The Copenhagen Climate Summit

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

Interesting that economics would be the analogy here. While I don't seek to impune science, it isn't any more or less filled with human beings than any other profession is it? I realize that many here are holding scientists to a very high moral standard and have absolute faith that the only people with a financial motive to research with an agenda are those with buisness motives, but hasn't MMGW become a cash cow for sciences and oportunists?

Cash cow for science? Really? It's a cash cow for those scientists that are willing to say exactly what corporations want. Corporations that really don't want to change, since such change means a weaker bottomline.

That's one end where the money is. The other end is government.
Why would a government want to spend money for science, for scientists to say "spend money for these fixes or else?" There is no logic there. We know why Australia and New Zealand wants everyone to pony up the dough. Their cards are already on the table. But on the international front, they can get whizzed on by the US and China who can deliberately refuse the courtesy of calling it rain. (to paraphrase the quote)

Many who hold careers in science rarely do so for money.

But hey, maybe I'm making an assumption here. Maybe you don't know why Australia and New Zealand wants some agreement.
Do you (or any other naysayer) know why they want an agreement? And if so, please elucidate.
?

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Chris

Trillians with a "T"? Try at most a couple of billion on the science funding, excluding perhaps NASA satellites, which would add a couple billion more. And, please raise your hand if you'd heard of Michael Mann or Phil Jones prior to the stolen emails . They're not in it for the glory, believe it or not. I think you mix up them with people like Al Gore, who's hardly a climate scientist. Al Gore's prone to exaggeration and he's invested in green companies, etc. To my knowledge, the scientists generating the data have much less of a financial stake in the outcome. And, want to know something strange? Climate scientists complain at length that skeptics are given disproportionate coverage. Check out 20-40 randomly selected articles written by US news sources sometime, and count the amount of space given to skeptics. I'd be willing to bet that it's 20-40% or more of the space in the articles. This leaves the impression that 20-40% of scientists are skeptics. That conclusion is demonstrably false, in that the skeptics make up less than 5% of climate scientists for sure, and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money it's less than 2% of climate scientists. So, the false balance in reporting in the United States is absolutely skewed in favor of skeptics.

You are neglecting the other related money that is flowing and the fact that the "man-made" assertion has much more dissention than the overall global warming assertion. There is significant deviation in interpretation and hypothetical outcomes as well as dissention on the root causes. I am unaware of the primarily based on human impact being such a monolythic idea or so universally supported as a (the) primary cause.

It would be completely out of the realm of posibility to say that there is no monetary insentive, let alone no pressure from government considering the vast sums of money involved. As for the scientists generating the data, they are better funded since the "crisis" and despite some being camera shy, there are plenty who have been outspoken and there are a lot of reputations on the line now that a global focus is involved.

Again, I am not as convinced that there is no agenda and no pressure to persue the man-made aspect and to cappitulate to courses of action that serve political agendas. Kyoto is a great example. It wasn't a climate accord, but a sociopolitical economic accord. It wasn't designed to do much beneficial to the environment, but would have seriously enhanced industrial growth in some countries while contracting it in others.

Originally Posted by Chris

I used economics as an analogy. No analogy's perfect, Lupe. Econ, by its nature, is less predictable than science, due to the human element. The good climate science, which drove the nations to even have Copenhagen in the first place, is on firmer ground than that due to years of hypotheses being refined and reworked as more data has come in. However, I'll freely acknowledge that it's a political decision on how to respond, since scientists can say what they think will happen given certain variables (and, in the last 10 years, they've been right far more often than they've been wrong with the predictions), but to balance the economic costs is a political choice.

Right more often than not? That is a pretty subjective assessment, I suppose. The point is, if the man-made aspect is as critical or prominant as is implied by some, that would make your analogy that much more appropriate, wouldn't it? The overall point is, all science is sponsored and climate science currently is sponsored by entities that have a clear agenda and advantage in this theory maintaining credibility. That is why there is more incentive to "refine" as oposed to redifine when contrary data is discovered.

I would trust it more if there weren't fortunes changing hands and a clear attempt to create panic to facilitate that financial outcome. Carbon credits, exemptions and pay-offs as a "response to Global Warming" is hard to ignore. The sciences in the employ of the state have long been directed and managed. I find it incredibly ironic that anyone, especially given the history of this type of "discovery" would just trust that it isn't being manipulated or directed at a point when billions/trillions of dollars are involved.

