1970s Global Cooling Scare

ScreenHunter_393 May. 21 04.35

NCAR  newsweek_coolingworld.pdfScreenHunter_394 May. 21 04.37

National Academy Of Sciences  Science News

ScreenHunter_389 May. 21 04.08

The Milwaukee Sentinel – Google News Archive Search

ScreenHunter_1434 Jul. 30 06.37

ScreenHunter_1435 Jul. 30 06.37

TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com

Every major climate organization endorsed  the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.

ScreenHunter_127 Feb. 04 04.44

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate

ScreenHunter_05 May. 07 09.01ScreenHunter_06 May. 07 09.01

The Windsor Star – Google News Archive Search

ScreenHunter_291 May. 08 11.50ScreenHunter_292 May. 08 11.50

ScreenHunter_284 May. 08 11.45

ScreenHunter_290 May. 08 11.46

International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_5345 Dec. 19 23.22 ScreenHunter_5343 Dec. 19 23.20

Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output  NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_6386 Jan. 24 20.26

31 May 1975 

http://news.google.com/newspapers/

ScreenHunter_1315 Jan. 07 13.06

Lakeland Ledger – Google News Archive Search

CW1CW2

16 May 1974 – LIFE STYLE TAKING POINT Disappearance revives lo…

ScreenHunter_242 Feb. 06 08.11

 

Climatologists Forecast Stormy Economic Future – Climatologists Forecasting Dire Effects of Weather on World Economy and Social Order – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_979 Sep. 26 22.41

ScreenHunter_980 Sep. 26 22.41

ScreenHunter_981 Sep. 26 22.42

The Bryan Times

ScreenHunter_753 Dec. 24 18.47

The Spokesman-Review – Google News Archive Search

ScreenHunter_784 Dec. 24 23.31

Problems From Climate Changes Foreseen in a 1974 C.I.A Report – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_786 Dec. 24 23.35

http://select.nytimes.com

Bed8RyECMAAhHdB

BehQRz_CYAAhve2

The Genesis Strategy – A chilling prospect – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_1440 Jan. 09 22.46

FORECAST FOR – FORECASTING – CLOUDY 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 sayfor sure what it will be. Forecasting ‘ A really accurate three-day weather forecast would result in savings of $86-million a year just for growersof wheat in the state of Wisconsin.’ – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_811 Dec. 25 09.09

ScreenHunter_812 Dec. 25 09.12

…That’s the News. And Now for San Juan’s Weather… – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_1761 Jan. 14 18.17

ICE AGES ATTRIBUTED TO EARTH ORBIT SHIFT – Scientists Find Periodic Changes in Path Around Sun ‘Positive Test’ of Climatic Theory – View Article – NYTimes.com

Bd5R1oyCMAEW7YT

ScreenHunter_1774 Jan. 14 19.31

documents.theblackvault.com/documents/environment/potentialtrends.pdf

ScreenHunter_982 Sep. 26 23.30

ScreenHunter_983 Sep. 26 23.31

ScreenHunter_984 Sep. 26 23.31

Middlesboro Daily News – Google News Archive Search

ScreenHunter_826 Dec. 25 11.34

The Milwaukee Journal – Google News Archive Search

ScreenHunter_992 Dec. 28 06.36

ScreenHunter_994 Dec. 28 06.38

Science – Worrying About a New Ice Age – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_165 Feb. 10 06.30

The Deseret News – Google News Archive Search

In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century. ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.

Chicago Tribune Mar 2, 1975

PaintImage10991 (1)

CIA Report 1974

ScreenHunter_36-Feb.-07-00.051 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_38-Feb.-07-07.11 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_39-Feb.-07-07.12 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_40-Feb.-07-07.13 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_46-Feb.-07-07.21

PQ Archiver – ChicagoTribune.com

ScreenHunter_774 Dec. 24 22.54

Climatologists Forecast Stormy Economic Future – Climatologists Forecasting Dire Effects of Weather on World Economy and Social Order – View Article – NYTimes.com

ScreenHunter_42-Feb.-07-07.16

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html

ScreenHunter_43-Feb.-07-07.17

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_44-Feb.-07-07.19

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf

ScreenHunter_45-Feb.-07-07.20

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

ScreenHunter_48-Feb.-07-07.28

ScreenHunter_47-Feb.-07-07.28

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

ScreenHunter_49-Feb.-07-07.31 (1)

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf

ScreenHunter_770 Dec. 24 22.36

ScreenHunter_771 Dec. 24 22.41

ScreenHunter_768 Dec. 24 22.32

Lawrence Journal-World – Google News Archive Search

417nOEuR9mL._SL500_AA300_

http://www.amazon.com/Cooling-Has-Next-Already-Begun/dp/013172312X

Monday, Jan. 31, 1977
WEATHER: The Big Freeze
Why had the rain turned white? Startled millionaires wintering in their baronial mansions in West Palm Beach, Fla., peered closer last week at the miracle that was falling from the skies and discovered—could it be?—yes, the substance was snow, the first ever reported there. Since mid-November, pedestrians in Dallas, unaccustomed to such hazards, have been slipping on sleet-slicked sidewalks. Meanwhile, a series of blizzards has smothered Buffalo this winter with an astonishing 126.6 in. of snow.

From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down…

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,918620,00.html

ScreenHunter_50-Feb.-07-07.42

ScreenHunter_51-Feb.-07-07.43

Science News

screenhunter_153-aug-24-16-22

screenhunter_154-aug-24-16-23

screenhunter_155-aug-24-16-23

http://news.google.com/newspapers

ScreenHunter_181 Jul. 25 08.25

Climate Change and its Effect on  World Food

by Walter Orr Roberts  Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, andNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations. Some scientists believe that this may have presaged the onset of the dramatic climate anomalies of 1972 that brought far-reaching adversities to the world’s peoples. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the bad climate of 1972 may be the forerunner of a long series of less favorable agricultural crop years that lie ahead for most world societies. Thus widespread food shortages threaten just at the same time that world populations are growing to new highs. Indeed, less favorable climate may be the new global norm. The Earth may have entered a new “little ice age”

There are strong signs that these recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signals of the emergence of a new normal for world climates.

