In 1974, they tried to lie to you about a coming ice age. They're at it again.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-s...ogy-sutton.html

[Peikko 1,575]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What!

[Peikko 1,575]

Galileo used as a credible argument as to why scientists would accept funding for the sake of the funding, rather than to advance science?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Galileo used as a credible argument as to why scientists would accept funding for the sake of the funding, rather than to advance science?

Galileo's not the argument.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It doesn't take much digging to learn that the author, Gary Sutton, is lying to his audience.

Sutton points to a book called The Weather Conspiracy, which he says was part of the government's push to get us to believe in a coming ice age.

(source: LibraryThing)

As you might guess from the cover, this was not a government publication, as Sutton would have us believe,¹ nor was it a weighty scientific tract. According to this contemporaneous review written by an actual scientist, The Weather Conspiracy was more of a "pot boiler" which didn't acknowledge that "we just don't know enough to chose [sic] definitely at this stage [1977] whether we are in for warming or cooling—or when."

But wait! Sutton says global cooling wasn't just in popular science accounts:

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

Well, that sure looks like scientists had come down strongly on the side of cooling. But, gosh darn it, Sutton seems to have had some trouble in copying that quote. First, it's a synthesis of two quotes. The first sentence was written in 1974, the second in 1972. Let's look at that 1972 quote as a complete sentence:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now.

Had Sutton included the part about 20,000 years, it wouldn't have seemed quite so alarmist and wouldn't have supported his thesis so well. So he just left it off. Even less supportive of his thesis is the very next sentence:

However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

Well, sh!t, we can't be quoting that. Best to just leave it out. After all, who's going to bother looking it up? No one at Forbes, obviously.

By the way, researching this doesn't take a staff of crack librarians. There's a Wikipedia page with all the links you need.

So, in the end, what do we have? An article with a ridiculous conspiracy theory propped up by selective and dishonest quoting. Presented to us by a publication that can't be bothered to do elementary fact checking. This is the face of climate change denial.

link

[peejay 327]

In 1974, they tried to lie to you about a coming ice age. They're at it again.

I'm old enough to well remember that bogus proclamation.

Only this time some are scheming to shakedown the public for big $$$ through Cap & Trade mandates. If I'm gonna get slammed with government induced cost increases for energy...it had better be proven to be justified and prudent rather than to promote someones' personal pet agenda.

I usually don't get into the Global Warming fistfight threads here on VJ because I'm really not convinced either way. Conserving energy is a noble endeavor. I'm not really sure that hawking Global Warming is the vehicle to unite the public to do it. If Cap & Trade becomes a reality you can safely bet that someone will maneuver themselves to profit handsomely from it. I expect no less from the political culture in DC.

Edited December 8, 2009 by peejay

[mawilson 2,133]

Had Sutton included the part about 20,000 years, it wouldn't have seemed quite so alarmist and wouldn't have supported his thesis so well. So he just left it off.

Doesn't change the fact that 30-40 years ago there was a "scientific consensus" on global cooling,

just like there is now one on global warming.

On January 30, 1961, Walter Sullivan, the New York Times' long time science reporter, described

a week-long meeting of an international group of climate change experts in New York City under

the headline "Scientists Agree World is Colder".

He wrote in part:

"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from

several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting

colder."

"... Their techniques ranged from observations with Earth satellites to such methods as palyology

[analysis of ancient pollens], dendrology [analysis of tree rings], and the deciphering of ancient

oriental scripts."

"These and many other methods have been used to test some of the scores of theories that have

been advanced to explain the ice ages. Such periods of glaciation have not occurred at regular

intervals. Rather they seem to have come in batches lasting a million years or so at intervals

of one or two hundred million years. We are in the midst or at the end of such a batch, which

began roughly 1,000,000 years ago - the Pleistocene."

"The theories most extensively discussed this last week depended upon celestial mechanics,

upon changes in transparency of the atmosphere, upon changes in the sun and upon acyclic

sequence of event centering on the presence or absence of ice in the Arctic Ocean."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Had Sutton included the part about 20,000 years, it wouldn't have seemed quite so alarmist and wouldn't have supported his thesis so well. So he just left it off.

Doesn't change the fact that 30-40 years ago there was a "scientific consensus" on global cooling,

just like there is now one on global warming.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Had Sutton included the part about 20,000 years, it wouldn't have seemed quite so alarmist and wouldn't have supported his thesis so well. So he just left it off.

Doesn't change the fact that 30-40 years ago there was a "scientific consensus" on global cooling,

just like there is now one on global warming.

On January 30, 1961, Walter Sullivan, the New York Times' long time science reporter, described

a week-long meeting of an international group of climate change experts in New York City under

the headline "Scientists Agree World is Colder".

He wrote in part:

"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from

several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting

colder."

"... Their techniques ranged from observations with Earth satellites to such methods as palyology

[analysis of ancient pollens], dendrology [analysis of tree rings], and the deciphering of ancient

oriental scripts."

"These and many other methods have been used to test some of the scores of theories that have

been advanced to explain the ice ages. Such periods of glaciation have not occurred at regular

intervals. Rather they seem to have come in batches lasting a million years or so at intervals

of one or two hundred million years. We are in the midst or at the end of such a batch, which

began roughly 1,000,000 years ago - the Pleistocene."

"The theories most extensively discussed this last week depended upon celestial mechanics,

upon changes in transparency of the atmosphere, upon changes in the sun and upon acyclic

sequence of event centering on the presence or absence of ice in the Arctic Ocean."

1961?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

We will have an ice age. When it will happen is the only question. Only autistic squirrels think the climate shouldn't change.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Just ran across this piece a couple of weeks ago:

Global Warming Brightens the Outlook for British Wine

English winegrowers are benefiting from global warming and their reputation is improving fast. Despite the rain, some British vintners dream of competing with France's Champagne region.

