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:

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"

(this photo is itself a hoax! See comments below)


Cover of Time December 1979- "The Cooling of America"

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.

"that 96% of climatologists

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


Good data, but doesn't change the fact that many scientists disagree with the conclusions.

"Here are 50 NASA scientists that don't believe in global warming

I can also show you a few politicians that are not corrupt and paid for...it does not mean that the vast majority of them are as clean.

"List of more scientists who reject global warming


From wikipeida, over 90% of scientists believe in climate change caused by human action.


This article quotes 95 and 97%: "More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."

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

and there are many scientist that dont buy into global warming

even the ones that supposedly concluded it existed- Google "Climategate"

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

That's not true. Only politicians and corporations

are trying to convince anyone that global warming is a hoax, and they've largely succeeded because the media do not do their job in educating people about such matters.

Global warming's a reality. Trust scientists before talking heads. The talking heads have far, far more of a money interest than the scientists ever could.

As someone else said, climategate was entirely overblown. The usage of the word "trick" in a statistics sense was completely contorted. There were three or four independent investigations and they all cleared the scientists involved of any wrong doing.

Very unimpressed

One singular study. Which

One singular study. Which also says that while temperatures are up over a 100 year span, they are not up over a 12 year span.

By the way, you clearly did not read the article. From it:

"So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels."

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

climategate is WAY overblown.

climategate is WAY overblown. Nitpicking the terminology the scientists use and playing gotcha politics.

Right-wing commentators took comments criticizing data collection methods and detailing the use of a noted scientific analytical method and turned it into a conspiracy to "create" global warming and proof of data fraud.

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

climategate is a political reaction BUT

its a political reaction to a politicized set of scientific findings concluding global warming comes from carbon.

Remember the scientific studies that showed smoking didnt cause cancer?

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

That was actual bad

That was actual bad science.

What people are saying about climategate is that there was bad science when there wasn't any evidence of bad science.

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

yeah there are some scientists like that

most do believe in climate change though. just disagree on the cause. you know "human activities" and all that.

Actually I'm pretty sure 100%

Actually I'm pretty sure 100% of the people believe in 'climate change'. The climate was, is, and always will be changing.... no matter what.

only a minority of scientists

believe it's natural 'climate change'...I'm not saying majority = truth. just stating facts

There was once 30-75 MILLION Buffalo roaming the US Plains

Well, that must have been an environmental DISASTER!

Think of the global warming impact of millions of buffalo belching methane gas into the atmosphere.

Global warming proponents should rejoice that the US had the sense to exterminate most of them for the "greater good"

We need to make a distinction between people who have concern for the environment and global warming kooks and profiteers.

Link re the number of buffalo

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

I've always been a little

I've always been a little surprised that people who are so vigilant on the matter of global warming are a little less alarmist when it comes to other environmental causes.

Massive deforestation, polluting of water, overfishing, etc. these are factually occuring phenomenon.

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

Exactly-first off carbon is not even a pollutant

the "science" is what impact carbon has on the environment. As you say hard to prove its impact when some many things could contribute to global warming or cooling (sun flares, change in the the tilt of the earth's axis, normal ebbs and flows etc. )

There are however tons of examples of environmental damage that are clear violations of property rights.
When my neighbor eats bacon and eggs thereby "using more carbon" than if he chewed on a twig, I really don't care because he is not harming me and I am not convinced he is causing the planet to melt.

But if that same neighbor decided to burn all his vinyl record albums in his backyard and the toxic smoke came into my back yard I would complain.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com


I'm going to leave the science to the scientists. Only good science rids us of bad science so who am I add input? It's not based on political implications. Any actual scientist will tell you that science is not 100% certainty on any issue, scientific theories and scientific laws, etc. It's based on our current understanding of the world around us, at least that's my interpretation.


This is quite interesting. I was watching the nbc news special report re: hurricane sandy the other night and I must have heard the term "global warming" at least 15 times while watching. It made me sick to hear the propaganda pushing and I had to turn it off. I have no doubt that there are climate change issues and it is something we should be paying attention to, but I don't buy the hype. The Earth is hundreds of millions of years old and science has determined that global warming is fact on a couple of hundred years worth of data? I don't think so.....I don't see how that is in any way scientific.

If it was easy, everyone would do it.....
-My Dad

Imagine There's No Global Warming

Climate change occurs. It is

Climate change occurs. It is a natural phenomena. Some winters are warmer, some are colder. It has nothing to do with business or "C02 emissions" (even if it did, any real scientist would easily see that our government is the biggest emitter of C02 on the planet thanks to our foreign policy and army of bureaucrats and contractors). This is nothing more than creating a boogey man to justify a larger and more intrusive government. In our time, the politicians and bureaucrats have become much more savvy. They have created enemies out of tactics, terrorism, so they can wage never ending war. And they have created global crises out of any fluctuation in temperature at all, climate change, so even if it gets colder, it falls within their "science".