If we are, indeed, experiencing a worsening  of world climates it is, perhaps, equal in  severity to any within the last millenium.  The arguments for this view were developed  by several of the climatologists who attended  an international workshop on climate and  its effects on human life convened in  May 1974 in Bonn, Germany.

At this meeting Profs. H. Flohn of Germany,  H.H. Lamb of the United Kingdom and  Reid Bryson of the United States developed  a highly persuasive demonstration that there  has been a steady cooling of northern  hemisphere temperatures during the last  30 years, with the strongest cooling at the  higher latitudes.

www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf

ScreenHunter_03 Aug. 18 15.24ScreenHunter_05 Aug. 18 15.26

The Canberra Times   Thursday 16 May 1974

NEW YORK, Wednesday (AAP). — Weather satellites sweeping across the northern hemisphere have come up with a surprise: the permanent snow and ice  cap has increased sharply, Associated Press reported. The finding is cited as one more indication of what some climatologists believe to be a basic change in the world’s climate, a cooling

CW1CW2

16 May 1974 – LIFE STYLE TAKING POINT Disappearance revives lo…

ScreenHunter_7304 Feb. 19 06.36 ScreenHunter_7303 Feb. 19 06.36

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – – NYTimes.com

BeewiC-CEAA_RXb

Mountain Mail – Google News Archive Search

ScreenHunter_7460 Feb. 26 19.37

22 Nov 1974 – SCIENCE DOCUMENTARY New ice age ‘could be in our…

166 Responses to 1970s Global Cooling Scare

  1. Kyle Towers says:

    Cooling was never even close to a majority position. It got some play in popular press, but the concensus for warming was already building. This is just one of MANY Big Lies that deniers will never cease telling, no matter how many times it is refuted.

    • ROFLMAO

      Here is the NAS temperature graph from 1975

    • Chewage says:

      Refuted?
      Consensus?
      Political science relies on consensus, scientific theory does not.
      You have been witnessing a well funded “working hypothesis” in regard to AGW for the past 25 years… The majority of funding coming from tax payers, worldwide!

    • capoprimo says:

      One thing is certain, facts never get in the way of Liberal thought!

    • catherine says:

      Are you kidding? I lived through that time and was one of the dumb bunnies ranting and yelling about the end of the world. Nope, you are so much a denier of history!

      • Ron says:

        Yep. Cooling got a lot of press in the 70’s. But as I recall, that is before pollution control was proven effective in reducing atmospheric particulates and acid rain and such. Could be wrong, but that’s how I remember it. I think we have better data now. No proof, but certainly cause for concern.

    • Publius says:

      Laughable. Where were YOU in 72? By then we had been fed 15 years of stories, from the media to the schools, that the Ice Age was coming! There were NO reputable scientists or scientific organizations espousing a warming trend. I don’t know who you are, but clearly were not even BORN yet!

    • Mister says:

      Refereed science was, in the early ’70s, running four or five to one in favor of manmade warming over cooling. The famous Ice Age Scare of the ’70s was in the magazines at the supermarket checkout line, and in poorly researched newspaper articles, not the science journals. But the majority position in the field was we don’t have enough data to predict anything yet. It’s a mistake to say “consensus was already building” though.

      • Dave G says:

        The larger point is…. what happened to the cooling that was reported…. It has disappeared from the temperature record.

    • TiredofThe BS says:

      Kyle, your statement is absolutely not true. On average during the 1970’s and into the early 1980’s, there were approximately 4 published papers PER YEAR on global warming. The 1974 CIA report used the best climatologists at the time and they all agreed, global COOLING.

      “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertain to Intelligence Problems” August 1974, Central Intelligence Agency, it is filed with the Library of Congress – CLIMATE SCIENTISTS PREDICT GLOBAL COOLING! (LC control no.: 76603473 you can order it) It is well written and even includes simple charts so you can understand.

      It was only when the possibility of new government & UN taxes to solve a non-existent problem were introduced, funded by taxpayers, that global warming papers began to be produce, en masse.

      I am accepted by the IPCC as to review draft papers and submit comments. Reviewed draft and submitted comments on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. Accepted by the “National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee” (NCADAC) to review draft papers and submit comments. Reviewed draft and submitted comments on their Third National Climate Assessment Report.

      I reviewed and analyzed hundreds of papers on global warming; examined data used; calculated margins of error; and assessed findings and conclusions. If you every read just a few, you would know the margin of error in the papers can run over 200%. Yes, over 200% margin of error! And you call people who challenge conclusions based upon such huge errors deniers?

      Dude, seek professional therapy.

      • You misrepresent the CIA report. It wasn’t written, or reviewed, by climatologists; its farily easy to tell that. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/07/11/a-study-of-climatological-rese/

      • Kyle says:

        Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

        The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

        Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

        In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

        From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

        “The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
        getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
        1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

        Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

    • Read the links, they are citing places like the “University of East Anglia” and the “National Academy of Sciences” hardly non mainstream organizations.

    • cottereaux says:

      Kyle, your statement is absolutely not true. On average during the 1970’s and into the early 1980’s, there were approximately 4 published papers PER YEAR on global warming. The 1974 CIA report used the best climatologists at the time and they all agreed, global COOLING.