Stuart Smith is a man with a difficult mission: growing grapes and making wine where others are only drinking it. In recent days, he and his pickers in England's northernmost and probably coolest vineyard brought in the last of the harvest. Ryedale, in the county of North Yorkshire, is farther north than Hamburg, and yet, says Smith, "the vintage is good, very good, in fact" --- plump grapes, plenty of sugar and low acidity.

Three years ago Smith planted his vines, most of them cold-resistant varieties from Germany. The 2008 vintage gave him the first 400 bottles of a dry white wine, and even garnered him an award in a wine competition. Smith expects to produce "at least 2,500 bottles" in 2009.

He estimates that within five years his production will have increased to more than 20,000 bottles. Smith is one of the few people who welcome global warming. For his business, he says, the supposedly imminent climate catastrophe is "something of an insurance policy."

The concept of English wine was once as absurd as German bananas. But England's summers have been warmer and drier from year to year. The effects of climate change have been tangible in the British Isles for some time, and oenophile Britons are trying to take advantage of those effects to make wine. The pioneers of the 1980s were practically treated as wine-drunk lunatics, but now the exotic industry is experiencing a veritable boom. Whether in Cornwall in the southwest, in the wild landscape of Wales or near London, there are now 416 winegrowers in the United Kingdom -- the highest number ever. Their vineyards are generally tiny, but they are growing rapidly. In the last five years, the amount of land devoted to winegrowing has increased by more than 50 percent.

Award-Wining Bubbly

Some of the wine being pressed by former sheep farmers tastes awful. But the quality of many of the English wines is remarkable. When the G-20 heads of state rushed to London in April to save the world economy, one of the wines they were served as No. 10 Downing Street was a British bubbly -- a 1998 Nyetimber Blanc de Blanc with a fine bead, produced in Sussex in southern England.

English wines are now achieving respectable results at blind taste tests like the International Wine Challenge, one of the world's biggest wine competitions. They captured 24 medals at this year's event, including a few gold medals. However France, with its 729 medals, is still the undisputed leader.

At England's largest vineyard, only 40 kilometers (25 miles) south of London, long rows of grape vines line the southern slope of the Denbies Wine Estate. A group of vigorous pensioners has just brought in the last grapes at the 107-hectare (264-acre) vineyard, to the great satisfaction of the winery owner. This year also promises to be an excellent year at Denbies. July was too wet, but the weather in the ensuing months was perfect for winegrowing -- warm, but not too hot, allowing the grapes to mature at an optimal rate and gradually develop their aroma. The grapes now in the presses and fermentation tanks will be enough for more than 500,000 bottles of wine: white, rosé, red and, most of all, sparkling wine, produced in accordance with the methods used in the French Champagne region.

Denbies was once a dying farm, with cornfields, hogs and cattle. Adrian White, an entrepreneur who made a fortune with sewage treatment plants, bought the farm in 1984. Two years later, he planted 300,000 vines on a hillside, something that no one had ever tried before in that location. He uncorked his first bottle in 1989. The vineyard's harvest and quality has increased almost every year since then.

Expanding into England

Richard Selley, a professor emeritus of geology at the Imperial College London, was the one who advised White to grow grapes at the time. Selley had found that the chalky soils in southern England are identical to those that promote winegrowing in Champagne. He argued that grape vines should thrive on selected hillsides with southern exposures. Even the ancient Romans had cultivated vines in England, Selley said, at a time when the climate was relatively mild and stable. But the Little Ice Age, near the end of the Middle Ages, put an end to those vineyards. Grapes do not tolerate temperature fluctuations.

Selley's wine prognosis proved to be correct. Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier, the grape varieties grown in France's Champagne region, are all doing surprisingly well in England's new climate. Experts have already confused what the British call "bubbly" with real champagne, which is why top vintners looking for expansion opportunities, like Louis Roederer, have already started looking for land across the English Channel -- where it can be had for a tenth of what it would cost in France.

To be on the safe side, the Champagne vintners should also try searching much farther north. Geologist Selley predicts that as the earth grows warmer, winegrowing could be possible as far north as the Scottish Highlands. He is convinced that even the hillsides surrounding Loch Ness will produce an excellent Riesling by 2080. In fact, southern England could already be too hot for such varieties by then. Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon, on the other hand, would grow as well there as they do in California today -- while drying up in many of France's best winegrowing regions.

Chris White, 33, the son of the owner of the Denbies vineyard, is already preparing for that future. He wants to try growing Sauvignon Blanc, a variety that would normally be unthinkable in England's climate. "They laughed at us 20 years ago, when we planted Pinot Noir," says White. "And now that's our best grape."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

[Danno 1,228]

This fear mongering worked then..... (carter was elected a year later and he congress implemented all types of changes).

The only fall out to this scam was it helped create a generation of sceptics which were indoctrinated in schools all across the country at the time (my school system included).

As the latest scam "global Warming" is crumbling, just imagine the fallout?

[nowhereman 1]

This reminds me of a Lieutenant that I went to my Officer Basic Course with. He refused to believe in evolution & when I mentioned the fact that they have found countless fossils of dinosaurs his entire point of view was based on one case where the fossil was actually a bone from a elephant or something. My point is science is wrong from time to time (scientists are human & make mistakes) but to base your opinion entirely on the evidence that supports your beliefs, while ignoring everything else, is pure ignorance. This goes for the naysayers on both ends of the spectrum.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We will have an ice age. When it will happen is the only question. Only autistic squirrels think the climate shouldn't change.

Only schizoid snakes can't understand the current crisis of human accelerated climate change.