1973 Shock News : Columbia University Warned That We Were Going To Freeze To Death

ScreenHunter_03 Aug. 18 15.24ScreenHunter_05 Aug. 18 15.26

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to 1973 Shock News : Columbia University Warned That We Were Going To Freeze To Death

  1. Latitude says:

    damn…it keeps changing on them……………………..snark/

  2. shazaam says:

    And the climate realists from the day were also derided for “doubting” the experts.

    And maybe history is about to repeat, watch for the upcoming global cooling publicity barrage!!

  3. omnologos says:

    note this can’t be excused on the usual “ignorant journalist” -it’s the scientist writing

  4. A quick Google search brought me to the entire article, here: http://span.state.gov/mar-apr2010/eng/19_23_GO_Ice_Age.html

    With this gem worth noting:

    “Not only will the temperate regions become cooler, but we may also expect an increase in “anomalously” cold years—years with late-spring frosts or early-autumn frosts—and a general increase in storminess.”

    Cold causes more storms?? How could that be?/sarc

  5. Justa Joe says:

    The animals must be dying of fatigue due to having to migrate back and forth with each impending change of .10 degree in the global average temperature.

  6. wizzum says:

    People look at you like you are lying straight to their face when you tell them that 30-40 years ago science was convinced there would be another ice age on the way.
    Science was right, we are in an INTER glacial period right now and the earth will warm until it cools; No question of that.

  7. Andy Oz says:

    25 cm of Global Warming falls on Australian alps with much more to come.
    Children who don’t know what snow looks like are confused.
    Their teachers told them that snow was extinct!
    http://ski.com.au/m/reports/index.html

  8. redc1c4 says:

    a link to the location of the archive would be handy for annoying the true believers who nay-say this site…

    citing Columbia University would be a thumb in the eye of so many Leftards and lemmings. %-)

  9. omanuel says:

    Thanks, Steven, for reminding these scaremongers of their earlier warnings.

    Oliver K. Manuel

  10. Traitor In Chief says:

    Where are the kooks with the allegations of fake documents/cherry picking? Heretic! Unbeliever!

    The really funny thing is that they blamed the cooling on Fossil Fuels also…

    Also…. apparently, there’s another mammoth oil shale deposit…. beneath the land of fruits and nuts. (Central Valley, CA) and it is reportedly TWICE the size of the Bakken. Occidental Petroleum, (run by former CEO Armand Hammer- Gore’s secret Big Oil bosom buddy and avowed Communist), has moved in to buy up the center of the state.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130528-monterey-shale-california-fracking/

    • gofer says:

      In the past decade or so, there were 345,052 foundation grants for the environment, totaling $20,826,664,000 (that’s twenty billion dollars and change), according to an authoritative database.n the past decade or so, there were 345,052 foundation grants for the environment, totaling $20,826,664,000 (that’s twenty billion dollars and change), according to an authoritative database.

      Number 1 is the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with its $341 million award to ClimateWorks Foundation and others.

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-jumbo-foundation-grants-fund-big-green/article/2534312

  11. tom0mason says:

    Given the rampant dishonesty in governments would they, could they, tell us (the ordinary Jane and Joe of this world) the truth without causing major panic, and a collapse of economic and governing systems?
    Maybe this climate scam is perpetrated on us to cover two requirements –
    1. Keep us subjugated and on message.
    2. Keep the required fuels and resources under lock and key –
    – for when the big freeze happens.

    I’m not paranoid just ask THEM!

  12. Jack Dale says:

    I gathered you missed this. You found one of seven.

    Sceptics like to say that climate scientists who support the consensus of man-made global warming are like the boy who cried wolf.

    They say that in the 1970s, climate scientists claimed that we were headed for a mini ice-age. They then point out that this never happened, and so question the strength of current predictions that the globe will be between 2 and 5 °C warmer by 2100.

    Fair enough. But was there ever a consensus over global cooling in the 1970s?

