Ah, global cooling - the conveniently forgotten scientific consensus. Well, at least they only had to screw up once more with "global warming" before finally settling on the ambiguous "climate change".
There was no scientific consensus in favor of global cooling.
Quoting https://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-g...
> A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling?
They cite a paper which looked at the publications during that era, and describe the conclusion as:
>The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.
Hardly a consensus.
And ... Leonard Nimoy, in 1978? What documentary was this, "In Search of..."?
FWIW, Nimoy was never a scientist, so how is that at all relevant?
Define "scientific consensus", and then step back and ask yourself why anyone would elect to corrupt the scientific process with something so easily gamed. I already hear the cries of "bbbut meta analysis, science is hard!" It has nothing to do with science, it is a political phrase.
> Hardly a consensus.
Oddly missing from that are all the scientists calling both parties out for being unable to accurately predict anything, which is a pretty good sign of inaccurate attribution within the models.
> What documentary was this, "In Search of..."?
Unless he did more than one, yes. Also, enjoy the Youtube editorial flag assuring you of the opposite - because this is about science.
> FWIW, Nimoy was never a scientist, so how is that at all relevant?
Because scientists aren't playing much of a role in the messaging campaign calling for extra-national economic management.
If you don't like the term, why did you use it in the first place?
> Oddly missing from that
What does the "that" refer to?
I refer to all papers published in what is generally described as scientific journals during the late 1960s and the 1970s. Since that appeared to be what you were talking about.
> Unless he did more than one, yes
"In Search of..." started with "This series presents information based in part on theory and conjecture. The producer's purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones, to the mysteries we will examine."
This is the same series that asked if plants respond to people's thoughts, explored the idea that the Nazca Lines landing instructions for UFOs, and searched for several forms of cryptozoology.
That's a show you want as the foundations for your beliefs?
You were gamed by a TV show designed to get viewers by pushing some wacky ideas.
I do like it, I like it a lot - it perfectly represents the manipulative nature of the situation.
"...both scientific consensus and political will have come a long way." -- VP Al Gore, Kyoto Climate Change Conference 1997
> What does the "that" refer to?
The false dichotomy you seem so interested in pursuing. The ratio of cooling to warming papers doesn't mean anything when neither deliver accurate models.
> You were gamed by a TV show designed to get viewers by pushing some wacky ideas.
I wonder if you are so obtuse that you believe that to be an accurate estimate of my position, or even a clever dig. It just makes you look desperate to avoid the fact that science plays little role in what has become an ad-campaign/power-grab.
> Ah, global cooling - the conveniently forgotten scientific consensus
you said it thinking it is essentially meaningless.
Obviously everything that you and I have written can be viewed through the same lens of manipulation.
There is therefore no point in continuing. I'll leave with a pointer to Asimov, who was writing about global warming since at least the early 1970 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tSYRY90PA&feature=youtu.be .