      “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertain to Intelligence Problems” August 1974, Central Intelligence Agency, it is filed with the Library of Congress – CLIMATE SCIENTISTS PREDICT GLOBAL COOLING! (LC control no.: 76603473 you can order it) It is well written and even includes simple charts so you can understand.

      • Kyle says:

        Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

        The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

        Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

        In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

        From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

        “The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
        getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
        1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

        Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

    • Lesley says:

      What does “majority position” have to do with science? It was once the “majority position” that the earth is flat.

  2. Bill Cox says:

    What a bunch of hooey! The “new ice age” was just media hype?!?! I’m 48 years old and a coming “man made ice age” was in my SCIENCE BOOK and taught to school children in the late 70s. This wasn’t just a couple of whacko news articles. There was enough consensus to b̶r̶a̶i̶n̶w̶a̶s̶h̶ educate school children.

    It described the necessity of the green house effect to maintain the warmth of our planet and how man made pollutants were interfering with that process, eventually ending in an ice age if changes were not made. Basically, the same man made climate change arguments, just with a minus sign instead of a plus sign.

    So, Kyle Towers, who are the real deniers of science? That would be the ones who use ad hominem attacks instead of science facts.

    • michael says:

      Good comment. In fact back in the 1970s the emissions that most concerned scientists were industrial in nature: airborne soot and oxides like sulfates and nitrates. And those emissions had mostly a cooling effect on climate, reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space. So it was an obvious concern.

      • DaveGinOly says:

        So if there has been real warming in the last few decades, maybe it was due not to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but the success of anti-pollution measures to remove particulates and chemicals that were making the climate cooler. Sort of an isostatic rebound effect, that has since leveled out (the ongoing flat-lining of the former temperature increase).

        • lucia39 says:

          Well stated

        • Peter Bjørn says:

          That would require that the particulate air pollution was constantly being lessened from 1960 onward, and at a pace well above to the balooning use of gasoline and coal for motive and electrical power; iirc this wasn’t really in works until the 1970s that efforts were under way to reduce air pollution in the US re. the Clean Air Act.

          Global aerosol emissions are still considerable, but at least to a degree where it doesn’t claim tens of thousands of lives in major urban areas as it was some cases in both the US and UK. Though in China as of late, their mad pace of industrialization they have gone the other way.

    • Publius says:

      Faulty Towers.

    • > was in my SCIENCE BOOK

      Name the book.

    • Cal says:

      No, liar, it was NOT in your science book. It was NEVER in ANYONE’S science textbooks.

    • Kyle says:

      Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

      The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

      Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

      In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

      From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

      “The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
      getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
      1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

      Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

  3. TD says:

    Awesome collection. I wonder what’s the over-under time on global warming/climate change/global weirding/Chicken Little going back to cooling?

  4. TLMango says:

    Its amazing that those who are too young to remember the cold of the 50’s-70’s are the most susceptible to the new carbon religion. How evil is it, to deliberately lie to children about normal climate cycles just for political gain. What does this say about our future as a nation.

  5. Phil G says:

    If you look at what actually occurred, there is no smoking gun. Several scientists produced articles predicting a cooling trend in peer reviewed journals. News organizations picked up on the few articles and that is where all of the headlines came from. Other scientists read the scientific articles, did their own research, and as a result the cooling hypothesis was never generally accepted. Of course, that never made it into the papers. Notice how little of posted articles are from peer reviewed journals. Think of all of the new “health advice” we see in the main stream media that is never accepted by the medical community because follow up studies refute it.

    • Kyle says:

      Oh Phil, don’t bother these anti-science ideologues with the obvious facts. They’re only interested in conspiracy theories and science bashing that support their ideology.

      • Another group which attempts to rewrite history are commonly known as “Holocaust Deniers”

        The Directors of NCAR and CRU as well as the CIA are all quoted above, not to mention the NCAR and National Academy of Sciences graphs.

        Are you two mentally deficient, or just evil?

        • michael says:

          “Are you two mentally deficient, or just evil?”

          Now Steve… just this morning I was reading an article called “Can we tone down the rhetoric?” Maybe we could agree to lighten up on the ad hominem attacks?

          Just a thought. I know, I know. “He started it first.”

        • Rathnakumar says:

          I would bet that the climate lunatics are mentally deficient!

        • vonzorch says:

          You do know that the two are not mutually exclusive?

        • Menicholas says:

          Hoax Deniers!

      • It’s not about being “Anti-Science”. It’s about looking at who is pushing an agenda, and figuring out why. The current Global Warming/Climate Change debate, well it’s not really even a debate is it? Supporters of it refuse to debate anyone with a differing opinion. Anyone that questions it is called a “denier” and anti-science. But look at who is promoting this. Al Gore has become a BILLIONAIRE selling “Carbon Credits”, a product that doesn’t even exist! Climate Change isn’t about the weather. Climate Change is about control! They want to control what you drive. They want to control how you live. They want to control what you eat. The fact is, climate on this planet has been “changing” for the last 4 billion years or so. It has never been static. There is no set standard of what the Earth’s temperature is supposed to be. So, until science can difinitively prove (and it hasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination) that man is having any noticable effect on the climate, I’m not buying.

        • DaveGinOly says:

          The “no set standard” comment is interesting. Why have we determined that our climate is “just right” now, when during some periods of history the climate has been more suitable for agriculture (specifically, I’m thinking of the Medieval Warming Period)? At any climate set point, there will be “winners” and “losers.” Some will experience more hardship at some set points (drought, powerful storm events, etc.) while others will benefit (longer growing seasons, moderate rainfall, reduction in the severity or frequency of major storm events, etc.). And who is authorized to determine for the world what the “best” climate set point is? If one group of countries takes action to fix a set point, and that set point injures the interests of other countries, is an monetary offset owed by the former group to the latter? Obviously so, because that’s the concept behind carbon credits – the people who are (allegedly) making the climate worse owe money to the people who are being affected.

        • Menicholas says:

          Now we seem to have the Hoax Deniers implying that if the current interglacial is scheduled to end, or is in fact ending, it would be wrong to prevent it!

        • Kevin says:

          Exactly…. when you look at the graphs, how do we know where “the standard” or “Average” is. 134 yrs of collection isn’t going to create the “Average”… Who knows, Average might be “hotter” than what we are experiencing. I’m sure there’s technology that can calculate what we “believe” is average but the data you feed those equations can be manipulated to either direction…. I’m optimistic that Mother Nature will adapt and overcome to anything we throw at her and mankind will adapt and overcome to any changes mother nature throws our way. If I remember correctly from science, all ecosystem change over time, they are not “constant”. Something in the ecosystem will create change… it just doesn’t go on an on in a perfect circle, it cycles randomly.

    • Phil – It was widely accepted even in the early 80’s that the climate was cooling. As widely accepted as global warming is today. Not only was it in all the science magazines, but in the text books. I’d like to see if we can better nail down exactly when it flipped.

      • Menicholas says:

        I was in college studying Chemistry and Physical Geography at the time. It was sometime around 1986 as I recall, and it seemed to happen overnight and come out of nowhere.

  6. Arnold says:

    Michael, I think Steve’s question is legitimate. Unfortunately, those who are evil or mentally deficient usually don’t possess the capacity for critical self-observation, so their issues are usually projected onto others. Judge people much?

  7. gregole says:

    I was born in 1955 and know all about the failed predictions of Man Made Global Cooling Climate Catastrophe – it was allegedly caused by Man-Made air pollution; particulate would block out the sun, cooling earth and destroying agriculture; pesticides would destroy habitat (oh and the birds; the pesticide was killing all the birds ala Silent Spring). We. Were. Doomed.

    This rubbish started some years before – actually just after WWII with a school of thought sometimes referred to as the neo-Malthusians:

    “There was a general “neo-Malthusian” revival in the 1950s, 60s and 70s after the publication of two influential books in 1948 (Fairfield Osborn’s “Our Plundered Planet” and William Vogt’s “Road to Survival”). During that time the population of the world rose dramatically. Many in environmental movements began to sound the alarm regarding the potential dangers of population growth. The Club of Rome published a famous book entitled “The Limits to Growth” in 1972. The report and the organisation soon became central to the neo-Malthusian revival. Paul R. Ehrlich has been one of the most prominent neo-Malthusians since the publication of “The Population Bomb” in 1968. Other prominent Malthusians include the Paddock brothers, authors of “Famine 1975! America’s Decision: Who Will Survive?”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

    William Vogt was an ornithologist
    Paddock Brothers were agronomists
    Fairfield Osborn “Born into the wealthy and influential Osborn family, he was the son of Henry Fairfield Osborn, a prominent paleontologist, eugenicist and “distinguished Aryan enthusiast”. After obtaining his Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University, he went on to study biology at Cambridge University
    Paul Erlich Biologist

    All of them trained in sciences of one sort or another. All yapping incessantly to an adoring media. And there were others – and all of this blabbering nonsense dove-tailed directly into the Man-Made-Global-Cooling scare in the 1970s. According to these esteemed experts, our only salvation would be through massive social engineering directed by equally massive invasion of human rights and freedoms by government. (And yes, John Holdren, Obama’s personal science “czar” did, in writing, suggest poisoning drinking water with human reproductive sterility drugs.)

    I was there; I read the books; I watched all the horrors of their predictions fail to unfold.

    And now it’s Man-Made-Global-Warming. Same bozos spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense. Same “solutions”.

  8. Ivan says:

    Check out Popular Science, October 1977, an article under the heading “Our Changing Weather – Colder Winters Ahead?” (pg. 100-) Also, a preliminary article in the issue of the previous month.
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bQEAAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

  9. Ivan says:

    National Geographic – November 1976:
    “What’s Happening to Our Cliimate?
    Cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, thawing in the Antarctic…shifting rain, snow, and storm patterns…ice caps, volcanic dust, air pollution, sunspots-the myriad forces that change earth’s basic environment are still far from understood.”
    http://revolution2.us/content/docs/global_cooling/contents.html

  10. Ivan says:

    The “Compleat 1970s Global Cooling Rollcall”
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_02_01_archive.html

  11. JMitch says:

    The man-made-global warming crowd continues to make us believe that humans and their activities are the only cause of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere when in reality less than 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of people.

  12. suyts says:

    Kyle, you have no idea what the atmospheric CO2 levels were in the past. Ground levels do no equate to atmospheric levels. It is utter sophistry to believe so. And, yes, in that sense, I’m smarter than any Phd who thought of that bit of idiocy.

  13. Quannabe says:

    Just another comment to those that are too young to have first-hand knowledge of “The Next Ice Age” scare: ignore the few fools lying to you here (either through ignorance or malice, not sure which). This was being taught in science classes in the 70’s in the same way that AGW is being taught today. It was far more than a couple of articles blown out of proportion by the media.

    • Kyle says:

      Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

      The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

      Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

      In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

      From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

      “The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
      getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
      1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

      Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

  14. Gene H says:

    It’s obvious Kyle Towers has no background in science what-so-ever! Better for him to have said nothing than to have “removed all doubt” regarding his ignorance.

    • Kyle says:

      Some scientists did argue for “global cooling” back in the ’70s, but there never was a consensus and proponents of the hypothesis called for further research, not widespread political action. The primary hyping came from “pop science” publications.

      The serious scientists who did argue for it based their theory on: a) the cooling effects of ever-increasing amounts of aerosols (which, as we may recall from the “1940-1970 cooling” point above, caused significant cooling during the middle of the century), or b) the natural cycles of glaciation which would lead to an ice age in the next 20,000 years.

