[flagged]
"The story made headlines in The New York Times [note: this is your NYT article]. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974."
Consider the Wikipedia quote you just provided. You say it provides the full story. Please, think about the things you are reading.
It starts by admitting that in 1971 Schneider published a paper arguing for global cooling, but then claims he realized he made a maths error and by 1974 had published a retraction and accepted global warming. The NY Times article where he promotes his book on global cooling, and where the public is being told that he's representing The Scientific Consensus, was published in 1976. Two whole years after supposedly converting to global warming, there he is, asserting with complete confidence the reality of global cooling!
This claim about Schneider is a lie, like almost everything else about the history of climatology. Wikipedia even provides a citation for their claim of a retraction, but it isn't actually pointing to any retraction, it's to a book published by The Guardian in 2010.
Remember also that in the NY Times article it's stated as 100% fact that temperatures peaked in the 1940s and were falling ever since. That's not a mistake or distortion by the journalist. That's exactly what temperature graphs of the USA showed right up until around the start of the millennium. At that point the historical record was altered to remove this long period of cooling. If you look at modern temperature graphs that period of history shows a flat trend.
Nice try on defining proof as "the people accused of lying have to admit it or else it's not proven". That's not how it works. The NY Times story is high quality proof that Yale's claim about the past isn't true. People were told by the most trusted authorities that not only was the world getting colder but that this was well understood and the trend would continue. If you don't like that article you have to provide equally compelling counter-evidence, not insist on some stupid definition of proof selected only to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But hey, seeing as you want more proof, here's NOAA - the US government agency - stating in 1974, two years before the NY times story that "Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently":
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NO...
Global cooling wasn't in doubt, only its effects. Here's a meeting of the National Science Foundation in 1972:
"The present cooling trend, which reversed the warm trend of the 1940s, is still underway"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.178.4057.190
It goes on to list some pieces of easily understood evidence, like "pack ice around Iceland is once again becoming a serious hindrance to navigation" and "warmth loving animals like Armadillos are retreating southward".
Today we're told the NY Times, NOAA and the NSF were all reporting on a made up "fad" no scientists believed, and there never was any cooling trend.
In this article, Yale is lying to us about the past. Why is that?
Re: droughts and floods. Good example. These aren't getting worse. The media and academics like to claim they are, but they are wrong. Select the "Palmer Drought Severity Index" here from official US data and plot "All months" from 1895 to 2023 i.e. all data. Observe that there's no trend:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-gla...
Then select "Precipitation". Observe that there's only a very slight trend of 0.18 inches/decade. That's tiny and not enough of different in average rain to change the incidence of flooding.
Remember that the actual climate claim is only about 0.1 degree of change per decade since ~1980, i.e. only about half a degree of warming since the end of the period of global cooling. Half a degree isn't enough to have any visible impact on weather patterns. The climate just isn't that sensitive.
The near past was the one of the coldest points in history in the last 500 million years.
The idea that the Earth is going to explode if temperatures increase by 1.5C is amusing.
Yes, it's definitely not going to be fun, and yes it looks like it's definitely going to happen.
But the world has been that hot plenty of times before (100s of millions of years), and we haven't turned into Venus yet.
I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions - definitely think they're causing a problem - but it's not going to be annihilation / world ending.
I say this because I had existential dread for literally a decade until I looked into it more.