34 votes

FLASHBACK: Global Cooling -1970's Environmental Hysteria

Back in the 1970's "science" was firm-the earth was undergoing climate change.

The world was definitely getting colder, growing seasons were getting shorter, the cost of heating was getting more expensive- in short we were doomed.

Indeed, according to Newsweek:

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Sounds like a crazed Al Gore in reverse.

Seems to me it was all designed to get us to stop using oil, which was projected to run out by the 1990's, lest we freeze to death as this hapless gent on the cover of Time in 1973- "The Big Freeze"

Here are some links to articles in Newsweek and Time from the 1970's including some interesting cover stories and images, warning us of the dangers of GLOBAL COOLING.

Time Article June 1974 "Another Ice Age?" Blurb.

The Cooling World In Newsweek April 28, 1975 Full article:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

This article talks about solutions like covering the polar caps with black soot to melt them!

************************

Cover of Time April 1977

"The Coming Ice Age-51 Things You Can Do to Make A Difference"

http://thecynicaleconomist.com/2009/12/07/the-fiction-of-cli...
(this photo is itself a hoax! See comments below)

*************************

Cover of Time December 1979- "The Cooling of America"
http://www.tias.com/11804/PictPage/3923778011.html

Now the argument goes, stop using oil lest we fry to death.

Powerful interests hype the carbon based global warming hoax so they can institute a multi-trillion dollar carbon credit trading scheme.

Focusing on an organic substance like carbon and hyping it so EVERYONE has to think about their "carbon" footprint is a great control mechanism.

99.9% of us don't do massive dumping of toxic chemicals into the environment. BUT by making us the guilty parties for using carbon, it takes the spot light off the real polluters.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
deacon's picture

ww2 planes found in greenland

260 ft below the ice !!!
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-fou...

that's 260 ft below the ice,now does this sound like global warming?
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

ignorance and stupidity

If the authors of this article, and those who believe it had a triple digit IQ then the first thing that they would realize is that ALL the sources cited are popular magazines. Not sure about you, but if I want accurate science, I do not read NEwsweek.

If the authors and believers were not lazy, they would take a few minutes to do their own research and would soon discover that few if any scientists knowledgeabel about climate were making claims for global cooling. In fact, even back then, actual climate scientists were predicting continued warming.

stupid STUPID STUPID!!!

Another strike against Gary Johnson

He believes in man made global warming and wants to continue the crack down on coal power plants. Funny, the ice cores show that a temperature rise always precedes a rise in CO2 by hundreds of years. No proof that the trace gas CO2 causes significant warming.

Another strike FOR Gary Johnson


It is just simply a fact that the polar ice caps have are melting. Photographs show much of the ice shelves in Greenland now melted away.

To deny the temperature shift is to deny photographic evidence. The intensity of storms and hurricanes have also been effected in recent years (Katrina, etc.).

The only question is what to do about it. Moving towards renewable energy just simply makes sense. It also is a better deal for consumers, as it dimishes the monopoly power of the Halliburtons, the Exxon/Mobiles, the Chevrons, etc.

Finally, clean power is better than dirty power. Who wants smog and pollution? There is no value in that.


Nope.

Unfortunately the public in general is uneducated on the subject. Our planet has gone through cycles of warming and cooling forever. Carbon dioxide levels have been so high in periods of the past that earth would be inhospitable to humans. It is not uncommon for film makers to film annual melting of ice and present it to others as if the waters do not freeze again. I care about the environment and do not want to pollute it. But the truth is, natural gas is the best shot we have as Americans. 'Green energy' is definitely important and should be developed but it has many downfalls. Solar and wind are available when the least amount of energy is being pulled from the grid. We do not have efficient enough ways to store that energy for later use. Not to mention how much energy it takes to build wind turbines, the slow rate of energy it gives in return, and the constant maintenance it requires to keep them functioning.

Electric cars are even more of a joke because most the car is made of plastic and the batteries are made of rare earth minerals mined in China. We all know the condition or their environmental regulations. Then the cars are shipped overseas where we charge them off the grid which is primarily sourced by burning coal. It is such a joke people with these cars think that they are helping the environment. Maybe locally, but globally they are causing even more damage.

I am all about energy efficient cars and like the idea of hybrid engines. But we must utilize natural gas. Cars can run on compressed natural gas and have much cleaner emissions. That should be the new vehicle, the hybrid cng. North America could be nearly energy independent if we were to transition to natural gas on a large scale. The problem is it would require public support and the MSM has done its job of misinforming the country. Oil companies are flaring (burning off) gas all day long across the country because there is such an excess and it is not profitable. This must change. Drillers literally abandon multi million dollar wells because they produce gas with no oil. If we were to make this transition it would mean more American jobs and bringing money to rural areas. We need to utilize the abundant clean energy source that was provided; this is a subject that must be investigated.