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Cash cow for science? Really? It's a cash cow for those scientists that are willing to say exactly what corporations want. Corporations that really don't want to change, since such change means a weaker bottomline.

That's one end where the money is. The other end is government.
Why would a government want to spend money for science, for scientists to say "spend money for these fixes or else?" There is no logic there. We know why Australia and New Zealand wants everyone to pony up the dough. Their cards are already on the table. But on the international front, they can get whizzed on by the US and China who can deliberately refuse the courtesy of calling it rain. (to paraphrase the quote)

Many who hold careers in science rarely do so for money.

But hey, maybe I'm making an assumption here. Maybe you don't know why Australia and New Zealand wants some agreement.
Do you (or any other naysayer) know why they want an agreement? And if so, please elucidate.
?

As I understand the economics of the global warming industry, governments get money coming and going from industry and the citizens in the efforts to "curb global warming". It is a fear-driven campaign that has already encompassed fines, penalties, controls, economic diversion and redistribution and is only gaining momentum. Is there some assumption that more funding of sciences studying global warming hasn't occured? Is there anyassertion that there has been massive amounts of money diverted and redistributed in the name of "global warming"? Is there anyone who doesn't see the incredibly lucative advantages already being enjoyed and expanded by both government and new industries?

The trillions of dollars have moved and not into existing industry, so where is it that anyone persumes they have gone? Thin air? Towards actual environmental improvement? I am curious where the proponents contend that money went. Or are they claiming that trillions haven't changed hands in this "global crisis"? What government doesn't benefit from claiming to protect the people from a catostrophic event, like the end of the world?

In short, name a government that is truly altruistic. I am completely unaware of one, not just now, but ever.

[Klio]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I also find it rather concerning that the people pushing one world government are the same ones backing global climate change. It seems rather concerning, to me, that the people advocating an end to freedom and individual liberty are pushing global warming fears as the stick by which to end freedom and personal liberty.

This, to me, sounds like one of the more irrational conspiracy theories that I have seen in quite some time.

A big conspiracy theory to deprive people worldwide of freedom and liberty? Really? Sounds pretty wild to me.

I'd like to see something from a good source to back this up.

[Chris]

Mom - your Cato link was busted, so I don't know how to refute that when there's no info there. But, remember, individual weather events =/= climate change. Very common misconception. So if your link was complaining that snow forecasting sucks, it has nothing to do with climate change. If it selectively parsed examples of "missed" predictions, then it's just selectively taking data and ignoring the data contrary to their predetermined conclusions, since the IPCC reports have shown in 2007 and 2009 that the ways in which they were wrong were they underestimated the change, not overestimated. In the unlikely event that it was completely honest and treated all of the accumulated data fairly, then I'll be happy to stand corrected. But considering the source and the reams of literature I've read regarding the state of the models, I'm more likely to be right than wrong.

Lupe - I misread your post slightly. The scientists getting funded are on shockingly thin budgets, considering the implications. There's a political decision to be made between where to allocate money dealing with climate change, which is a much larger sum than the money flowing into studying the change. There's the "we do nothing" approach, which is warm and fuzzy but when there starts to be wars / flooded islands / etc, we still end up paying. There's the "pay for the impact" approach, which is similar to the first but people are a bit more proactive about moving people out of harm's way. This way ends up being rather expensive. And then there's the "pay for not making the impact" approach, which is favored by most scientists, but is also expensive. I think it's an open question which way ends up being cheapest and which way helps the most people / keeps the most people out of harm.

Like I noted in a previous post, Al Gore is a serial exaggerator. I'd advise not listening to him and his overblown claims (like Katrina was directly caused by global warming, that the ice caps will be gone in 5-7 years, etc) and listening to those who have a degree in science. Having him as the chief "spokesman" for the "climate change is real" movement is as counterproductive as it is helpful, since his predictions tend to fall a few standard deviations outside of the "mainstream" predictions. Incidentally, the ice caps have recovered a bit in the last couple years up north - that's good. But, the ice, when examined, is not "high quality" ice, so it's more prone to melting in 2010 and 2011 than the multi-year sea ice. I hope that the recovering ice survives the next couple summers and thickens up a bit, and that the Northwest Passage, which was open in 2009, isn't open again for a long time.

I'm not rooting for climate change - I just think it's happening, and the politicians need to decide what to do, which was what Copenhagen was supposed to be about. I take news like the partial recovery of the Arctic ice as being good news, but I don't hold out much hope of it lasting, in particular when it takes only one extra-warm summer to destroy a few year's worth of winter work.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Klio

A big world conspiracy to end personal freedom and liberty?

