Tag Archives: Global warming controversy

Global cooling debate was never what some climate skeptics claim

Climate-change skeptics frequently bring up a 40-year-old story about climate change — a fleeting notion that the Earth was cooling.

Talking about that story, which was picked up by Newsweek and other publications, serves as a roundabout way for skeptics to ridicule the science of global warming, suggesting that scientists have never been able to get their story straight.

But the idea of global cooling failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny, and the whole idea of global cooling soon disappeared.

Now is the time to put that old story to rest, writes Peter Dykstra, publisher of the nonprofit Environmental Health Sciences, in a guest blog published on the Scientific American website.

“Rush Limbaugh is a frequent flyer on the Newsweek story, making the common error of promoting it to a ‘cover story.’” Peter writes, noting that it was a single-page, nine-paragraph piece on page 64.

“Lawrence Solomon, a kingpin of Canadian climate denial, added a new twist two years ago, claiming that the global cooling theory was growing to ‘scientific consensus,’” Peter said. “Yet the American Meteorological Society published a 2008 paper, which reported that even in the theory’s heyday, published papers suggesting a warming trend dominated by about six to one.”

Peter goes on to describe how various people have used the story to sew seeds of doubt about today’s leading climate-change findings.

“Science, in particular, moves on as it becomes more sophisticated,” he said. “The scientific community stopped talking about global cooling three decades ago. It’s time to retire this long-dismissed theory as an anti-science talking point.”

Peter’s blog includes a photograph of the old Newsweek story from April 28,1975, so I enlarged it and read what it actually said. Some excepts:

  • “In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production… During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.”
  • “Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 145 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states.”
  • “To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.”
  • “’Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,’ concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ‘Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.’”
  • “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the polar ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.”

Ironically, current research predicts that we will see increasing weather anomalies as a result of climate change. Studies also show that soot is unintentionally landing on the polar ice caps, melting them even faster. On the other hand, thousands of studies have now documented the warming trends in correlation with an increase in greenhouse gases.

If anyone doubts the level of climate-change research taking place, take a look at “Science Daily,” a website that compiles reports on all kinds of studies. The category “Climate” includes just a portion of the climate research underway throughout the world.

In a related development on climate change, a group of 28 Washington scientists wrote a letter to the Legislature (PDF 110 kb), saying our state is already feeling the effects of climate change:

“We must adapt to the inevitable impacts of a changing climate by investing in communities to make them more prepared for the current impacts and future risks of climate change. At the same time, Washington must also take appropriate steps to reduce heat-trapping emissions that would cause much more devastating consequences in the decades to come…

“We ask that you implement a policy that establishes a price on greenhouse gas emissions to encourage a shift to clean energy solutions and drive low-carbon innovation that will foster the clean industries of the future…

“The emissions choices we make today — in Washington and throughout the world — will shape the planet our children and grandchildren inherit. Please help create a cleaner, safer, and healthier future for Washington. Let this be our legacy.”

Guardian report examines ‘Climategate’

I hate to say it, but on rare occasions it is difficult to figure out where science ends and politics begins. I have always believed there is a clear distinction between scientific findings and public policy. But a few members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change blurred the line, whether we like it or not.

I just finished reading a 12-part series about Climategate published in The Guardian, a British publication. The series includes annotated comments written by those close to the issue.

If you care about climate change, you probably should pay attention to politics surrounding this issue. That means you probably should know about the controversy surrounding the stolen e-mails of a few key climate scientists.

This series, by reporter Fred Pearce, offers context that one cannot get by reading the e-mails alone. I was impressed by the balance that Pearce brings to the issue, neither defending nor attacking the scientists for their apparent failings. But he does comment on the personalities of the scientists as well as the skeptics who constantly stirred the pot.
Continue reading