Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate Science Skepticism

Global Cooling Consensus in the Past: the Evidence

Much has been written both in favor and against the notion that in the 1970’s, the consensus among climatologists was that “global cooling” was on its way (strangely, foretelling similar disasters as with “global warming” nowadays, including refugees in the millions, crop failures, droughts and extreme weather throughout).

So far the evidence is inconclusive, so perhaps there was not really a consensus, in the 1970’s, as much as a willingness for news media to latch on anything mentioning refugees in the millions, crop failures, etc etc (thereby explaining why global warming has vastly beaten Pamela Anderson in popularity).

Here’s a little new contribution then: global cooling consensus from 1961.

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change – By WALTER SULLIVAN
January 30, 1961, Monday – Section: BUSINESS FINANCIAL, Page 46, 1326 words
The New York Times
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder

For those with no access to Times Select: Sullivan was reporting about a weeklong meeting of “specialists from several continents” reaching “unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder“. Techniques at the time included “observation with earth satellites“, “palinology” (pollen studies), “dendrochronology” (tree rings’) and “the deciphering of ancient oriental scripts“.

So it appears the one thing we have lost, 47 years later, is those “oriental scripts”…

Theories presented were about “celestial mechanics“, “changes in the transparency of the atmosphere“, “changes in the sun” and a cycle of ice/no-ice conditions in the Arctic. Note how nobody tried to blame humans: this was before 1968, the year leftist thought lost its hope on humanity along with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy.

Sullivan does mention greenhouse gases, but also studies from Sweden, the USA and the USSR that “would seem to weaken the contention that industrial smoke can alter the climate“.


One wonders now if there’s ever been a climatology conference where the participants reached the one missing consensus: that about a “global thermostat keeping the climate as it’s ever been”.

0 replies on “Global Cooling Consensus in the Past: the Evidence”

This is really cool stuff.

‘Techniques at the time included “observation with earth satellites”‘

In 1961. Would that be Echo 1 or something similar I assume. Launch an inflated aluminium sphere into orbit and you have a full fledged atmospheric research satellite. Bounce a laser (not yet in common use then) of an aluminium balloon, and hey-presto, a reasonable spectroscopic analysis of multiple levels of the atmosphere.

And people think we never went to the Moon. Damn It, Neil Armstrong really went to Alpha Centauri. Complete with loads of satellite data.

Why stop at 1961 articles? Why not go back further to Bell Labs 1958 video:

Also, if you’re only concerned with scientific papers, and some of them are from the 1800s, in what sense is showing papers from 1965 onward conveniently restricting their search just enough to miss a 1961 *article*?? I guess there was nothing from 1961 to 1965 that would make your absurd case, is that it?

This little trope has been dying the death of a thousand paper cuts for a while now. If you’re masochistic enough to enjoy it, fine, but climate denialists aren’t getting any traction with it anymore.

[…] Now some enterprising Denier found this gem “SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change” in the New York Times archive. Needless to say this is rocketing around the Denialopshere as “Proof of Scientific Consensus on Global Cooling: 1961” and “Global Cooling Consensus in the Past: the Evidence.” […]


The title of the blog clearly says it is about globat cooling consensus IN THE PAST.

That’s why I am quoting an article (not a paper) from 1961.

The year 1961 is in the past of today, the year 2008.

Hopefully that clarifies things with you.

Really? You are quoting a paper from 1961? Data and speculation that old is pretty ridiculous amidst a sea of newer reports with better modeling, more accurate methods etc. As time goes on for any field of science, methods always improve especially when you are looking at slower changes.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.