If "everyone" was talking about global cooling in the 70's, why does the graph look like this?

this cooling prediction in the 1970 was mostly in the media. Around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet

There was a specific 1974 Time Magazine article with speculation about cooling, but it, like so many other things, got blown out of proportion by the wingnuts.

They are the same people who still insist that Malthus, The Club of Rome and Paul Ehrlich were completely wrong about the logic of overpopulation just because the green revolution (denser crop loads) temporarily fed more people.

The truth is that population growth is pushing land-based crops to the limit and pulling more fish out of the sea than can be replenished. It's also putting a lot of animal and plant species in peril, including our own. But wingnuts have a habit of latching onto old news and never letting go. Give a right-wing dog a tasty enough wing bone and it will ignore a thigh bone falling on its head.

The Time article is linked below for anyone who wants full context. Keep in mind that aerosol pollution (before the "eco-freaks" and "tree-huggers" demanded tighter pollution controls) is now thought to be responsible for temporary cooling effects. In fact, warming might be a lot worse now if air quality were uniformly better. See "global dimming."

The 70's cooling being something that science strongly supported is a denier myth, it is a quite good one, in that it shows in a verifiable way, the dishonesty of the denier campaign, as the scientific papers of the time (those papers are on the public record) show clearly that there were mixed opinions on the subject and a fair level of opinion that we needed more data to make an informed opinion, and 40 years later and with a lot more data, science now has that opinion, and while deniers might have some sway in the public opinion stakes they have made little ground in the science stakes as they continue to make foolish claims like 15 years of cooling when 2009 was the 5th warmest year on record and 2010 is set to be in the top three.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climat...

certainly, the international cooling researchers have been in the minority even in the Seventies. A learn of the medical literature in seek of affirmation that worldwide cooling grow to be wide-unfold in the Seventies confirmed that the international cooling theory grow to be held via a minority of climatologists. although, politics demands that those minority scientists be seen representative of the state of technology in the Seventies it may be handy if shall we vote on technology and math: enable's carry an election to work out if the atomic form is precise. do we vote on the two e=emC squared or e=emC cubed? the present fashions that tutor man made worldwide warming have extensive learn at the back of them, and signify the superb achieveable expertise of our expertise immediately. of direction, whilst popularizing medical fashions, politicians are probably to magnify and misrepresent. i does not be shocked if there have been flaws in Gore's action picture. although, I certainly have not seen a definitive - or maybe tentative - diagnosis of his action picture and how it may misrepresent the issue. although, if his action picture strikes politicians in direction of curtailing worldwide warming, plenty the greater advantageous.

Its very simple. The fact that even in the 70's the majority of scientific literature predicted global warming as the more likely threat, this doesn't fit in with deniers lies and mis-information. The fact the science doesn't support their claims shouldn't get in the way of a good myth like this now should it!? No matter how many times and how conclusivly it has been debunked.

Apparently MIKE L is incapable of reading. How he types is beyond me.

(Hint: the graphs show info about BOOKS, not temperatures. Why do I bother though? I'm typing to the illiterate.)

The new book database shows the prevalence of the topic in popular literature. In scientific literature, it never had a period of prevalence at all:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BA...

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008...

cuz you swamped the global cooling results with global warming (of which there are many more), yet in the 70s global cooling has a lot of hits 75-76-77 is the peak, which is consistent with the argument that many were concerned with global cooling at the time.

Those graphs are bogus . They don't start with 0 . If they knew the temperatures in the

900s or year 1000 both lines would meet each other and no warming would be shown.

The second graph does not show the hottest years the 1930s.

If the alarmist use those they are lying.

Selective info gives selective results.

Wow...when was 1970? Forty years ago? Did they have the technology of today? Did they even have anyone asking this question? Did they have computers devoted to this question? Short answer...NO!