understand where he is coming from though.
Its like living in the middle of the argument between Gallileo and the church

It's big stuff AtW, imho.

[TykeMerc]

You sound like a broken record Blaster.

That's rich considering just how many SKA/my lunch/<placeholder> threads you spawned.

On topic I'm sure the counter argument will be that now there are satellites and loads of ice core data samples that the cooling assertion was poor science based on wonky data, how valid that will turn out to be in 30-40 years time is a matter of debate.
I've yet to see convincing evidence that the current climate trends are anything other than natural fluctuations which have happened many times in the past.

[d000hg]

Except the church were criticised for not adapting their view, whereas the AGW folk are being criticised here for changing what they think. No doubt if they had been resolute all these years, BB would find that equally damning.

The point is, BB doesn't add anything more than those who support AGW arguments do by just re-posting the same things every 5minutes. We're aware what he thinks, we're not going to forget if not reminded 10 times a day.

[EternalOptimist]

Except the church were criticised for not adapting their view, whereas the AGW folk are being criticised here for changing what they think. No doubt if they had been resolute all these years, BB would find that equally damning.

The point is, BB doesn't add anything more than those who support AGW arguments do by just re-posting the same things every 5minutes. We're aware what he thinks, we're not going to forget if not reminded 10 times a day.

not at all. the church were criticised for defending a positon in the face of glaring facts that proved the opposite. They used every dirty trick in the book to deny the truth and to suppress it. I think the parallel is exact.

And BB is not trying to convert the diehards or sing to the choir, he is trying to persuade the floaters. which is what pj is doing , so that ok by me

[doodab]

persuade the floaters

I find putting an big wodge of paper on top before flushing helps to persuade them the round the bend.

[pjclarke]

That's a Newsweek editorial piece, hardly a survey of scientific opinion or literature. However a survey of climate scientific opinion of that time has been done - it even mentioned the Newsweek piece - and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It concluded:

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

and

During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers.

Didn't we do this one already?

[Old Greg]

It's always interesting to see how scientists develop their views over time.

Climate scientists views in 1975

One wonders what they maybe saying in 10 or 20 years from now.

They'll be too pissed on Scottish champagne from their personal vineyards to be worrying too much.

[pjclarke]

Yeah -thought so.

Oh, and if the cold UK weather last December was so significant, what are we to make of the warmest April on record?