This study is quite a ruse. The PDO reversed in 1976, and Alaska warmed more than three degrees over a period of a few months.

Had he separated the pre and post 1976 papers, the result would likely have been quite different. Besides the press, The CIA and Science Daily also warned of the possibility of an ice age.

Few people considered global warming during the cold and snow of the 1960s and early 70s. Besides, is there any reason to trust Newsweek or Time any more now than 30 years ago? They are just as clueless, lazy and dishonest now as they were back then.

I read the article and there's really not much news contained within it. There have been numerous reports about how the "pending ice age" of the 70's was based upon media speculation rather than scientific consensus. I don't think pointing this out again does anything to advance the current day science. What I find interesting is nowhere in the article did Peterson refute the data from the 40's to the 70's indicating a sharp drop in temperatures world wide. He's rather refuting the media-driven myth (Time, Newsweek et al) that scientists were in agreement that an ice age was pending. Reply: That's the point of the research. OK, so we didn't head into an ice age. The fact remains that the Earth warmed in the 30's, cooled from the 40's to the 70's and has warmed again since then and the root cause for these fluctuations are the essence of the AGW debate, no?

It would be nice if this research ended this denialist talking point, but we know those folks can't be convinced by facts and evidence, so I'm predicting that there will be lots of posts here that proclaim this study fraudulent.

The point is not whether there was a scientific consensus about future global cooling from the 70's on. The point is that the 70's were colder than the previous decades. People base the current warming fears on comparisons to those colder times and think we have something unusual instead of looking back beyond the 70's and realizing that this has all happened before.

So, even though the earth's climate was cooling at the time, there was actually a consensus for global warming! Why didn't any of this appear in the publications back then? Reply: What publications? Are you talking Time magazine or scientific journals?

All I remember is reading articles about how we were all going to freeze in an ice age. It really happened. Maybe not a scientific consensus (as the media definitely suggested), but enough media coverage to scare a lot of people. Now the media coverage is about global warming. Is this to be considered any more credible?

This is all such nonsense. The sun heats the earth, correct? When the sun gets hotter the earth gets hotter and vice-versa. Other factors are involved, but I have seen absolutley no proof that CO2 has much to do with it. The CO2 data does not correlate with the temperature data in graphs over time.

The article says, “Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.”
The article will be published!
This is truly a brilliant idea, say what you want without anybody being able to ask questions or challenge the content because we can’t look at or review the work. However we do get to enjoy a synopsis of what they want us to know before we can ask questions about or review the articles methodology.
….But we will remember this “NO consensus idea” as FACT even if the article is fraught with ambiguities or methodology questions. This could be accurate but maybe not. We just don’t know. Brilliantly done PR work Kudos to the authors.
Lot’s of questions should be asked?
Did he miss some, ignore others or were only 71 articles published in that time frame?
How many of the 44 were written by different authors or did the same guy write or collaborated with others and rehash the same data?
Did they ask the former science editor of Newsweek, Peter Gwynne ( pgwynne767@aol.com ) about how he came to say consensus?
Let us continue:
However:
That means in 14 years there were only 71 articles mentioning cooling warming or neutral.
Six (6) articles per year were written compared to what some 30 articles a day now????
Were did all these NEW experts suddenly appear to research and write much less be able to competently peer review all these articles today??? (Who is peer reviewing and how much experience do they have???)
Could it possibly be that the science of climatology has expanded too rapidly to have competent people to actually peer review much less write an article?
As for Consensus?
There wasn’t any consensus then and not now but by golly it sure sounds so much more authoritative when that term is used.
Until you can read the article and make judgments for yourself, look at this or any article with a jaundiced eye.
Everybody has an agenda! It’s up to the individual to see how far that has screwed the facts. Somewhere in-between is usually the truth.
Learn, Read between the lines and above all think for yourself.

Just like 20 years from now Global Warming will be a big money hoax!

7 supported global cooling.
44 predicted warming.
20 were neutral in regards to future climate trends.

Doesn't say much for jounalistic research does it? Apparently a few vocal proponents were able to get sensationalistic articles printed in several major news publications.

I guess perhaps it's a good thing that we didn't run out and dust the ice caps with soot.

All the best,

Aaron

I'm not at all surprised by the finding mentioned above.

I am old enough to actually REMEMBER the seventies, and in particular, the science as it was reported at the time.

In particular I recall a NOVA special on PBS back in 1974 which reported on the CO-2 build up being recorded (since 1958) in Hawaii. The NOVA special hinted that excess levels of carbon in the atmosphere might lead to a greenhouse effect (yes that term was even used back then) and that this man-made greenhouse "blanket" of C0-2 would act like a glass window, letting the sun's heat in, but not allowing as much of the solar radiation to leak back into space at night. The show featured nighttime average temperatures recorded since 1958 that were on the rise, and at a much faster rate than daytime average temperatures, which seemed to support this theory.

The talk of warming in the seventies corresponded with warmer winters in the Eastern part of the US, in which less snow fell on average than in the previous decade of the sixties. As a child in the sixties, I could relate to this finding all too well. The seventies, with a few exceptions such as the cold winter of 1976/77, were some of the warmest winters up to that time. However, what I didn't know then was how much warmer the winters on average would get, until by the early part of this century, white Christmases would become more and more rare, and glaciers worldwide would shrink at such alarming rates.

A comment on the befuddled thought process of global warming skeptics -

From 1977 to 2006, Reid Bryson is a dolt - the prime example of 'alarmism' for suggesting an imminent ice age.

From 2006- present, Reid Bryson is a hero for saying he thinks global warming is overblown ( and still suggesting the return of an ice age.)

And of course from 1985 - present, Dr. Bryson is retired and uninvolved in climate research . . .

Dozens of peer-reviewed papers, eh? Naomi Oreskes managed nearly a thousand in her search. So much for peer-review.

I don't remember anyone being organized enough back then to claim consensus.
I do remember a lot of articles, that looking back could be construed as neutral, hinting at the possibility.

No different than now, "-could- the Arctic be a victim of global warming", etc.

""The temperature records we had at the time showed a very sharp cooling from the mid-'40s to the mid-'70s," Michaels says. "And scientists attempted to explain that as a consequence of the pollution that was preventing solar radiation from reaching the surface.

"At the time, scientists thought the cooling effect of pollution was greater than the warming effect of carbon dioxide," "

Of course, what he was referring to was the cold phase of the PDO (1945-1976). Now, the PDO itself wasn't formally defined until the 1990s, but Pacific fishermen were aware of it. And earth scientists knew that something was afoot in 1976, when suddenly the North Central Pacific warmed.

One thing that hasn't changed amongst our scientists is the idea that human activity can cause rapid climate change. Whether it is warming or cooling doesn't matter. If we begin to siginificantly cool the next decade or so, AGC will make a comeback.

Uhh huh...so if you can conclude there was no consensus back then, why do people conclude there is a consensus now? There is just as many scientific journals against global warming as there are in favor. Sounds like another media driven "consensus". What a surprise the AMS is on board with this. The same society that suggests people have their certification removed if they disagree with the non existent "consensus".

Reply: No, the AMS society itself did not suggest that anyone who dis-agreed with consensus have their certification removed. That comment was made by a particular individual.

Another meaningless CYA study.

This reminds me of the Atlantic hurricane mess. First we were told that global warming strengthens hurricanes and the Katrina disaster was our fault for not adopting Kyoto. Then we experience far fewer hurricanes than predicting and we were suddenly bombarded with new studies that say no, global warming will cause less hurricanes.

I don't recall anybody ever saying there was a scientific consensus about a new ice age in the 1970's. I do recall a few researchers, like NASA's own James Hanson, reporting that a new ice age was on the way in a few decades and nothing we could do could stop it. Like today, the media decided to hype the claims of the doom and gloom forecasters instead of listening to more reasonable scientists.

Brett, I think you're misrepresenting Heidi's suggestion. She said: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval." Note the tense. It wasn't a proposal to remove prior certifications.

From a quick glance at their site, the AMS now seems to be adding climate to their tests (for the CBM rating at least, which it appears is some sort of upgrade to the Seal of Approval). Good.

Denialist fiction: "Scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s!"

Brian's fiction: "There is just as many scientific journals against global warming as there are in favor."

So we see how this stuff starts and just keeps getting repeated by people who have no regard for the facts.

A point of clarification on the reply to Brian, as Brett is too much of a professional to comment, The statement was made by Heidi Cullen of the The Weather Channel. And we ALL know where their biases lie there, DON'T WE?

On the thread, I can buy into the argument that there was no scientific consensus, and I can even wholeheartedly admit that I was incorrect in presuming that the scientists of the time (Were these people climatologists or just scientific weather people?) were truly concerned over global cooling. In other words, I was wrong that I thought that global warming was a more recent scientific trend.

