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.

Comment viewing options

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

I 100% believe in climate

I 100% believe in climate change from an combination of human action & nature.... to think that our industrial use of resources with billions of people consuming them at a rapid rate doesn't affect the natural environment is absurd. The difference between most eco-nazis and me is that I believe the best way to solve the issues, which is also attributed to natural cycles far out of human control, is that I am not willing to give up my rights for the "greater good" and believe the solution lies within free market principals.

Just think about how much gas is consumed and burned every day.... of course it has some affect, global warming, ecosystem manipulation, species decimation, all of these things are occurring from human action and natural cycles. The governments policies in regards to energy, oil, industrial hemp, subsidies, ethanol, the corn lobby, all of these aspect contribute to our current situation.

We are driving in cars that are less environmentally friendly than the original T Model Ford, which was produced and ran off hemp. Hemp plastic made from hemp petroleum, hemp fiber for seats, and hemp oil for the tank. It was hemp and steel. Hemp is the most sustainable and profitable crop in the world in the sense it restores minerals and nutrients to soil as oppose to depleting nutrients, like corn. It grows as fast as bamboo under the right conditions, and has more industrial purposes than any other plant.

We should have cars that run off water, hemp, whatever. If the free market were allow to exist and entrepreneurs weren't inhibited through guidelines, regulations, subsidies, and lobbying, we would have a much more sustainable economy. The government favors oil, cotton, and corn. We need to make alternative energies profitable and removing the subsidies from the rest of the energy markets will prove that these can more profitable if done correctly.

I find it impossible to believe that in a day and age of IPADs, manless drones, laser eye surgery, advanced medical equipment, that we cannot find a more efficient way to consume, produce, distribute energy and transportation.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

and of course the sun revolves around the earth

and of course the earth is flat
of course heavier objects fall faster
of course fire was made of Phlogiston
of course the atom is the smallest particle in existence
of course dirty hands had nothing to do with infections-it was "bad air" according to most early 19th century doctors
of course we know every thing for certain....

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

That^ logic

Is used against Climate change denialists...just saying.

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

That logic can be used against any scientist

Who insists that their position,usually the widely held one,is undeniably correct.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

So are you saying that when

So are you saying that when scientists say that the earth revolves around the sun, they may be wrong because scientists (of course, equating the scientists of yesteryear with the organized, procedural science of today) got many things wrong?

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

do you not think human

do you not think human consumption has an impact on the environment?

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Impact of course what the precise impact is

Can't tell especiially if a banking scheme like cap and trade is some how the solution

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Well, i'm with ya there...I

Well, i'm with ya there...I dont support cap and trade. The issue is whether or not we should pursue alternative energies to support our continually growing population and rapidly increasing consumption rate? You don't have to be a scientists to understand that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Mass consumption will impact the environment to a degree. On top of natural cycles the earth goes through over thousands of years, is what I feel people consider" global warming" to be.

I fully believe that we need to open the free market to allow competing energies and modes of transportation to be explored. Sustainability is important in all aspects of life, economically, environmentally, etc.

I find it crazy that people here who have done little to zero research on how industrialization impacts the environment and just it dismiss it as liberal propaganda. The SOLUTIONS proposed by progressives in in fact just that.... but the issues of environmental destruction are huge and I think we need to work to address in the free market, without government picking and choosing who can make the most money off of destroying the environment.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Environmental destruction is obsfucated by global warming

The hysteria around global warming draws attention away from other major environmental issues
Indeed global warming proponents support nuclear energy because it produces no carbon!
I

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

There are major issues why it

There are major issues why it is difficult for a free market to solve this issue.

Not only does it take a TON of capital (we are talking billions upon billions) to fund this research, but it takes years and years of research to do it....it would takes years and years for investors to see a ROI...and this is in an investing environment where a 10-year timetable is considered "exceedingly long-term". Moreover, the companies that specialize in energy cannot justify that kind of timetable to their investors.

If government provides subsidies in exchange for strides in research, this bridge can be gapped.

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

The technology is already

The technology is already there and there is more than enough capital to invest in this right now, oil companies just don't want to because they already have the infrastructure for an oil market in place and are protected by a government. If it were open to the free market, hemp would a viable source. Automobile and oil companies would certainly put in research to try to find the "next big thing." Imagine a car that ran off of water where the only by product is steam, which then evaporates and recycles back into the ecosystem as rain?

Subsidies will only inhibit these markets... just as they do in every case, favor those can spend the most on lobbying. Alternative cleaner forms of energy are already subsidized and comprise less than 3% of our national energy production

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9iWaCMbw60

Watch this video... the technology is based on isolating hydrogen from the H20. Water powered engines is a real thing and the wave of the future, if the free market were to work. This man travels 100 miles on 4 oz of water.

