A Different Kind of Smoking Gun...

Those on the warming alarmist side of the "climate change" controversy claim, among other things, that there never was a consensus of climatologists in the 1970s who said that the danger was from global cooling, rather than warming.

This points to a slightly different version of history, one based on the actual facts, rather than claims and memories.

what we are really seeing here is an attempt to revise history, but not on the part of the skeptics, but, once again, on the part of the warming alarmists.

This from Newsweek, 28 April 1975, page 64:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advanced signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down.
...
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.

From the CIA report linked to above (available as PDF there as well): I've compressed it fairly radically, but don't think I've fiddled with anything relevant.

A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth's climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850), a era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.
...
The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal climate of agricultural-optimum is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal era.

The climate change began in 1960, but no one including the climatologists recognized it. Crop failures in the Soviet Union and India during the first part of the sixties were attributed to the natural fluctuation of the weather. India was supported by massive U.S. grain shipments that fed over 100 million people. To eat, the Soviets slaughtered their livestock, and Premier Nikita Krushchev was quietly deposed.
...
With global climatic-induced agricultural failures of the early 1970s, the stability of many government has been seriously threatened. Many government have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people. It has been increasingly imperative to determine whether 1972 was an isolated event or - as the climatologists have predicted - a major shift in the world's climate.
...
Since the 1960s, a number of foreboding climatic predictions have appeared in various climactic, meteorological and geological periodicals, consistently following one of two themes.

 - A global climactic change was underway.

- This climactic change would create worldwide agriculture failures in the 1970s.
...
There are three basic schools or philosophies of climatology. The first is centered around Professor H.H. Lamb, who is currently the Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

Ouch. Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia...where have we heard of this institution before?

So much for the comments from the warming alarmists that the CRU at UEA is "just one of many": it is the source, so to speak. of the statistical-climate-history-as-predictor-of-the-future crowd.

There was a Conference then in San Diego in 1974:

By the fall of 1973 the Office of Research and Development (ORD) had obtained sufficient evidence the alert the Agency analysts that forecasts of an ongoing global climate change were reasonable and worthy of attention. ORD also determined that it was feasible to begin the development of forecasting techniques and impact assessment. However, Agency analysts remained skeptical, noting that the mix of approaches (Wisconsin, Scripps, RAND, NCAR) and the scientific personalities pursuing them prevented a clear expression of what the recognized authorities were agreeing on.

To resolve these issues, the principle investigators representing the various research approaches convened in San Diego in April 1974 to discuss these three issues:

 - The state of climatological forecasting: identification of elements of the methodology wherein there is some consensus, current trends in development and new approaches;

 - Prospects of developing near-term of climatology to Agency interests;

 - Recommendations for high- and low-risk approaches for long-range climatological models development.

For two days they argued, discussed and defended their approaches to climatic forecasting and the impact of climate change. By the second day a consensus was reached on the following issues:

 - A global climactic change was taking place

 - We will not soon return to the climate patterns of the recent past

 - For the future, there is a high probability of increased volatility of features of climate that are important to crop growth

 - The most promising long-range (1-5 years) approach to climate forecasting appears to be the statistical synoptic approach. The consensus expressed caution in using these projections without an attempt to develop some physical understanding of the underlying weather-forcing mechanisms.

At the end of the day, this was the birth of modern climatology: funding was made available, etc.


To deny that this ever existed is to deny how the climatologists got their start. This is a different kind of smoking gun, one that could be simply addressed by pointing out the advances made since then.

Instead, the warming alarmists want to revise history and deny that there ever were those who claimed global cooling was the danger.


And as an aside: reading the CIA report made me realize how poorly we have developed since then. Reading that report reminded me of straight-forward mature analysis, reporting all the facts, rather than the heavily biased "science" we see today.




Seems that some adults were in charge back then.