Honestly. I'd like to see proof of *that*.

What? Who said that? I see this leap all the time from the "true believers" and it is somewhat tiring. Anything that deviates from the sky is falling and it is all our fault rhetoric gets treated dismissively this way. I have not asserted any such thing.

Originally Posted by Klio

I am amazed, really - climate change sceptics seek ever more complex details of proof in the face of a pretty solid scientific consensus, and then they believe this sort of unfounded conspiracy theory?

The concenus claimed isn't as air tight as represented though is it? There is indeed a great deal of deviation on outcome and causes of global warming, is there not? There is also ongoing research that changes conclusions pretty often as well as expectations and influences. That again isn't a conspiracy theory. I am actually at a loss to see the "conspiracy theory" in anything I've said. All I have said is that there is a lot of money to be made on this, which is undeniably true, and that it makes me skeptical about an agenda for those in a position to gain from it.

That isn't a "conspiracy theory", it is human nature and there is plenty to prove it. Corporate oportunists are currently making fortunes, governments are currently redistributing wealth and fortunes are changing hands. Why wouldn't that raise red flags for anyone? Pointing out that those motives exist isn't accusing a conspiracy, it is questioning motives and that is completely logical in any circumstance, isn't it? Isn't that why corporately sponsored science is disputed and dismissed?

Originally Posted by Klio

I'd like to see proof of a large conspiracy to found world government with the aim to take away people's freedom and liberty.

Honestly - that, to me, comes across as one of the most irrational assertions I have heard in a long time.

O.K., who made those assertions? I must have missed those posts. I can only assume there is someone else out there posting this type of stuff.

It isn't a matter of taking freedom and liberty, I can't remember those things being mentioned until now. Maybe a quote would help clarify this. I have consistently said that the money clouds the issue and is a primary motivation for some of the major players. That includes governments that can fine, fee and tax based on this "crisis" as well as private enterprises that are raking in big money in the persuit of existing industry to avoid these payouts.

I am not sure how basicly saying "follow the money" ends up as a global conspiracy theory, but the only conspiracy I spoke of is one of people conspiring to do what best serves their own interests and that conspiracy is older than time.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

What? Who said that? I see this leap all the time from the "true believers" and it is somewhat tiring. Anything that deviates from the sky is falling and it is all our fault rhetoric gets treated dismissively this way. I have not asserted any such thing.

And this is not a leap? If each side only sees and argues with the most extreme end of the other side that they can imagine, there's no actual debate at all.

[Chris]

Lupe, what we've been trying to say, is that the efforts of those who aim to stir up doubt and skepticism have succeeded in giving the appearance that there are far more open questions than there really are. The "consensus scientists", for lack of a better term, have addressed the questions raised by the skeptics at length, but their rebuttals get less air time and less press than the claims of the skeptics. The impression that's being left in the US press is far from the reality in the scientific press, especially in that the skeptics have been treated seriously by the larger scientific community and their claims have been repeatedly addressed and debunked, to no avail. The impression that the US press and skeptical congressmen give is hardly representative of the reality "on the ground", and the general treatment of scientists by non-scientists is unfortunate at best and downright insulting and disrespectful at worst, and it's frustrating as a scientist - arguing the best data, the best hypotheses, and the best available information - to have to deal with a smoke screen that is obscuring the real issues from being addressed by political bodies.

[Klio]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

What? Who said that? I see this leap all the time from the "true believers" and it is somewhat tiring. Anything that deviates from the sky is falling and it is all our fault rhetoric gets treated dismissively this way. I have not asserted any such thing..

Lupin - you are quoting from a post I deleted, so I won't respond to some of the things you are saying in reply to something I didn't actually intend to say in the end.


Anyway - I have quoted Mom's assertion above, and if what she is saying doesn't amount to a kind of conspiracy of certain (unnamed) people trying to deprive people of freedom and liberty I am not sure whether Mom, you and I are using the same form of English.

EDIT: here is the quote again.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I also find it rather concerning that the people pushing one world government are the same ones backing global climate change. It seems rather concerning, to me, that the people advocating an end to freedom and individual liberty are pushing global warming fears as the stick by which to end freedom and personal liberty.

