Found this article. Make of it what you will.

[Theowl32]

‘83% Consensus’?! 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

‘83% Consensus’?! 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’



Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.

Not only did Connolley — a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog — successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann’s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.

A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.

A 2009 investigative report from UK’s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn’t conform to his point of view.

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.“

After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a “consensus” manifesto in 2008 that claimed to exp”ose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened.

Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.

----------------------------------------------------


I did manage to find this quote from 1970 (first earth day) by Ecologist Kenneth Watt.

Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

I do find it interesting. Especially IF it is true.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No surprise. I remember the "coming Ice Age" rants at Earth Day 1970, and for a time thereafter. When they failed to get traction, they rolled it over into "global warming".

 

[Theowl32]

No surprise. I remember the "coming Ice Age" rants at Earth Day 1970, and for a time thereafter. When they failed to get traction, they rolled it over into "global warming".

I remember the massive acid rain scare of the 80s.

That ended up being a very isolated incident and it was actually exposed. Notice no more stuff about that.

90s it is all a big giant hole in the ozone. Notice how we hear very little about that anymore?


Now, THEY have changed it again. Global warming which came from the ozone hoax to now climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Owl, ever notice that you are really an ignorant bastard?


Current State of the Ozone Layer | US EPA
Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting substances (ODSODSA compound that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion. ODS include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, hydrobromofluorocarbons, chlorobromomethane, and methyl chloroform. ODS are generally very stable in the troposphere and only degrade under intense ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. When they break down, they release chlorine or bromine atoms, which then deplete ozone. A detailed list (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/index.html) of class I and class II substances with their ODPs, GWPs, and CAS numbers are available.) rapidly increased before the implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its subsequent revisions and amendments. However, the atmospheric levels of nearly all these substances have declined substantially in the past two decades.

Additional Information
Basic Ozone Layer Science

Addressing Ozone Layer Depletion

Continued declines in ODS emissions are expected to result in a near complete recovery of the ozone layer near the middle of the 21st century. The long time scale for this recovery is due to the slow rate at which ODS are removed from the atmosphere by natural processes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• American Association for the Advancement of Science

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Links there to put the nonsense in the OP to rest.

 

[SSDD]

Denial won't make the ice age scare of the 70's go a way rocks...no matter how much you wish it were...nor will it make the failed AGW scare go away either as the decades and centuries march on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old socks cant even get the O-Zone issue right.. The low amount of Gama radiation hitting earths atmosphere (due to decreased solar activity) has allowed O-zone to rebuild and the hole is very near the size it was in the early 70's...

"A hole in our atmosphere more than twice the size of the United States is finally beginning to close up, and might even be completely gone by the end of the century, according to a new study by NASA scientists.

The report was published in the journal Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. In short, it tells us that the measures taken to heal our ozone layer are, and will be, successful."

And even though the NASA source still blames Fluorocarbons, it has been shown empirically to have little to no effect on it.

Hole In the Earth's Ozone Layer Is Finally Closing Up, NASA Says

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly Billy, it was proven decades ago that the CFCs depleted the ozone layer.

 

[Old Rocks]

No surprise. I remember the "coming Ice Age" rants at Earth Day 1970, and for a time thereafter. When they failed to get traction, they rolled it over into "global warming".

I remember the massive acid rain scare of the 80s.

That ended up being a very isolated incident and it was actually exposed. Notice no more stuff about that.

90s it is all a big giant hole in the ozone. Notice how we hear very little about that anymore?


Now, THEY have changed it again. Global warming which came from the ozone hoax to now climate change.

LOL Owl, you are so fucking stupid.

http://twri.tamu.edu/newsletters/texaswaterresources/twr-v10n6.pdf

Acid Rain Issues By Ric Jensen, Staff Writer

"Acid rain" has made its way into the headlines of newspapers and magazines as a major environmental issue, maybe the big environmental challenge in the coming decades.

Yet most Texans associate the acid rain issue solely with the northeastern portion of the United States, Canada, and industrialized western Europe. Might it be possible, however, that acid rain is also a problem right here in Texas?

The acid rain situation is not yet so serious that fish kills and the death of lakes have been reported, as is the case in some of the more severely afflicted areas.

Still, two reports prepared by the Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Committee (TENRAC) and the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) state that the potential for an acid rain problem may exist in parts of Texas.

They indicate that "acid rain," or more specifically acid deposition, is not a problem for most of Texas, but that the potential for a problem exists, particularly in Northeast Texas.

TENRAC's two-volume report, "A Plan to Evaluate Acid Deposition Issues in the State of Texas," was issued in January of 1982 and is one of the most comprehensive and upto-date documents on the acid rain situation in Texas.

The TACB published a research division staff report, "Analysis of Texas Acid Rain Data," in August of 1984. It presents the current acid rain situation in the state.

 

[Old Rocks]

'Rivers On Rolaids': How Acid Rain Is Changing Waterways
By CHRISTOPHER JOYCE • SEP 13, 2013

'Rivers On Rolaids': How Acid Rain Is Changing Waterways

How acid rain can make rivers alkaline.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Silly Billy, it was proven decades ago that the CFCs depleted the ozone layer.

(Billy sits in a washtub of ice as his wife fans him.)

OMG! It's so hot! Aiiiii-CHIHUAHUA!

I've been following this for those decades. Most of it is a load of comic-book crap.

 

[jc456]

Silly Billy, it was proven decades ago that the CFCs depleted the ozone layer.

surrrrrrrrrre

 

[task0778]

It's all about money and politics. The Left wants bigger gov't so they manufacture something for the public to be afraid of that only the gov't can fix. But we're going to need more of your taxpayer dollars to do it, cuz if you don't we're all gonna die. And then they politicize it, 'The Right is a bunch of cheap uncaring bastards that only serve the Rich and don't care about the future. It's all political bullshit.

 

[mamooth]

It's all about money and politics.

True. The right wants their fossil fuel cash, and the power that comes with it. And so do their Russian allies.

Follow the money. It's all going to the right, so that's how we know the right is lying. The money is flowing away from the scientists, which is how we know scientists are telling the truth. Any scientist could get rich lying for the deniers, but they don't.

The scientists take a pay cut, which gives them added credibility. The denier side is the only side openly taking bribes here.

 

[mamooth]

‘‘83% Consensus’?! 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

Marc Morano? Quoting a very highly paid non-scientist denier shill and thug (he's bragged about his ability to sic angry denier mobs on people) probably isn't your best choice.

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

Oh look, Connolley Derangment Syndrome. He wouldn't let deniers put fictional propaganda on Wikipedia, so he's on the denier hate-list. Cults need enemies.

did manage to find this quote from 1970 (first earth day) by Ecologist Kenneth Watt.

Who cares? He's not a climate scientist. Your cult can't find any bad predictions from actual climate scientists, except from those few (Kukla and Bryson) who were hardcore global warming deniers.

So, the scientists got it all right with their global warming predictions in the 1970s. They've been getting everything right for 40 years now. That's why the world gives them so much credibilty.

Your side? Nonstop predictions of ice ages, which all your kook pals are still making. The denier side has gotten every prediction wrong for 40 years running now, which is why they're considered to be dishonest cult jokes.