This would be the most sustainable fuel source known to man... imagining filtering the salt from ocean water and recycling it back into the environment via steam?

Its this sort of thinking that will allow us to... not stop using fossil fuels, but dramatically reduce our consumption of them, while providing affordable, alternative choices for consumers.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

"The technology is already

"The technology is already there and there is more than enough capital to invest in this right now, oil companies just don't want to because they already have the infrastructure for an oil market in place and are protected by a government".

If alternative energy was truly so profitable, why would oil companies not want to make that profit? How is the government actively prohibiting research into alternative energy?

"If it were open to the free market, hemp would a viable source."

True

"Automobile and oil companies would certainly put in research to try to find the 'next big thing.'"

They would if it makes sense to them, short-term, to do it. The dollars required are staggering, and timelines are long. Heck, it took over 30 years just for an economical hybrid vehicle. People have been wanting to get off the monopoloy of fossil fuels for ages. Government subsidies of the 70s and 80s are paying off now.

"Subsidies will only inhibit these markets... just as they do in every case, favor those can spend the most on lobbying."

Subsidies can, if they go towards the wrong ideas. Properly giving subsidies to companies that achieve results, and not companies that have the right lobbyists, will further the end goal. Is it a coincidence that much of the sustainable energy developments have taken place in China and Japan, and not the USA? China and Japan heavily subsidize it with the intention of the sustainable energy sector of the economy being based in their country, thereby boosting GDP and putting money into the pockets of their civilians. Companies can take that subsidy money to appease investors and owners, and then, instead of working on a 30-year goal of sustainable energy, can work on a modest goal of fulfilling your government grant.

"Alternative cleaner forms of energy are already subsidized and comprise less than 3% of our national energy production"

When they work, they work well. Look at how subsidies for an electric car helped speed up its development. Hell, getting the subsidies to allow the car to be sold; letting people see the benefits of it....that is a strong positive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9iWaCMbw60

"Watch this video... the technology is based on isolating hydrogen from the H20. Water powered engines is a real thing and the wave of the future, if the free market were to work. This man travels 100 miles on 4 oz of water. "

Is the government actively surpressing this idea? I know that California subsidizes purchases of these kinds of vehicles, and Japan outright subsidizes water-powered engines.

Heck, California straight-up mandated that GM produce the EV1, which the oil companies quickly killed.

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

"If alternative energy was

"If alternative energy was truly so profitable, why would oil companies not want to make that profit? How is the government actively prohibiting research into alternative energy?"

Alternative energy as a whole is a mixed bag.... some will be more profitable than others. But ALL of them generate good PR and serve a strong marketing ploy. 'Fossil Fuel' is a dirty word to many people, even if they understand that we need it. I think the ones that make the most sense will, naturally, be explored. Its happening, it just takes time... Oil companies are happy the way things are because they are subsidized and essentially have a monopoly. Once consumer demand grows and grows, they will adapt to meet that demand,

"They would if it makes sense to them, short-term, to do it. The dollars required are staggering, and timelines are long. Heck, it took over 30 years just for an economical hybrid vehicle. People have been wanting to get off the monopoly of fossil fuels for ages. Government subsidies of the 70s and 80s are paying off now."

Subsidies never work because they artificially prop up (A) vs (B). Without subsidies and lobbying influence, we would've had an electric car along time ago when they first came out, in the 1940's, and buddha knows what else, by now. Up and running. We'd have fill up stations for hemp ethanol, hydrogen, bio diesel, who knows...

A bit of an oxymoron, but on the topic, investment costs are not staggering compared to their profit margin... or compared to what BP had to deal on a financial level, let alone a PR level. Have you seen who killed the electric car? Sums up that argument very well and is a great watch, i highly recommend it.

"Is the government actively surpressing this idea? I know that California subsidizes purchases of these kinds of vehicles, and Japan outright subsidizes water-powered engines."

Yes, they make wayyyy more money through lobbying, both oil and corn-based ethanol, than allowing new competition to come in. Even if its an unintended, indirect consequence, still suppressing. If something as incredible as running cars off of hydrogen, which would revolutionize transportation, makes so much sense, isn't already happening on a mass scale.... you have to ask, why has this not happened yet? Because when subsidies and lobbying are involved, the government chooses what we as a public use.

The chevy volt is a great example, it costs the tax payers hundreds of thousands PER car, they are in and out of production because nobody bought them, and they weren't even the most fuel efficient.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/chevy-volt-costs-taxpa...

All in all, free people pursuing their self interest will always be more efficient, effective, and profitable then when the government dictates whats right for us to drive and consume

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

and of course Bloomberg knows everything

as does Obama

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Bloomberg jumps on climate change train

The worst hurricane to hit NY was in the 1930's BEFORE the supposed increase in carbon
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-presid...