      Point a) was avoided by clean air acts reducing aerosol production (in other words, an intellectual victory for environmentalists), and point b) obviously has nothing to do with imminent global cooling. Deniers conveniently forget to mention either of these things.

      In addition to that, the majority of papers published in the 1970s were actually predicting warming.

      From a review of the literature published by the American Meteorological Society:

      “The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
      getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
      1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper— and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed.

      Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a mi- nor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists.”

    • Kyle says:

      Wrong. Very educated in the sciences. I’m an engineer and a thermodynamicist.

  15. Crock Hunter says:

    Here is an excellent piece that utterly destroys ANY claim that scientists of the 60s and 70s as a group were predicting an imminent “Ice Age”..

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

    This “Coming Ice Age” myth has been so often and so completely debunked that it’s completely laughable for anyone to still stand by it…. so is it with this site’s disinformation campaign…

  16. I was around in the 70’s and remember all the hype about global cooling, but I thought all that talk about cooling meant kids in my high school were getting cooler.

  17. misanthrope says:

    The really interesting thing about the 70’s Ice Age scare (it was taught as a fact to me in high school, Kyle, you clown) is that all the measures necessary to stop the glaciers from crushing us back then were exactly the same as those we’re now told are necessary to stop global warming: Government “investment” in alternative energy sources; reducing fossil fuel use; developed world transferring enormous amounts of money to the third world as “compensation;” more government-funded “research;” reduced economic output and living standards, etc. etc.

    Global warming’s the same old scam with a different name.

    • Yes sir! Now they redubbed “global warming” as “climate change” so they can even control the people further. Instead of having to prove warming or cooling, which they can’t, now everything can be attributed to the fairy tale of climate change. Too much rain, climate change. Too much sun, climate change. Too much snow, climate change. Earthquakes, climate change. Ocean temperature rise of .4 degrees celsius, climate change. Water leves rising, climate change etc. and the ONLY way to ever save us is by taking more money from us in taxes to fight imaginary demons, or the government spending more of OUR money to fight imaginary demons.

  18. TLMango says:

    Thank you Steven for posting this video. I never get tired of watching it, though they could have done a little better with the music. I won’t be looking for this sound track at the music store.
    Maybe you could post some video from “The Day After Tomorrow”. Some of the lines from this movie are classic.
    “If you go outside you aren’t going to make it.”
    “It’s going to get bad…..really really bad.”
    “My father is a climatologist….he works for the government.”

  19. M Peters says:

    My dear Kyle, I taught high school science in Florida in the late 70’s, and yes, it was being taught and in the text. I was forced to teach that global cooling was coming. You are not dealing with reality, only your religion of false science you have willingly absorbed.

  20. Gene H says:

    Warren’s article does however, give great credence to the scientific point of view… the earth has been warming as it comes out of the Little Ice Age.

  21. tomwys says:

    C’mon, Steve, lighten up on these dimmer bulbs! The “RealClimate” piece that “utterly destroys ANY claim…” is drivel spinning out of control, and those parroting it must have been unable to read the articles you adroitly posted. “Crock Hunter” obviously found himself. Leave him looking into his mirror and wallowing in foolishness.

    • Brian says:

      I’m astonished that Billy Cannoli and his ilk believe that they can rewrite history – in the face of Steven’s nearly photographic reproduction of actual articles. I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked, but I am. Billy isn’t arguing that those who wrote the articles were wrong, or ignorant, he’s actually advocating the idea that those articles were never written! … wait, his writing isn’t ‘advocacy’ – it is intimidation. Billy Cannoli is a bully. His wreckord in wikipedia illustrates his oppressive tactics.

  22. Gene H says:

    Has anyone mentioned that warming has never been the so-called consensus throughout the AGW debate attempts? I say attempts because, although Al Gore claimed the “consensus” supported his claims, he refuses to debate anyone with an IQ over 30. His initial “consensus” was 77 of 79 climate scientists out of 10,257 polled. On the “denier’s” side is something much closer to a scientific consensus… if there truly is such a thing… 31,400 plus U.S. scientists that have signed the Oregon Petition Project. So, to claim there was no consensus global cooling was on the way, is a fools argument.

  23. Gene H says:

    Andy Oz, or is this the “obvious stuff”? (Quite a list of articles and media coverage)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

  24. TK says:

    Perhaps I missed them but is there a link to the peer reviewed scientific studies that all of the newspaper articles were based on?

  25. Great to have a resource like this in place when the watermelons try yet another attack on reality .

  26. What I love about this climn ate “science” is how it appears they rushed to judgment without even considering the very basics. In their rush burn the CO2 witch, and collect all the cash that comes with it, they forgot to ask the most basic of questions. They tied CO2 to the green house gas effect, claiming that it is the major GGH contributing to global warming, climate change and now I guess cooling though its formation of polar vortexes. Problem is, the mechanism they defined that CAUSES the AGW effect is CO2 absorbing IR radiation. The only mechanism they defined for CO2 to do anything is through its absorption of heat. If it isn’t absorbing heat, by what mechanism is it causing climate change? The GHG effect or AGW is the result of trapping heat, ie warming is needed if you are going to blame CO2. Problem is, CO2 absorbs at 15 microns. 15 microns is consistent with a black body of temp -80 degree C, that isn’t a typo, -80 degree C. The average earth temp is around 18 degree C, and the earth emits at 10 microns, far away from the 15 CO2 absorbs. The only area of the earth CO2 would impact the temp would be over the polar regions, and they certainly aren’t going to be warmed 80 degrees due to the CO2. To make matters worse, as the earth warms it moves further away from 15 microns, reducing the impact of CO2. One has to marvel at how the ecosystem has built in mechanisms to prevent what the climate experts fail to grasp. CO2 is 400 PPM, man is only responsible for maybe 20 of those PPMs. Do these people really think 20 PPM of a very weak GGH can cause climate change? Anyway, watch the documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming and you will see why climate experts don’t want to debate this topic.