If she isn't saying what I think she is saying I'd like a translation of what you think she *is* saying.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Chris

Lupe - I misread your post slightly. The scientists getting funded are on shockingly thin budgets, considering the implications. There's a political decision to be made between where to allocate money dealing with climate change, which is a much larger sum than the money flowing into studying the change. There's the "we do nothing" approach, which is warm and fuzzy but when there starts to be wars / flooded islands / etc, we still end up paying. There's the "pay for the impact" approach, which is similar to the first but people are a bit more proactive about moving people out of harm's way. This way ends up being rather expensive. And then there's the "pay for not making the impact" approach, which is favored by most scientists, but is also expensive. I think it's an open question which way ends up being cheapest and which way helps the most people / keeps the most people out of harm.

I have more faith if the funding is actually lower and not results related. That is reassuring, to be honest, although somewhat ironic given the massive financial impact that the research is leading toward. As I understand it though isn't there serious devision on how much preventative impact we are even capable of? I suppose I am cynical any time there is exemption and purchasable credits as oposed to absolute restrictions. That always leads me to the conclusion that environmental protection isn't the real motive in play and that the hardest pressure isn't being applied for a legitimate reason.

Originally Posted by Chris

Like I noted in a previous post, Al Gore is a serial exaggerator. I'd advise not listening to him and his overblown claims (like Katrina was directly caused by global warming, that the ice caps will be gone in 5-7 years, etc) and listening to those who have a degree in science. Having him as the chief "spokesman" for the "climate change is real" movement is as counterproductive as it is helpful, since his predictions tend to fall a few standard deviations outside of the "mainstream" predictions. Incidentally, the ice caps have recovered a bit in the last couple years up north - that's good. But, the ice, when examined, is not "high quality" ice, so it's more prone to melting in 2010 and 2011 than the multi-year sea ice. I hope that the recovering ice survives the next couple summers and thickens up a bit, and that the Northwest Passage, which was open in 2009, isn't open again for a long time.

I am inclined to admit the primary skepticism I feel toward the issue is based around the profiteering and "the sky is falling" crowds. The unavoidable problem is that there is just so much fear generation and what I see as extorsion centered on the whole movement. I have to believe that those pushing hardest don't actually believe what they are saying or they wouldn't have "buy-outs", carbon credits, exemptions and other financial means to avoid compliance or responsibility. I mean if they really believed the dire scenarios they espouse, wouldn't they have to be unyielding in persuit of a solution?

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not rooting for climate change - I just think it's happening, and the politicians need to decide what to do, which was what Copenhagen was supposed to be about. I take news like the partial recovery of the Arctic ice as being good news, but I don't hold out much hope of it lasting, in particular when it takes only one extra-warm summer to destroy a few year's worth of winter work.

Hey, I don't either doubt your sincerity, nor do I believe you want global warming to either be happening or continue. I do truly believe you are concerned and that you are convinced and that is compelling for me. I am obviously not all that smart, but even though I am cynical, your belief sways me. I just have serious concerns that there are 2 scenarios in play that scare me as much as global warming.

The first is that the most dire assertions are correct and the general reaction is still financially motivated and directed and it ends up being left to do its worst. The second is that we are over inflating the human impact and all this reaction is futal. In any event, the direction we are currently persuing doesn't seem to have the appropriate focus and is too money focused. By that being the current direction, I am simply at a loss to buy in. I suppose I am equally discouraged that those who are most convinced seem to have no outrage that the issue is being hijacked.

Originally Posted by Klio

Lupin - you are quoting from a post I deleted, so I won't respond to some of the things you are saying in reply to something I didn't actually intend to say in the end.


Anyway - I have quoted Mom's assertion above, and if what she is saying doesn't amount to a kind of conspiracy of certain (unnamed) people trying to deprive people of freedom and liberty I am not sure whether Mom, you and I are using the same form of English.

EDIT: here is the quote again.


If she isn't saying what I think she is saying I'd like a translation of what you think she *is* saying.

My appologies, I didn't see Mom's post before I responded to yours. I humbly appologize for my rash assumptions. I am somewhat defensive as that type of assertion has been applied to me before and I cringe every time I see it.

[Chris]

I haven't investigated the business ventures of the prominent climate scientists, so I can't comment on whether they have more than their University salaries and speaking fees (these are usually modest) tied up in the climate debate. I can tell you it's likely that they are low six-figure university salaries if they have tenure, and if they're non-tenured it's likely mid to high five-figure salaries (in US Dollars). Gore has a lot of money invested, but he's not a scientist, as I noted above, and he's prone to exaggeration. I'd pay more attention to the ventures of the actual scientists involved, who to my knowledge don't have much extra financial stake in it but I'm open to being proven wrong.