    A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
    You can also read summaries on RealClimate and on ScienceNews, though if you’re interested in how the myth of global cooling was turned on its head, it is well worth reading the researchers’ own version, which is freely available (as a PDF).

    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

    • Curt says:

      Jack – Take some time to track down the papers that the report cited in the article you linked tallies. You will find that their accounting is, how should I say, creative…

      One paper that simply asserted that not all aerosols had a cooling effect was put in the warming category, when there was absolutely nothing in the paper that could reasonably be counted as such. Virtually every paper I checked was improperly counted.

      And furthermore, this article did NOT count them as “predicting” warming, and deep in the article they warned against treating their tallies as such. A paper studying the possible warming effects of CO2 did not necessarily predict warming. The press accounts such as the one you link get this horribly wrong.

    • Chewer says:

      Do you understand the repercussions the scientific community would receive from the populace if the New Scientist & the many other scientific outlets actually laid out the facts regarding the state of the cryosphere, planetary conditions and the climatological history of the planet as we understand it along with the guesswork produced by the 4-dozen models and how they’ve performed over the past 23 years?
      Egad man, if they don’t keep up the bullshit, immediate bad news will arrive on their doorsteps.
      They have a large stake in hoping for catastrophic warming and they are delaying an inevitable collapse of AGW as long as they possibly can, seeing that their reputations and livelihoods fully depend upon it.

    • gator69 says:

      “they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral.”

      WHAT!!! That’s not 97%! Their fudgemetrics are slipping. 😆

      They still haven’t figured out that we can hear the cookie jar rattling.

    • Jimbo says:

      Jack, it wasn’t just about the published peer reviewed papers, it was about the media scare stories and statements from scientists in the media. I know, I was around.

      • gator69 says:

        So was I, and I remember the panic of some Alpine dwellers who had read these reports, and were convinced that their villages would be reduced to rubble. What’s old is new again. Teach your children well. 😉

      • Kramer says:

        Nice video. It was strange to see Schneider in the 1970s.

        One thing I caught from the video is, it says we could melt the ice caps with black soot. Well, I just read the other day about black soot in the Arctic and I recall a picture that showed black soot pooling at the bottom of a small pool of water in the Arctic ice. My point is, some of the Arctic melting could be from black soot.

    • rw says:

      1. This article is referring to the well-known Petersen et al article in BAMS. Why not refer to the article directly?
      2. The reporter says, “When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage…” This simply isn’t true; there was a good deal of discussion in the scientific literature (I’ve read it), and there were volumes written, some by scientists such as Bryson, some by people working closely with scientistis such as Nigel Calder.
      3. The reporter says that “the cooling trend was the result of fine aerosol pollution”. I’ve never heard this before. Admittedly, I put aside my study of the literature some time ago because of other things that came up, but I don’t recall anything like this. In addition, the cooling seems to have been most consistent in the northern hemisphere (there’s a Nature paper, 1975, that found that the 40’s and 50’s cooling didn’t happen in New Zealand, for example and there was some dispute regarding the northern Pacific Ocean), and there were differences in the US east and west of the Rockies – can this be explained by aerosols?

      • omnologos says:

        Peterson, Connolly et al demonstrated that there was a scientific consensus about ongoing global cooling between 1972 and 1975. They mentioned it very clearly in their paper. However, they are still not honest enough to admit it.

        This is an important point. When somebody says a snowflake is white, and you tell them the snowflake is white, but for whatever reason they refuse themselves to admit that the snowflake is white, you know (and they know) that they are despicable, fake, lying people unworthy of being properly spelled.

  13. gofer says:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/?page=all

    Cold yet?

    NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

    “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.”

    The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

    The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”

    If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

  14. Kramer says:

    Here’s another ice-age link that I didn’t see on this site (sorry if I missed it):

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WCNCAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xqoMAAAAIBAJ&pg=7055,111029&dq=rasool&hl=en

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s