    • Brian says:

      While I agree with the general direction of your comments, may I point out that blackbody radiation is not at one single wavelength, but a continuous, broad swath of wavelengths with a peculiar, peaked, strongly skewed curve of amplitude vs wavelength. Using your wavelength and temperature numbers: 15 microns does not equal -80C, in the sense that a blackbody at warmer temperatures, such as 18C, still emits strongly at 15 microns…. and at 20 microns, and, with diminishing amplitude, at all longer wavelengths. You are correct, though, that CO2’s absorption spectra is not as significant in reality as it may seem to be in laboratory isolation. Water vapor dominates CO2, in the real world, in terms of radiation absorption and re-emission, both in quantity, and in overlapping absorption spectra… and as you point out, mankind’s 20 PPM of a global 400 PPM is truly insignificant. If all of mankind’s 20 PPM were instantly removed, we’d have 380 PPM (your numbers, not mine) and the world would be the same.

  27. BTW, did anyone catch the comment in the Climate Change Chilling Possibilities graphic above?

    It is highlighting how the recent warming was “unusually beneficial,” and they feared the cooling. That BTW is what society should be doing. Things grow and thrive in warm periods, they die in cold periods. How in the world have we allowed a group of climate “experts” convince us that warming is a bad thing? We should cherish every day of warmth we have left. Interglacial periods are relatively short, and the current one is getting long in the tooth.

  28. julie says:

    Let us not forget these creepy liars and frauds are now advocating and spraying aluminum oxide and dangerous Barium as chemtrails poisoning all of us . This is the agenda 21 treaty and the iron mountain report which describes how they intend to con the public . http://youtu.be/_gZG6LTgBi8 http://youtu.be/X3lW-TGGlk0 enjoy

  29. daveburton says:

    Andrew over at PopularTechnology.net has accumulated a large collection of these articles from the 1970s about the threat of a renewed ice age:
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

    • Poptech says:

      My website is not Wikipedia where you can rewrite history. You are permanently banned for your crimes and Goddard should ban you as well. You are a disgrace to the Internet.

      Wikipedia’s climate doctor

      “All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

  30. So many romantics – all of us want to live in a time of ‘special change’ given our immense individual worth – for that nano-time we exist – there are actual man-made concerns – do not be deflected by the carbonazis chasing tax revenues or our wooly-headed academics who also want recognition.
    Focus on the Fuku Flu – we got lots of guilty parties – engineering companies – governments – multinationals – and there is a wee bit of harm agoing down in the Pacific. Wake the F up people – don’t fall for this AGW – – think!!! Follow the money!!

  31. Larry Fields says:

    Hi Steven,
    You may want to add one more name to the list: the late Stephen Schneider. Here’s some revealing info about the patron saint of scientific dishonesty.

    “Just as with Global Warming, we find Schneider in the vanguard of the Global Cooling doomsayers during the 1970s.

    “It was only when global temperatures took an upward turn around 1980 that Schneider and others quickly made a career change and became passionate advocates of impending catastrophe, only this time from warming, not cooling. But then, opportunism is a trait of politicians rather than scientists.

    “During the Ice Age Scare of the 1970s, Schneider was one of it’s foremost advocates. He published a book titled “The Genesis Strategy” at this time, warning of the coming glaciation, and wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age’ book of the time – (Ponte, Lowell. “The Cooling”, Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event – the coming Ice Age.

    “Schneider was one of the first in the scientific community to warn of the impending Ice Age with this paper –

    “Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141″

    The source is http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm.

    Interestingly, Schneider’s role as a leading ‘Coolist’ in the 1970s is severely downplayed in the Wikipedia article about him. Perhaps we should ask Connolley about that.

    • “Schneider clearly intended the public to get the impression that the carbon dioxide was the villain, but closer examination of this graph shows that changes in temperature occurred before the associated change in carbon dioxide. In other words, it was the changes in temperature which caused the changes in carbon dioxide, not the other way round as hinted at by Schneider. ”

      Once again I want to highlight the rush to judgement. If they are claiming that CO2 leads the increase in temperatures, what is causing the increase in CO2? Goes CO2 suddenly just bubble up from the frozen oceans? Where does all this CO2 come from? It makes absolutely no sense what so ever that CO2 should lead temperature. It also leads to the question than, why does temperature fall into an ice age when CO2 is so high? By what mechanism does nature have to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to start the cooling? There are none. It is shocking that these very basic questions are never asked.

      • G Horner says:

        Response to “The Changing Climate of Global Warming”

        There has never been any evidence that CO2 leads temperature… in spite of Al Gore’s insinuations in “An Inconvenient Truth.” The best “evidence” climate science has, comes from the Vostok ic core samples. All the studies of these samples indicate a 400 to as much as a 5,000 year lag time (depending on the study) before CO2 begins to rise. Oh how inconvenient for those who kneel at the alter of AGW!

  32. > Every major science and news organization

    I’m not quite sure what that’s supposed to be an answer to. If you’re interested in what the balance of the scientific opinion was at that point, then http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/03/01/1970s-cooling-again/ provides a helpful graph. If you prefer to look at the peer-reviewed science directly, then you want http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Which is “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley and John Fleck. That paper is so solid that no “skeptic” has even attempted to touch it. You certainly haven’t.

    • This blog post has original documents showing that all of those organizations endorsed global cooling. The exact same argument that is now used in support of global warming.

      • I don’t think so.

