I'm sure they were scared that they might be right, hence the creation of the EPA.
It's hard to judge predictions from so long ago because they were used to influence policy. That policy then influenced what actually happened, so it's not like two independent time points. I doubt that the seas would have risen 10 feet, but if there was no EPA, not environmental movement, not push to curb CO2 emissions, etc... we would probably be in a lot worse shape.
I could be totally wrong, but my impression is that at the time of the EPA’s creation, the model of pollution that it was designed to prevent was based on more or less directly harmful contamination: litter, mercury, smog, that kind of thing.
I don’t think (and again, this is only an impression) that they saw the EPA as addressing global CO2 emissions.
Your impression is certainly consistent with the major environmental legislation that gave the EPA its teeth: we have a Clean Air Act and we have a Clear Water Act. We do not have a Carbon-free Act from the same time period empowering the EPA to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
> It's hard to judge predictions from so long ago because they were used to influence policy. That policy then influenced what actually happened
No. The author's point is that the model used to predict climate change was terribly broken. Scientists told Nixon "if CO2 goes up by X in the next 30 years, average temperatures will go up by Y". That hypothesis is now testable, because we can look at CO2 and temperatures over the predicted time span.
Anything else the EPA may or may not have done has no bearing.
"Scientists told Nixon "if CO2 goes up by X in the next 30 years, average temperatures will go up by Y"."
CO2 didn't go up as much as was predicted. It's only increased by about half as much. If the relationship is non-linear, much of the temperature increases could be loaded into the second half of CO2 rise.
Anyway, it was 1960s science. They had far less data, primitive tools, etc.
What is really shows that people will use bad science and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fear tactics to influence policy. What is shows is that this has been going on for 50 years.
The argument for emissions controls has never been that the science is ironclad. It's not. Any honest scientist (whose tenure and/or publishing life doesn't depend on AGW being "real") will admit this. Off-camera. :)
The (only) argument for emissions controls IMO is that, all things being equal, better to err on the side of caution and cleanliness. A rational society would simply live and produce cleanly because, for a number of reasons which have nothing to do with the flimsy science of AGW, that's the best way to "live".
We don't live in a rational society. So what we get are ineffective controls for a poorly-defined problem that may or may not exist. Worst of both worlds, really. I've never understood why AGW needs to be "true" in order for us to mandate, say, cleaner emissions. AGW is just one possible reason on a laundry list of reasons to go green.
Climate is what's happening in the same place on the same hour of the same day with similar stochastic conditions year over year. What's your fourth of july weekend going to be like in Boston next year? In 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 years?
i'm sure they thought they were right at the time.