That said, we must also recognize that the MSM heavily promoted the idea of a global cooling such that it was a significant topic of discussion in many areas of the country. Very similarly to what has happened today. It is a topic because of media reports. Frankly put, the lack of complete information about the planet in the 70's probably stopped much of the discussion just as the ability to find out that it was warm at the poles yesterday promotes GW discussion today.

But I am left with a major problem. If the scientists have known about global warming and CO2 influence since the 60's, don't ya think they'd have a better handle on understanding the weather as a whole? I figure this since they would have had to have a pretty good grasp on short term weather, energy, and the dynamics of the earth system. And with that, wouldn't the forecasting models (both long and short range) be light years ahead of where they are now? And please do not list that computers did not exist back then therefore this is all new stuff. I know that and I also know that many of the AGWers have pointed out that the concepts and theories have been "consensusly" approved years ago. So, since that is the case, why can't a model predict the temp a year from now and be accurate?

I think I know the answer anybody else want to try?

I have to get in on this "big money hoax" thing with global warming because it seems like I'm the only one of the believers that isn't getting incredibly rich from this scheme! MMM-MMM-MMM, life sure will be great when I have all that money and power! Hey Brett, what are you going to do with your share! Reply: Pay the bills!...LOL

Compiling the results of a handful of papers doesn't tell us how many were really written; what drives the matter now is the IPCC defending a nice tax-free sinecure for its permanent members and creating the idea of 'consensus' - if there was a real consensus, this discussion would not exist, there wouldn't be climateaudit.org, Friends of Science, etc., ad infinitum. The media frenzy pushed by the better funded and organized envirofanatic groups is pushing up the ante and coverage for Global Warming nowadays, not legitimate science.

What is not in doubt is that climate changes. Yes, people do effect local conditions, sometimes over a wide area, with land-use, industry, etc., but having an effect is not the same as 'control' which is what most AGW advocates seem to want. I can put grandma behind the controls of a space shuttle and she might have some 'effect' on its trajectory into a smoking hole, but she won't be controlling it. Climate is much the same on a larger scale.

Peterson was a contributor to the International Panel on Climate Conspiracy says it all...what do expect him to find?... that they were wrong back then?...this research is a poor attempt to promote the scam...have a nice day, bros

Shouldn't we also be talking about (after
researching it, of course) the current dip
in world temperatures coinciding with the
failure of solar cycle 24 to begin? Yes, I
know that conventional wisdom climatology
(CWC) claims there is no connection between
the Sun and the Earth's weather/climate, but I
suggest that theory needs to be revisited.

All I know is that a few scientists that got the ear of many journalists warned of the coming ice age. It was not referred to as global cooling, and I don't remember a debate either. I agree that there was not some sort of consensus, but just a few voices that were very loud and taken seriously by the media. Since our winter this year has been extremely cold and snowy, I try to ask as many folks as I can what they remember growing up around here. Every single person I have spoken with believes this winter compares to those they remember as children. Most of the people I have spoken with are in their 40s. All agree that it has been at least 15 years since we got such constant cold temps. BTW, it was -18 here last night. Look at the calendar please. The normal high is 28 here with lows near zero/single digits. We have been in the single digits here during the day too for much of the week. I pray the spring will not come too soon, because if it does we will be under water.

"but Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965-1979 and found the following"

That in 14 years, only 71 articles were published about climate change.

I thought this was a much older science than that.

The author might be implying that Time and Newsweek can't be trusted. Or perhaps that many scientists were negligent in allowing their views to be so publicly misrepresented, and failed to write a single letter to the editors complaining of the gross misinformation being published.

Regardless, it appears that this winter may beat out 1978. Time and Newsweek will soon have to reverse course and blame the scientists for their own misbehavior.

Until now, my all-time favorite was the winter of 1978-79, when 76.1 inches of snow fell on Madison to break a seasonal record that had stood for almost 100 years.

"You can really run out of superlatives in a winter like this," notes Scott Lindstrom of the UW-Madison's Space Science and Engineering Center, who has been compiling numbers that help quantify this winter in Madison. Among them:
* Second-snowiest December
* Eighth-snowiest January
* Third-snowiest February ("so far," he writes via email; "we'll likely grab the #2 slot tomorrow")

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=21605