George Will is a conservative pundit. In the past, he said that during the 1970s, the scientific community was predicting an imminent ice. Of course, Will was wrong on this, as discussed here and here (especially in the latter video from 00:59 to 01:05 and from 04:30 to 05:30). Even in the 1970s, scientists were predicting was that global warming was imminent, as opposed to global cooling, let alone an imminent ice age. For instance:
So can people please stop parroting Will's mistaken claims and stop thinking Will is some sort of reliable source? Thanks.
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus"
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
"MEDIA COVERAGE
When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage. That is where U.S. Senator James Inhofe turned for much of the evidence to support his argument in a U.S. Senate floor speech in 2003 (Inhofe 2003). Chief among his evidence was a frequently cited Newsweek story: “The cooling world” (Gwynne 1975). The story drew from the latest global temperature records, and suggested that cooling “may portend a drastic decline for food production.” Citing the Kuklas’ work on increasing Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and Reid Bryson’s concerns about a long-term cooling trend, the Newsweek story juxtaposes the possibility of cooling temperatures and decreasing food production with rising global populations. Other articles of the time featured similar themes (see “Popular literature of the era” sidebar).
Even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists. For example, these are titles from two New York Times articles: “Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead” (Sullivan 1975a) and “Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due” (Sullivan 1975b). Equally juxtaposed were The Cooling (Ponte 1976), which was published the year after Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975).
However, the news coverage of the time does reflect what New York Times science writer Andrew Revkin calls “the tyranny of the news peg,” based on the idea that reporters need a “peg” on which to hang a story. Developments that are dramatic or new tend to draw the news media’s attention, Revkin argues, rather than the complexity of a nuanced discussion within the scientific community (Revkin 2005). A handy peg for climate stories during the 1970s was the cold weather (1329).
[...]
SURVEY OF THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE
[...]
The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations (1331)."
When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage. That is where U.S. Senator James Inhofe turned for much of the evidence to support his argument in a U.S. Senate floor speech in 2003 (Inhofe 2003). Chief among his evidence was a frequently cited Newsweek story: “The cooling world” (Gwynne 1975). The story drew from the latest global temperature records, and suggested that cooling “may portend a drastic decline for food production.” Citing the Kuklas’ work on increasing Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and Reid Bryson’s concerns about a long-term cooling trend, the Newsweek story juxtaposes the possibility of cooling temperatures and decreasing food production with rising global populations. Other articles of the time featured similar themes (see “Popular literature of the era” sidebar).
Even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists. For example, these are titles from two New York Times articles: “Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead” (Sullivan 1975a) and “Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due” (Sullivan 1975b). Equally juxtaposed were The Cooling (Ponte 1976), which was published the year after Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975).
However, the news coverage of the time does reflect what New York Times science writer Andrew Revkin calls “the tyranny of the news peg,” based on the idea that reporters need a “peg” on which to hang a story. Developments that are dramatic or new tend to draw the news media’s attention, Revkin argues, rather than the complexity of a nuanced discussion within the scientific community (Revkin 2005). A handy peg for climate stories during the 1970s was the cold weather (1329).
[...]
SURVEY OF THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE
[...]
The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations (1331)."
So can people please stop parroting Will's mistaken claims and stop thinking Will is some sort of reliable source? Thanks.
Originally posted by John Reece
View Post
Comment