The NYT’s Coverage Of Climate In The 1970s Was A Megaphone For Science, Not ‘Global Cooling’ Alarmism
The NYT’s Coverage Of Climate In The 1970s Was A Megaphone For Science, Not ‘Global Cooling’ Alarmism
Our guest blogger is Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University.
The New York Times’ climate science coverage in the 1970s reflected the lack of consensus among scientists.
In “Climate Science in a Tornado,” George F. Will has completely misrepresented the historical New York Times coverage of the “global cooling” issue. Despite Will’s claim that the New York Times was a “megaphone for the alarmed” during “1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling,” its coverage was actually nuanced and prescient.
On December 21, 1969, the New York Times ran a UPI wire story, “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution,” which reported that scientists discussed the possible threat of manmade global warming at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, with calls for greater monitoring of the climate:
J.O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that “man had only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.” Global warming could cause further melting of the polar ice caps and affect the earth’s climate.
On December 29, 1974, the New York Times ran the story, “Forecast for Forecasting: Cloudy.” This article is a long discussion of the state of climate forecasting, and has an extensive discussion of the process of global cooling due to aerosols, and the contrary impact of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the great difficulty in developing valid and reliable climate forecasting models. The lead paragraph:
In the long term, climate is cooling off — or is it warming up? As for tomorrow’s weather, even the world’s biggest computer can’t say for sure what it will be.
On May 21, 1975, the New York Times ran the story, “Scientists Ask Why the Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead.” This article begins with a clear statement of uncertainty:
The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.
On August 14, 1975, the New York Times ran, “Warming Trend Seen in Climate.” In this article, the New York Times discusses two scientific articles that focus on the overall climate patterns. It covers the debate over global cooling due to aerosols and global warming due to CO2 increases:
Dr. [Wally] Broecker’s argument is that the present cooling trend in the north will be reversed as more and more carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels.
In the decades since, of course, scientists have come to the consensus that our continued burning of fossil fuels are tied to the warming of the planet. It is not the New York Times that is dishonest in its coverage, it is George F. Will.
The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion.Alexander did not address any of the other lies.
7 Responses to “The NYT’s Coverage Of Climate In The 1970s Was A Megaphone For Science, Not ‘Global Cooling’ Alarmism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
We don’t talk much about medicine in pre-antibiotic days. The world has 30 years of data since the mid 70’s. That should have informed us somewhat.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pmDon’t get me wrong, I’m no George Will fan, but I expected the “climate” section of the wonkroom to be about climate, not George Will. And now for guest bloggers to follow Brad’s obsession? Is there nothing else about climate worth writing about?
March 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pmAnders:
How’s this?
Also, though this post was certainly spurred by Will, I hope the history of the media’s coverage of global warming is of general interest. We also hit on other climate news in the WonkLine, and have written about President Obama’s budget, the Capitol Climate Action, the surge in climate change lobbying, the loss of the OCO satellite, and other topics in just the past week.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:36 pmBecause George Will can get away with using “Internet links” as sources, is a key reason why fudge-y “interpretations” of actual science by global warming deniers needs to be taken seriously and taken out 1×1.
In this case, Will leans on Mike Asher, global warming denier @ Daily Tech.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:38 pmIf George Will is right we still end up with much greater fuel efficiency and lotsa jobs, a saner lifestyle and other benefits as obscure as his reasoning. If he is wrong we’re all dead.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:28 pmPlease don’t start confusing the issue with facts. It’s not as if George Will has ever been right… on anything! And that goes back to the 1980s. Why get upset when the ventriloquist’s dummy gets it wrong?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 pmA thought on the observation that this column should be about climate and not George Will: The philosophy behind that observation has been shown to be fallacious in other areas of science because if scientists just stick to their benches, so to speak, the general public gets informed by the know nothings with a political ax to grind. Years ago evolutionists thought that creationism was so off the wall that they didn’t have to spend time educating the public. Besides, it wasn’t “real” science. You see what that has brought us.
The take home message from that fiasco is that it is just as important, if not more important, for scientists to be in constant contact with the public presenting reality to counter the fairy tales of the other side.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm