http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/22/I-recant-says-author-of-infamous-Seventies-Newsweek-global-cooling-article

Only about a third of the 97% claimed in the consensus actually endorse AGW while the rest have no opinion. The remaining 2/3rds only say that humans have an effect on the climate which is pretty much where the consensus really stands. That's probably the reason why a carbon tax is an illusive outcome for these environmental zealots. The great predictions of the past and present only show how far "out-of-touch" alarmist climate scientists and media outlets are with reality.

We have an effect IMO, but the ramifications of the psycho-babble of alarmists/environmentalists/ELITISTS will be felt in psycho wards across the planet for a long time. Catastrophic happenings are in the minds of people like Hey Dook who have nothing better to do than to proclaim "THE SKY IS FALLING!" because he thinks there is an actual consensus for catastrophic warming.

It's the same crowd from the 70s that is doing it today.

You need to look at the history of science to understand why. In the 1950s and 60s there was a lot of interest in a new branch of physics/mathematics that later became what we now call chaos theory. When the new maths was applied to models of the planet, they discovered something rather disturbing. There seemed to be two natural states the planet could be in (the strange attractors in their chaotic models) - one nice habitable planet like the one we see around us, or 'snowball earth' in which the planet's climate settles into a permanent freeze.

The scientists struggled at the time to understand why there is no evidence of the 'snowball earth' scenario in the fossil or geological record. But the idea became the basis for all kinds of climate-related scenarios since the idea now was that relatively small changes could perturb the climate system and shove it one way or the other due to forcings and feedbacks.

It was the 'snowball earth' scenario in those days that was an interesting theoretical aspect of climate science and people were wondering if this sort of chaotic system helped to explain mini ice ages. Obviously then, at the time, there was a lot of interest in whether the planet showed signs of cooling.

So no, there's no doubt a theory was proposed that the planet was cooling. It was a theory that didn't measure up, and fell by the wayside like millions of other theories we've had over the years. This is how science progresses. People propose a theory. It's tested. If it fails, it dies.

Thanks S'bush, for demonstrating there are no honest deniers. What you said in your update to Michael is a barefaced lie, and completely obvious to anyone who looks at the actual evidence. C, for example, presents 2 *excellent* films that totally rebut your absurd contention that top scientists in the 70's were hawking an ice age.

So to answer your question:

No. There is no question about top scientists of the 70's "hawking an Ice Age". They did not. The evidence has been put before you. Will you be honest enough to admit that? I don't think so. What you've got is lies and name-calling against all the evidence in the world. Smooth, real smooth, S'bush. What do you do for entertainment, run a Ponzi scheme on the side?

Yes, some scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s. Now the important question is, out of the people that were studying the situation, how many published papers to that affect.

From 1965 to 1979 there were 71 peer reviewed papers on the subject. Seven of them predicted global cooling of some sort. That's less than ten percent. Twenty were neutral, and forty-four said there was some form of global warming going on.

So yeah, if you want to go with the majority of the people back in the 1970s, go ahead, and you will still end up on the side of global warming.

Or are you going to change your mind about that argument.

Seeing the news a scientist wanted to put ash on ice up north to warm things up .

It is kind of funny when alarmists call things that we remember, myths. Am I so old that all my memories are now myths? but I digress.

The top scientist part makes me think of Indiana Jones

Major Eaton: We have top men working on it.

Indiana Jones: Who

Major Eaton: Top men.

The only thing which can be established is that in the 70s climate science reporting wasn't much better than it is today.

When a reporter gets the science fundamentally wrong (see 'interpreter of interpretations Delingpole for multiple examples), then he or she might just give a totally wrong impression of what is actually going on.

Your 'question' is a good example: a 1975 Newsweek article buried on page 64 speaking of some scientists is single-handedly changed by you to 'top scientists of the 70s'.

At the time, the sci-fi was all doom and gloom like Blade Runner and Soylent Green. Ice age fit in with that. Paul Ehrlich and Obama's science adviser were saying an ice age is coming, and that the solution is to melt the arctic with black carbon. Mission Accomplished!

Your 'question' is a good example: a 1975 Newsweek article buried on page 64 speaking of some scientists is single-handedly changed by you to 'top scientists of the 70s'.

"Top scientists" were not hawking it--but I can tell you who was: Nigel Calder, start of "The Great Global Warming Swindle". He was pushing it to sell his magazine and his books. I have one of his books from that era, I remember.

Even then, more scientists were worried about global warming than about cooling--I wonder why people keep lying about that?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/22/I-recant-says-author-of-infamous-Seventies-Newsweek-global-cooling-article

A media beat up of a single paper, only idiots (denialists) trust media interpretations of science

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/gl...

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/...

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02...

Apart from that it was hardly mentioned.

Wrong. Not really That was a minor scientific view but the media always goes for sensationalism and a pending ice age sold more papers. This has been a denier myth for decades and they still deny the real science of the time