I’m curious–I just spent about 15 minutes on Scirrus.com and found these peer-reviewed papers from the 70s that discussed global cooling in their abstracts. I’m not saying there was consensus, but there was a lot of serious thinking going on about it, at least…

Cause and effects of global cooling Nature 1975
Guest editorial: The end of the present interglacial Quaternary Research 1972
Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation Nature 1975
The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human activities Quaternary Research 1972
Background of a geophysical model of the initiation of the next glaciation Quaternary Research 1974
Insolation regime of interglacials Quaternary Research 1972
Physical Sciences: Atmospheric Total Ozone Increase during the 1960s Nature 1971
Climatic effects of increased industrial activity upon the world’s established agro-ecosystems Agro Ecosystems 1974
Changes in the poleward energy flux by the atmosphere and ocean as a possible cause for ice ages Quaternary Research 1974
Influence of aerosol cloud height on the change in the atmospheric radiation balance due to aerosols Atmsospheric Environment 1975
Influence of surface albedo on the change in the atmospheric radiation balance due to aerosols Atmsospheric Environment 1974
Dynamics of the ocean-cryosphere system: Barbados data Quaternary Research 1972
The application of computers to weather forecasting Physics in Technology 1973
The earth’s climate as seen from space Acta Astronautica 1974
Volcanic ash in the Antarctic ice sheet and its possible climatic implications Earth and Planetary Science Letters 1971
Holocene climatic variations-Their pattern and possible cause Quaternary Research 1973
Recent Climatic Change and Increased Glacierization in the Eastern Canadian Arctic Nature
Remote sounding from artificial satellites and space probes of the atmospheres of the Earth and the planets Reports on Progress in Physics 1973
Interglacial climates and Antarctic ice surges Quaternary Research 1972
Climates of the polar regions—world survey of climatology 1970
The salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean and the next glaciation Quaternary Research 1972

In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

Will is wrong because he equates a few outliers talking about global cooling in the 1970s with a majority fearing global warming today, not because he repeats what he said.

That’s almost a perfect summary of Will, but to be accurate it should be changed to ‘somewhat eloquent’. He’s sort of a Buckley-lite.

Maybe. It wasn’t reasonable by the late 90s, when William Connolley was already trying to shoot down that zombie.

You’re asking journalism to justify its existence? This would seem a tall order.

You’re asking journalism to justify its existence? This would seem a tall order. I’m reminded of the observation that, “Beer does more than Milton can/ To justify God’s ways to man.” A justification of the ways of journalism would seem to be orders of magnitude more difficult even than justifying God’s ways to man.

If you’re serious about that project, I think you need to abandon the idea that journalism could only justify itself in terms of finding and recording deathless truths. Media outlest are owned by people who have an interest in propagandizing. Journalism doesn’t really pretend to be some sort of Diogenes. Especially for an op-ed writer like Will, there really is no committment to anything but advancing a partisan cause.

From that perspective, his latest column is thoroughly unremarkable. He’s a cheerleader for a party of admitted reality-deniers. So, yes, his columns will not be models of fairness, accuracy or any sort of diligence in finding the truth. But that is so, not because of any failure of Will to do his job, but because reality-denial is his job. The arsonist does not practice the same profession as the firefighter, and to judge the former as if he were trying to do the job of the latter is to miss the point entirely.

Now, if you are some sort of freak of nature journalist who imagines that truth-telling is your job, well, be my guest and have at it. But don’t expect others to live by your odd ideas.

“Personal accounts will respect individuals’ autonomy and competence and will narrow the wealth gap by facilitating the accumulation of wealth—bequeathable wealth—by people of modest incomes.” OOPS!
And Alan Greenspan, with his usual careful word choice, crowed that personal accounts would provide the “appearance of wealth” .

If the privatization idiocy that Bush was advocating would be in effect today , the “appearance” of “bequeathable wealth” for those who would retire today would be nearly half of what it was six months ago. What’s half of a semblance of wealth for people with moderate to low income who are unable to contribute significant amounts to their private accounts in the first place?

But at least this George sure does sound smart.