My thoughts.

proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.

Wrong! South Pole Ice Shelf is as big as ever recorded

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic...

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/forget-the-melting-arctic...

Many believe this is due to the precession of the earth axis.
aka "precession of the equinoxes" as well.

Man made? anthropogenic?

do a little homework please . .

you are radically wrong

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/New_Mexic...

"Governor Johnson advocates for a free market approach to energy and and a complete removal of government from the energy sector of the economy. This includes ending subsidies to ethanol and other alternative energy markets as well as special incentives to oil, gas and other established forms of energy.

With respect to global warming, Governor Johnson has stated at a campaign event in 2010 that even if man made global-warming was a given, the effects are grossly exaggerated and the amount of money being spent is misguided. In a later 2011 video on Our America Initiative, Governor Johnson stated that he opposed cap-and-trade policies "as they are currently formulated," but did not elaborate on any specific plan.

In other speeches, Governor Johnson has advocated for environmental stewardship more in line with the Libertarian party platform. This includes acknowledging the rights of property owners to be free from pollution from outside sources.

These views were echoed in a March 2012 interview with a Libertarian party leader. He noted in that interview that there was no need to regulate carbon emissions because individual customers were already seeking cleaner energy and the industry was reacting to that desire. He notes that as part of his budget plan, all government bureaucracies, including the EPA would have a 43% reduction in funding. He noted that the EPA would be reduced to fighting true polluters, such as large companies that are too large for private property owners to fight."

Please don't insult 30+ year RP supporters with falsehoods.

You are radically stupid

In celebration of your vast ignorance I will create a new topic for this so everyone can see how stupid you are . . Happy election douchebag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhvlxE3KST0 21:05

Question to GJ from reporter: "Do you believe in Global Warming?"

Gary Johnson answers: "I accept that it's man caused . . we are demanding less carbon emission, we want less carbon in the air . . For coal to be competitive they're going to have to scrub their coal more that's something the coal industry is going to have to do, we are opting as consumers to have the cleanest energy we can have. We'll find an alternative to oil that will stop us from using it.

Sounds like Gary is drinking the Global warming koolaid.

Oh name calling, just like a true commie.

That is a complete misquote! Infowars interview @ 21:00 GJ states "I accept that it is happening? I accept that it is man-made? I'M OPPOSED TO CAP & TRADE. I THINK IT WOULD DEVESTATING TO THE ECONOMY. I think the best indicator of good environment is good economy. We as consumers are demanding less carbon emissions (TRUE?). We're getting less carbon emissions (TRUE?). We're getting more conservation which you and I are all engaged in. So moving forward uh, look, good economy, good environment, don't enact Cap & Trade, it would be a whole lot of money raised with no benefit whatsoever to the environment." UNQUOTE!!! There's nothing I despise more than a deceptive communist punk!
The next part of your supposed quote is from the follow up question!
Which was "Now how is the public demanding, (um, uh) minimal emissions? I think I heard you say a second ago,,,the people are demanding it, how so?"
And by the way "scrub your coal" refers to clean burning coal processing, which if you didn't know is more environmentally friendly than natural gas!
You're not radically Ron Paul, you're radically RED AND YELLOW!

I'm still laughing at you

How did your boy Gary do? Less than 1 percent. Ha Ha. You Gary Johnson trolls always sucked and still do.

Love the hypocrisy, complaining about being called a name while name calling. Ha ha. You are a piece of something, that's for sure.

He gets some of his money

from oil companies. Tower Energy and EOG resources.

Jill what former republican doesn't?

He was a Rep. Gov., of course he still gets donations from all sorts of corporations. Are you a communist?

Hell no

comrade!

To be perfectly fair

it's not very reasonable to compare this hypothesis with the current science on climate change. Scientists rejected this in the 70s (as a previous commenter stated). It was a media sensationalized junk science theory.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

And to be perfectly fair

Isn't it possible that scientists will reject media sensationalized global warming in ten years as "junk science"?

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Anything is possible, I

Anything is possible, I guess. But it isn't likely.

Just because there is debate and a change of consensus on some issues does not mean that every issue is subject to the same!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I'm NOT a scientist

... but you don't have to be to recognize that "scientists" can't even predict the weather correctly for tomorrow. Why would I believe they will be right anytime after that?

I think that is a very poor

I think that is a very poor analogy.

For example, let us say that you are a smoker. Can I tell you with a very high confidence how that habit will affect you on a given day? No. Maybe some days, when you need to calm down, you'll be happy you are a smorker.

But I can make general statements about your quality of life many years down the line. That you would very likely be better off not smoking, than smoking.