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

I was definitely in the camp

I was definitely in the camp of "global warming alarmist" until I watched a talk by Richard Lindzen. From there I started researching the history of the movement which lead me the the Club of Rome and various other writings(recommend reading First Global Revolution put out by them - they also wrote the well known Limits to Growth).

I'll link the latest talk I can find given by Lindzen to show what I'm talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRAzbfqydoY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-vIhTNqKCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69kmPGDh1Gs

As for the Club of Rome stuff here's a good starting point:

http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises

only difference is

scientists overwhelmingly rejected this hypothesis. the hype was caused by people who didn't properly understand the ice age cycles. so it's not really fair to compare this to climate change

Im a chemistry major

Science is not a popularity contest, and every Climate "study" completed by grant-sucking "researchers" have been overwhelmingly proved to be tampered with and changed. Subjective Peer-review is non existent.

Um,

Subjective peer-review is non existent? i'm sure it's out there...though I'd trust objective peer-review over that. :)
Here's a link for ya to check out http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=168
Not sure if these are subjective, as most (good) science is objective, that is using the scientific method.

i never implied it was a

i never implied it was a popularity contest. as i said in an earlier comment, scientists rejected this nonsense in that era. Is that so hard to admit?

Correct, you have to look behind the motive and sponsor

of any scientific study
Best example was the tobacco companies' sponsored studies that showed cigarettes did not cause cancer.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Maybe, and is it not also possible that today's scientists don't

understand the impact of carbon on the environment?

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

it's possible, yes

research for yourself though. But majority of scientists would disagree. my point is that scientists didn't buy into this nonsense in the 70s.

That is a fair point. I am

That is a fair point.

I am also tired of politicians, on any scientific issue, not arguing the issue on scientific merit.

Personally, if a politician/individual says, "well, this is what the vast majority of scientists believe, so I am going to go ahead and pursue policy relevant to that information", I am OK with that.

But when the waters are more muddied, or when you are taking the stance that is against 95% of scientists, you are obligated to argue the issue on a scientific basis.

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

It is a dilemma for politicians

Politicians who take the view that a "majority of scientists believe" a certain way, so therefore I'll make my policy on those grounds, is self serving or dangerous.

Too many politicians operate on that basis when making economic decisions as the majority of economists are Keynesian and advocate public spending.

The question a good politician (an oxymoron) must ask is-not just does the science or economics make sense but is there a political agenda behind it?

Clearly Keynesians and politicians were made for each other as that branch of economics advocates public spending and deficits which plays squarely to the politician's strengths.

Global warming is also supported by special interests who have a financial interest in the matter in passing cap and trade.

So its may be easy to get a majority of paid scientists or economists to come to a conclusion, but that doesnt mean its the right one or that its a sensible way of making decisions.

The majority is often wrong.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

"Politicians who take the

"Politicians who take the view that a "majority of scientists believe" a certain way, so therefore I'll make my policy on those grounds, is self serving or dangerous."

As I said, not just a majority. For example, 99% of scientists and 96% of climatoligists believe in evolution and global warming, respectively. That is more than a majority.

Now even then, I'd encourage an individual or politician to look at the data and make his own conclusions, but I understand it isn't easy.

"Too many politicians operate on that basis when making economic decisions as the majority of economists are Keynesian and advocate public spending."

The difference is that while perhaps the majority of economists are Keynesians, there are many who are not. Moreover, while Austrian economists unfortunately do not do this, classical economists and monetarists and others have data, modeling, and facts that support their view. They allow a factual comparisons of the different economic ideas.

"Clearly Keynesians and politicians were made for each other as that branch of economics advocates public spending and deficits which plays squarely to the politician's strengths"

Politicians are seeing what they want to see. Keynesians also advocates for increasing taxes and cutting spending (more balanced budgets) during an economic boom. Yet politicians have largely disregarded this. Ron Paul too interprets Keynesiansism as spend high, tax low at all times, though this is false.

"Global warming is also supported by special interests who have a financial interest in the matter in passing cap and trade."

Like who? After all, the people in this country who have a vested interest AGAINST cap and trade are much more powerful and have much more money.

"So its may be easy to get a majority of paid scientists or economists to come to a conclusion, but that doesnt mean its the right one or that its a sensible way of making decisions."

It is hardly easy, especially amongst academics, who are much less influenced by special interests.

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

You are correct re politicians and Keynes

Politicians only see the part they like :-)

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Your statement is NOT TRUE

"99% of scientists and 96% of climatoligists believe in evolution and global warming, respectively. That is more than a majority."
100% not true

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Science in not a numbers game BUT the statement.

that 96% of climatologists believe in global warming is not true. Indeed the data shows its not true!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Globa...

Here are 50 NASA scientists that don't believe in global warming
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/50-NASA-Scientists-Against-Glo...

List of more scientists who reject global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com