I think that the proposed "Cap and trade" approach is the favored approach for two primary reasons. First, it's already worked with acid rain (Clean Air Act and similar legislation, one of the single best pieces of legislation in a long time) and if I recall correctly it's been used another time. Second, in contrast to a carbon tax, it gives opportunities for entrepreneurship, which could lead to enterprising companies making a profit. It's a bit more in keeping with free market principles than a straight-up tax, and it's worked before (at far lower cost than predicted), though I'll freely admit that carbon dioxide and methane are entirely different and more complex beasts to control than sulfates were.

[Den_muggle]

One thing that makes me more than a little skeptical is that I'm old enough to remember when scientists were warning about the coming ice age and banning CFCs and aerosol hair spray and worrying about the hole in the ozone layer letting heat escape and freeze the planet and wanting to spread soot over the polar ice caps to melt them and warm the earth. That was 30-40 years ago as I was growing up. Now they're worrying about the ice caps melting and flooding the earth and CO2 heating the atmosphere (when water vapor is a much stronger GHG) and worldwide flooding and deserts. Obviously, they were wrong then. How can I believe they are right now? Especially when they are being proven wrong over and over and over? (I know some people are saying that scientific journals back then predicted the opposite, but I remember all the news stories and how CFCs were banned in most things and Freon was banned, etc. to prevent cooling. Was that because congress and MSM didn't understand the facts and reported/reacted the opposite way they should have? How shocking would that be? And how is that different from today? And how could they have gotten it so totally backwards without scientists being complicit int he deception?)

The 2nd big thing is this report on where the raw data they use comes from. When you're judging temps based on thermometers placed behind an air conditioning vent or above asphalt, using algorithms to fill in missing data, hiding raw data I'm going to go out on a limb and say your data and conclusions are both rather bogus...just as the hockey stick chart has been proven to be.

And as for billions vs trillions of dollars, if you're the one receiving it, even millions or hundreds of thousands is a lot of money.

Pence “What is $400 million for climate change research going to do to put people back to work in Indiana?” —Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), speaking on the floor of the House against the stimulus package that he and every other Republican voted against

Studying a problem no one can do anything about anyway isn't going to get you near the grant/research money that studying a problem and making recommendations of how others (but not you, of course) can change their behavior to avoid the end of the world.

[Chris]

Den - the concern with freon and other CFC's was the depletion of the ozone layer, which allows more UV radiation to reach earth, leading to increases in skin cancer, among other effects. One of the true environmental success stories in the 20th century is the Montreal Protocol, which along with its updates has quite effectively dealt with the CFC's, which has led to a partial recovery of the ozone hole. It's ironic that the lack of ozone over Antarctica somewhat modulated the temperature increase over Antarctica, but now with the CFC's largely dealt with, we're still left with greenhouse gases. It's easy to confuse the two issues - I've seen books that confuse them and lead to erroneous conclusions - but they are in fact two largely separate issues. CFC's like freon have been effectively dealt with, while greenhouse gases have not been.

Water vapor is a potent GHG, no doubt about it. A large amount of the research that has gone into studying climate change over the last 20-30 years has gone into figuring out how the interplay between water vapor and other forcing factors will play out. The best available models now suggest that the warming induced by CO2 will perhaps raise overall water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, which is potentially a bad feedback loop.

Erm, the hockey stick graph, while controversial, has the support of most climate scientists still. Not sure why that source thinks it's been debunked, but in rebuttals to the McIntyre / McKintrick 2003 paper the authors and others have shown why the 2003 paper questioning the hockey stick graph has problems in and of itself. I'd say that the specific graph still has debate surrounding it - and the papers questioning the graph have issues of their own - but to claim it's been "debunked" as fact is likely going too far with the status of the science.

Incidentally, I think your link to the "thermometer placement" is accidentally the health care thread link . Without seeing the content of the link, I don't know how to judge the inferences, but I do know that climate scientists have often thrown out data from sources that were questionable, like those that used to be in rural areas but then became more urban, thus leading to the "urban heat island" error. And, as I noted in a previous post, it's not bad science in and of itself to account for measurement error, as long as there is a good reason for it. I'll have to track down the Boltzmann distribution of error corrections at some point (lab calls), but the overall error corrections averaged out to zero in at least two independent analyses - in other words, some corrections were downward, while others were upwards.