        You first post is a temperature graph from NCAR. Which is fine, but it doesn’t “endorse” anything. Your second is from the 1975 NAS report, but you’ve misunderstood the report: see http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html for all the details you’ve missed.

        So I think your claims to have the “endorsement” of NCAR, NAS etc are spurious.

        More, all your stuff is anecdotal: you don’t know the balance between warming and cooling, because you’re only looking at things that support you viewpoint. So what you need is a properly done, peer-reviewed survey of the scientific literature. Happily, that’s already been done for you. All you need to do now is read it.

        • So apparently you didn’t actually read any of the news articles I posted above,quoting Schneider, Firor, Lamb, CIA, NSF, NAS, NASA. etc ..

        • Jack thompson says:

          “because you’re only looking at things that support you viewpoint. ” That is exactly what the IPCC does.
          “So what you need is a properly done, peer-reviewed survey of the scientific literature. Happily, that’s already been done for you. All you need to do now is read it.” I like how those that believe in warming suggest that others don’t need to do any investigation for themselves. I wish I could have gotten away with that with some of my professors in college. “Don’t worry prof, I got an A so you don’t even need to grade my test at all. Just put the grade down in the book.”
          I allow very few people to make any of my decisions for me.

      • Poptech says:

        Don’t waste you time arguing with this idiot Steve, just ban him. The damage he did on Wikipedia is more than enough to earn him a life long ban.

  33. Gene Horner says:

    In response to William Connolley.

    As is often the case, here is a scientific rebuttal to your attempt, to deny there is a valid “other side” to this debate.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/

  34. Gene H says:

    In response to Cal”s calling Bill Cox a “liar”;
    I looked for references to school text books teaching global cooling in the 1970’s… so far haven’t found any. A number of science articles, yes … but! I do remember how the magazine articles espousing gloom and doom were everywhere, and were used by both the media, and those of us who wanted to show how much we knew about the “coming ice age”. Could be Mr Cox is remembering, not a text book per-say, but the Life Magazine article presented by one of his teachers?

  35. Don Morris says:

    Thanks for posting this page. I pulled the graph from 1975, and did a little data processing – inspired by this page and some of the comments. I learned a lot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5feOFMYkz0 .

    • Brian says:

      I recommend that y’all watch the video that Don Morris put up. The way he analyzes the temperature graph is quite revealing, and the slick video presentation shows it in a way that just doesn’t come across as well in non-video graphics or writings.

  36. Brian says:

    I just noticed, in that 1975 Science News article, that the author directly stated that melting the arctic ice cap would raise sea levels. (The author was discussing the possible effects of the Soviets’ diversion of rivers for irrigation of Siberia, which, supposedly, would result in increased salinity of the Arctic Ocean, and hence, melting of the ice cap). I subscribed to the weekly Science News publication for decades… I finally let it lapse; the persistent, shrill cries of “wolf”, and “the sky is falling” wore me out. Wait a moment… are any of you warmistas old enough to remember the story of Chicken Little? Or, “the boy who cried wolf”? … I suppose I should not assume that all y’all greenies will even recognize the fallacy that melting the arctic ice cap will raise sea levels… If I reminded y’all that the arctic ice is FLOATING, would that register as an important distinction, say, compared to the ice sitting on top of Greenland, melting? …wait, I’m drifting into Ad Hominems…

  37. Mary Brown says:

    Love the Dr. Lamb comment on blocking. He was forecasting a coming ice age but they had a record warm summer. He blamed it on blocking. Sound familiar? These days, cold weather is blamed on “blocking” or “polar vortex” and just part of the extremes expected with a warmer world.

    Thanks for the comprehensive collection here. When people bring up the global cooling scare of the 70s, I generally discount this as a very small, non-scientific phenomena. Your research shows me that it was much more widespread and science-based than I thought.

  38. talldave2 says:

    Here are some text extracts, as I’ve noticed Panickers are increasingly unable to read the articles posted here, and are tending to claim they don’t say what they say.

    Hubert Lamb, Director of CRU: “We are past the best of the inter-glacial period which happened between 7,000 and 3,000 ears ago… we are on a definite downhill course for the next 200 years.”

    Joh Firor, Excecutive Director of NCAR: “Temperatures have been high and steady, and steady has been more than high. Now it appears we’re going into a period where temperature will be low and variable, and variable will be more important than low.”

    The 46 scientists who gathered at Brown Univeristy, Providence R.I., for a symposium on “The End of the Present Interglacial” agreed that there is evidence of an ominous world-wide cooling of temperatures in the past two decades.

    CIA — “Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused economic problems throughout the world.”

  39. Wally Lind says:

    The “science” and “scientists”. if there were ever any it the warming or cooling scares, have lost their ability to scare anyone. No one believes any of them anymore. They are the barack Obama’s of science. Their “consensus” is the “you can keep your doctor or plan” of the whole discussion.

  40. Nickels says:

    Nice collection. History really is a great way to put this climate BS in perspective.

  41. Sam says:

    I know for an absolute fact that kids were taught global cooling because of industrial particles blocking out the Sun. I was there. I was taught this in elementary school in the 60’s. I remember it vividly. They showed a poster of New York city covered by a mile thick sheet of ice. It frightened me. I remember thinking,”how can we possibly live on ice?” Any one who says they didn’t teach this lying or uninformed.

  42. Dbohm says:

    Case closed. AGW is fraud. Show me ONE simple physical experiment that indicates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It should be easy. Why would an absorber of a specific infrared frequency preferentially re-emit radiation back to where it came from? Gasses aren’t mirrors, they tend to re-emit radiation along the same vector they received it from, minus some braking radiation lost to the acceleration of the molecules, which results in redshift. AGW belies a very blatant lack of understanding of simple physics.