That is the more accurate analogy. Day-to-day temperature fluctuations are very high, but overtime, these flucuations tend to average out and give a clear signal.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

My apologies

for not conveying I was being a bit flippant. While I believe we all should do everything we can to protect our environment, stop the pollution and replace that which we've used as best we can, I am offended by the politicians in particular who try to insist this is what is happening and we're to blame. It's just a prelude for them to justify (in their minds) why they have to impose yet another tax on all of us! The scientists are human. Some say global warming. Some say an ice age is coming. Some make mistakes. Some have been reported as confessing to lying about the numbers. Who really knows? When the reports are followed up with manipulating and controlling us, our money, our homes, etc., I get suspicious and credibility is lost! P.S. I'm not a smoker.

USA schools do not

provide skills to read and judge correctly.

For example, most Americans, after reading "this year has the record temperature for the past 25 years", would NOT conclude that for the past 24 years it was cooler than before.

I read it-not bad

Except for two points
Proving that the carbon caused the damage
And
Quantifying damages
This solution seems to impose automatic fines for operating
It's a nice thoughtful try but failed attempt to impose a property rights solution to a hypothetical problem

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Would there be contributory damages

Payable by the person complaining if he drove a car or exceeded his carbon foot print
The biggest issue is quantifying damages if any by carbon offenders and where the damages fall and who can claim them
Seems like any one could claim harm for imaginary damages

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Gore = Climate Change= Goebbels

"An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar and many awards. The film debut was the same year another documentary had its debut, "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772153/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

You can also find "America: Freedom to Fascism" here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/links

"Climate Change" is the new buzzword in trying to reference "Global Warming". Said enough, in a Goebbels-listic style of propaganda, many Americans use the this new term, "Climate Change"...

I lived in Northern California all my life. I am an environmentalist. Hell I'm a country boy, how could I not be an environmentalist. The Lake Shasta region has been going through some strange environmental changes. None related to weather. Not Climate Change, but hazardous pollution either mistakenly done by progress or a purposely engineered by the selected few who may profit from it. Who really knows? On Saturday, March 14, 2009 the article "Chemtrails Polluting Shasta Water?" came out: http://sonomanewstoday.blogspot.com/2009/03/chemtrails-pollu...
Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" T.V. program followed up on these reports. Is it true? I have no idea...

What I do know is this: This passing October and like every October it has snowed in the Sierra's. I cannot remember a fall season when it has not, and I'm over forty.
Second, "Climate Change", well yeah dummies the climate is different pretty much day to day and even hour to hour. Can you find a place on Earth where the temp or weather does not change? So use the term "Global Warming" and don't be Joseph Goebbels. I can have respect for those who argue Global Warming; but once the "CC bomb" is dropped, I am dealing with a brainwashed Nazi; and at that point, there is no use in discussing Astrophysics, Precision of the Equinoxes, Carbon Dioxide breathing plants, etc., etc... I have not meet a legitimate individual with experience and letters in a scientific field that can argue that Carbon is bad for planet Earth and at the same time justify the Al Gore Carbon Credit scandal.
Oh you have not heard of Carbon Credits? Maybe you should?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
Plus: http://www.carboncredits.com/aboutcc.html "The Carbon Credits Trust is comprised of a team of professionals working in areas as diverse as education, information technology, climate research, business development, carbon markets, carbon offsets, carbon credit project origination, clean and renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction." hmmm, I have yet to meet a CCNA that can calculate the distance to nearest M class planet or describe the portions of the ionosphere, even though defining a subnet is their own child's play. But there's Wikileaks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8794389...

And reading the comments here, so many seem to be saying that Man-Bear-Pig definitely deserves support from the liberty movement? http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/02/al-gores-incredibly-sh...

I realize I have just typed out a seemingly endless comment, but do you come to the Daily Paul to support Liberty and the Republic? Or do you support Al Gore and the 1% that serves as his bank roll. Read Carl Sagan or at least watch Cosmos. He awoke many to the science of science. And if you have seen "An Inconvenient Truth", maybe it is time you watch Aaron Russo's "American: Freedom to Fascism". Then maybe you'll understand, that the only science "that is in", is the science of deception... And why the Oscar is just a trophy...

Please vote Gary Johnson and turn the tide towards Liberty.

Great comment

Pollution & banker funded global warming politicians and hoaxsters are the problem not carbon
Yes freedom to fascism is recommended

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Has anyone seen the weather channel documentary on the

long island hurricane that happened back in fall of 20s or 30s? 135mph sustained winds all the way up the Northeast Coast.

Climate Change is a fallacy, and of course the central planners (Gore, Obama, Bloomberg) are clinging to whatever they can. Their shear ignorance of meteorology or just plain deceptiveness is disturbing. This isnt even a "late season" hurricane; hurricane season lasts until November 30th! The only reason this was different than any other seasonal Nor'Easter is because of the VERY COLD (A bit counter-intuitive, eh?) air from Canada that came in with a Cold Front.

Thanks

for pointing this out