Remember Jefferson's words. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. If we want freedom, we must study and understand all issues, so that we may defend it from any and all encroachments.

Well said.

And the Gulf is repairing itself...not supporting the oil spills, etc., but I find it amazing how well Creation can fix itself so beautifully and yet these accidents are used to control prices, etc.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

The gulf isn't "repairing itself"

I mean in Geologic time there will of course be a point after which the what, where and when of the deepwater horizon disaster is indiscernible, but we're talking millions of years. The everglades won't "repair themselves"--they're pretty fucked. There was an obama administration report claiming 90% of the oil magically disappeared. This was of course total bullshit. It was sickening listening to oil-friendly pundits like Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher, etc., for once repeating the Obama administration's claims unquestioningly. In any other case they'd question absolutely everything that administration could claim--even things that don't matter--but when they have to run to the defense of remorseless polluters like BP, they couldn't fall in line fast enough.. in that case they'll even find bedfellows with Obama, who also loves BP..

If we were talking about just oil having been spilled, that's one thing, but BP ditched millions of gallons of neurotoxic and carcinogenic Corexit in the gulf to cover their own asses. Now areas of the gulf floor have a toxic death sludge of corexit/oil and dead marine life several feet thick.

The fact that anyone downvoted this

makes me wonder if any of that several hundred million BP's been spending on PR cleanup has made its way to the daily paul in the form of false consensus propaganda accounts.

Absolutely. Whether you

Absolutely. Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, we can all agree when it is time for the Earth to end, there is no step man could possibly take to stop it.

ecorob's picture

archie bunker on the cover?

...you can't make this stuff up!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Looks like him

All in the family was in full swing in 1973

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Chemistry 101

I am not a supporter of 'global warming' because that is based on fear. However, there is an excessive chemical reaction occurring and it does cause climate changes. Focus on the numbers. The hydrocarbon economy has caused those numbers to swift in the last 100 years. It would be best to switch over to a cleaner energy strategy that can still maintain the life style we have gotten use to: Thorium Energy.

Ron Paul 2012; Rand Paul 2016

We don't need a government

We don't need a government energy policy. We need to let the market work. The best form of energy will then shine through.

How about drilling in the arctic?

Should we "let the market work" the entire arctic into an oily mess? Petrol companies don't give a fuck who suffers from their pollution.
The purpose of the government is in part to protect you and me from sociopathic corporations.

Can you please elaborate on

Can you please elaborate on how an oil company will profit by spilling a bunch of oil? Oil companies make more profits when they spill less oil, and instead turn that oil into refined gasoline which they then sell to folks with cars, and other motorized equipment.

What country owns the arctic? Do we really want to get into a land dispute with Russia, Norway, or Canada? Is it even likely there is any oil in the arctic? If there was, it seems logical that there would already be companies down there drilling.

And besides, if there is any pollution to private property, there is the legal system. You can sue them for damages. That is how it should work. Any regulations will only protect the "Sociopathic Corporations" you detest from the greatest check on evil businesses: competition.

Sorry for the late reply

"Can you please elaborate on how an oil company will profit by spilling a bunch of oil"

It's not a matter of profiting so much as they don't really need to care. When a spill happens, the government has the energy company's back: the supreme court would gladly whittle down their liability (as the USSC did after the exxon-valdez spill, bring charges of $10 billion down to less than a billion), the coast guard will help beat off bad press from getting near (as they did for the BP spill, threatening any journalist who comes within several thousand feet of cleanup operations with several years in jail or $40,000+ fines), and the secretary of the interior will even parrot bogus numbers on the extent of the damage FOR the oil company (as Ken Salazar did the day of the spill).

The oil company can even botch halting the spill several times over for months, dump two million gallons of neurotoxic carcinogenic chemicals in the ocean (corexit) and thumb their nose at the EPA when commanded to stop, and "lose" tens of thousands of claimants' info by keeping it on a single laptop that is then lost.

BP did all of the above, and the Obama administration played softball while talking tough the whole way! If it were another country that brought this disaster upon our own, it would be an act of war, but since it's a corporation with which Morgan Stanley has massive holdings in the form of derivatives, they are instead sheltered by out government.

FYI, all the oil cleanup tools, be it booms, nets, etc., are actually made from... you guessed it, petroleum. So even if a spill happens, there's profit to be had.

Do you really think oil companies will stop short of, say, trying to drill in the arctic just because the dangers are greater than ever? Please. They can't be arsed to care. They already are preparing to drill.

The legal system does jack shit to protect anyone and you know it. Corporations win. There are still people whose livelihoods were ruined by the gulf spill who haven't seen a penny.

Finally, you're wrong if you think competition will force anyone to play nice. When the bottom line is money, morality goes out the window.