    • Kyle says:

      What an idiotic mistake. It doesn’t preferentially emit in any direction. That’s the whole point! It absorbs what’s on its way to space and reemits it randomly – ~1/2 of which is not towards space.

      Pull your head out, Dunning-Kruger.

      • Show us your equations !
        Show us you can calculate the temperature of the planet to within even 1% much less the 0.3% estimated since the steam engine , and THEN and ONLY THEN will you have any useful input .

        You can’t do it because even your basic physics is WRONG .
        For an introduction , explaining 97% , 279K of our mean temperature and giving the equations to determine the QUANTITATIVE effect of our Top of Atmosphere spectrum : http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/ . If you claim my computations are wrong , show us the correct ones . Otherwise , you are just continuing the decades of vague word-waving , ie , BS .

        • Kyle says:

          I consider your sputtering, barely comprehensible, Gish Gallop to be a clear concession regarding the claim of the fellow denier to whose rescue you came.

          Right?

        • Kyle , I’m sure you do because you probably avoided every math or physics or engineering class you could in college . Yours is the gish gallop spouting nonscience you can’t back up with computations .

          You just confirm you don’t have the education to to have an opinion worth listening to .

        • Kyle says:

          Wrong! I’m am engineer and thermodynamicist. Years of physics, chemistry, calculus, etc.

          And BTW, you madequate it clear that you parroted the term Gish Gallop without even bothering to find out what it means. You’re a buffoon.

  43. dave_ice says:

    If AWG proponents of the 70’s were correct about the devastation, and ozone was depleted over countries that didn’t regulate cfc’s, then China and a large part of Asia would be vaporized.

  44. Shayn Roby says:

    #NOAA #NotTrustWorthy in #BPoilSpill , not on #GlobalWarming either.
    http://shaynroby.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-spill-scandal-and-president-rolling.html … …

  45. You lead with a well-known but badly-researched Newsweek article (the author cited meteorologists (weather forecasters), took a NOAA scientist’s comments out of context, and concluded with a vague, unsourced reference to “climate scientists” and you follow with a quote from “Science Digest,” a defunct publication that, in it’s day, was known for articles on spontaneous human combustion, UFOs and other pseudoscience. A very few scientists in the 1970s speculated the world was cooling. It made grist for newspaper articles, but very few in the scientific community bought into any of this. You guys (deniers) Never have anything valid to contribute to this discussion. A lone Newsweek article written by some journalist who clearly didn’t understand his subject, a science fiction rag, and newspaper articles with quotes from TV weather personalities. What do you have against actual science?

  46. Pingback: A Libertarian Hippie Catholic’s Take on Laudato Si’ | JSB MORSE

  47. A treasure trove of facts to counter the obsessive argument that we are at the cusp of climatic disaster…. Many thanks again as this helps reinforce what i already believe and provides some links to back up my observations and findings…

  48. Kyle , If you have the background you claim , you should be able to easily follow my Heartland presentation of “How to Calculate the Temperature of a Radiantly Heated Colored Ball” , which correctly calculates the gray body temperature in our orbit and presents the calculation of the endlessly parroted 255K meme .

    Either show us the errors in my computations and your correct equations or STFU and get out of here . You are just another criminally lying scum who has NO respect for reality .

    • Kyle says:

      I will gladly fillet that bit of horseshit as soon as you cease the Gish Gallop and respond inre that which you replied when first addressing me. My bet is that crank solidarity – which is nearly universal among science deniers and other conspiracy theorists – will not allow you to do so honestly.

      Dbohm made an egregious error inre the GHE. That was the subject of my initial comment. Please address that issue.

      • So you’ve got nothing except your own “gish gallop” of verbiage beyond your determinedly limited comprehension which you hide behind to cover your ignorance of even the most basic non-optional physics .

        • Kyle says:

          No, dumbass, that is 100% wrong in every way.

          Let me repeat for the hard of thinking:

          1) I will deal with your BS.

          2) You will respond – responsively – to my original comment first.

          Your refusal to do so when directly asked is taken as evidence for exactly that which I anticipated – crank solidarity.

          Respond regarding Dbohm’s claim or STFU.

        • Chicken .
          I have said not one thing I do not fully understand .
          You on the other hand have said nothing bu vacuous insults .
          You have demonstrated nothing but your quantitative ignorance .

        • Kyle says:

          BTW, you either don’t know what a Gish Gallop is or do and are deliberately obfuscating. By demanding that one issue be resolved before others are engaged, I am in fact doing the exact opposite of a Gish Gallop.

        • Kyle says:

          I accept your concession. There is no other rational interpretation for your (absolutely typical) stonewalling and refusal to even acknowledge what I tell you.

        • You have told us nothing . You apparently can’t comprehend something I wrote so you accuse me of “gish galloping” . Please give me a specific sentence . I don’t even know what it is you find so incomprehensible .
          At the same time you use every excuse you can to avoid evaluating the classical QUANTITATIVE physics I present and show us where the errors are

          Determined , willful ignorance .

        • Kyle says:

          One last time for the hard of thinking;

          Respond on topic or STFU.

  49. But whether or not there was a climate scare in the ’70’s even half as absurd as the outright criminal fraud going on now , So What ?
    My own records just show that by 1983 the incredibly stupider AlGoreWarming was catching my attention :

  50. Margot Hodgson says:

    Interesting! When I posted this, I didn’t indicate that I believed it. I reject alarmists on either side of this argument as everything is so political and so skewed by the media that you can’t trust what any of them say. I was simply making that point to show why I reserve judgement and refuse to have our economy and lifestyle ruined to support the ideas of people I don’t trust whose agenda is unknown!

    • Kyle says:

      Your false equivalence between the actions of the anti-science global warming denial industry and the science is beyond the pale.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s