[Den_muggle]

I'll admit I was a child at the time and may not have totally understood all the nuances, but I do clearly remember predictions of coming ice ages by 2000 and plans to spread black tarps and soot and such over the ice caps to melt them. The basis of that isn't addressed by your post.

Sorry about the link. Here's the link to the thermometer placement issue. (I shouldn't try to do these things when I'm home sick, but that's the only time I have time to read them and look up links. )


And here's a pic from that site showing just one of hundreds of stations with serious problems. How accurate do you expect this temp reporting station to be?





What about the incorrect predictions? Care to address that?

[leah49]

Originally Posted by Youdan

How good is the weather perdictions in your area? Do you trust your local weather person to give an acurate weather forecast? Every weather report comes for the meteorology office that same data these climate scientists use.

Do you know how they make these predictions? They look at weather patterns and what is most likely to happen in certain conditions. I trust the meteorologists know what they're talking about. For the majority if what they predict doesn't happen it isn't their fault. They did the best they could. Some things just don't come to fruition. The conditions might be ripe for rain but that doesn't mean it will rain.

[Alastor]

I too remember the days when it was generally thought that we were not far away from the end of a natural interglacial period, but that was more based on the assumption that a new ice age was due after about 10 000 years of warmer climate than on collected and analyzed data. At least that was what I was thought in school geography. But 30 to 40 years ago there was already a very strong awareness of the fact that at least in the northern hemisphere glaciers were shrinking at an increasing speed. But there wasn't enough data collected yet for very far reaching conclusions and it was generally seen as natural fluctuation. I have however no memory of black tarps and soot. Maybe that was an American thingy.

[Chris]

Den - I'm falling behind on labwork for the day so I'll check those out later. My initial impression is even if the US temperature record is unreliable, then that doesn't in and of itself invalidate the international temperature record. One would also need to examine the history of each site to see if the variables he noted were there when the sites were set up, and also need to examine the responses by NOAA and others to the allegations this meteorologist made. I'm not discounting his conclusions per se, I'm just noting ahead of time what other factors would need to be examined to make it a complete story. One initial link discussing the urban heat island effect is here, but I'll need to go in more depth if I get a chance.

Same regarding the lack of predictability. Mom's initial link was broken, so I can only go by what the IPCC has noted, and what they've noted is that the predictions, if anything, underestimated the change. I apologize for this being a wiki link and not a better one, but I'm in a hurry .

[Den_muggle]

Here's a detailed rebuttal of the hockey stick chart.

[Alastor]

And here it's brought back to life

[Den_muggle]

Originally Posted by Alastor

I too remember the days when it was generally thought that we were not far away from the end of a natural interglacial period, but that was more based on the assumption that a new ice age was due after about 10 000 years of warmer climate than on collected and analyzed data. At least that was what I was thought in school geography. But 30 to 40 years ago there was already a very strong awareness of the fact that at least in the northern hemisphere glaciers were shrinking at an increasing speed. But there wasn't enough data collected yet for very far reaching conclusions and it was generally seen as natural fluctuation. I have however no memory of black tarps and soot. Maybe that was an American thingy.

Maybe it was just US, but I remember reading a paper in grade school or jr high (mid to late 1970s) about how we could help melt the ice caps to save the world. We did discuss if it would be better to use tarps (or some solid thing like that) or soot over the ice caps or if it would be feasible to put giant mirrors in space to focus the sun beams on the earth and warm the atmosphere that way...just as some are proposing shooting glass (or other reflective) particles into the atmosphere now to reflect the sun's rays away from the earth.

If that was a total misreading of the science then, how can we say it isn't the same now? Why weren't scientists trying to debunk the incorrect conclusions then?

Even 20 or so years ago when they started talking about El Nino effects and how that was proving the ice age was coming...uh, wait, I mean the warming was coming...uh, wait, I mean global climate change was coming. (That was pre internet boom, so I don't know if I can find a link for it and I don't know if it was a global thing or just talked about in this part of the world, but I do remember when that started being talked about as evidence of something with climate...and now it's acknowledged as a totally natural and cyclical phenomenon. )

[Yoana]

I remember the ozone layer hole debate quite well, but I only ever heard it discussed with regard to the overheating problem it would cause, due to there being no ozone to filter most of the radiation (or something along those lines), and I've never heard the ozone layer problems connected with a future ice age. Maybe I was poorly informed though...