The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today

A compilation of news articles on the global cooling scare of the 1970′s

pollution_sacrifice_DemocracyDoes the bullet point list for solutions to global cooling at right look familiar? It reads almost like some of the manifestos we get from warmists today, including the suspension of Democracy as the article in the Owosso Newspaper clearly demonstrates. Thanks to Poptech for the compilation.

During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause.

Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. This media hype was found in newspapers, magazines, books and on television;

News articles*:
1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎)
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972‎)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974‎)
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974‎)
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ‎December 5, 1974‎)
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975‎)
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975‎)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ‎January 17, 1978‎)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper.

And from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

ScreenHunter_86 Feb. 24 04.50

ScreenHunter_89 Feb. 24 04.56

Source: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf

While a silent majority of the scientific community may have been more skeptical, you ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider;

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. – Life of Reason, George Santayana

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Global cooling and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

183 Responses to The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today

  1. Pull My Finger says:

    Obvioulsy we need to pollute more, that will cool the earth off.

  2. Mr. Africa says:

    awesome post! thanks so much!

  3. ciphertext says:

    [trimmed at writer's request]

  4. cipherstream says:

    Thank you for posting this. I can remember the “global cooling” scare from when I was a child in grade school. My, how the pendulum has swung (cold to hot). It seems folly to me that we would believe ourselves so confident (arrogant?) in our belief that our understanding of climate science is complete to a degree such that we can make claims about the imminence of climate catastrophe. It seems we have not learned the lessons of our history.

    I suspect there are other, more veiled reasons for the such proclamations, but that is for another thread perhaps?

  5. Eric Worrall says:

    Dont forget this gem from the past:-

    The outstanding generahzations of my world tour are what may be summed up as the “six overs”; these “six overs” are, in the genetic order of cause and effect

    Over-destruction of natural resources, now actually world-wide;

    Over-mechanization, in the substitution of the machine for animal and human labor, rapidly becoming world-wide;

    Over-construction of warehouses, ships, railroads, wharves and other means of trans- port, replacing primitive transportation;

    Over-production both of the food and of the mechanical wants of mankind, chiefly during the post-war speculative period;

    Over-confidence in future demand and supply, resulting in the too rapid extension of natural resources both in food and in mechanical equipment;

    Over-population beyond the land areas, or the capacity of the natural and scientific resources of
    the world, with consequent permanent unemployment of the least fitted.

    A decade of progress in Eugenics, papers from the 1932 International Eugenics Congress.

    http://ia700402.us.archive.org/2/items/decadeofprogress00inte/decadeofprogress00inte.pdf

    Same tired complaints, recycled time and again, for the eternal “crisis which is our fault”.

  6. SandyInLimousin says:

    Having been told by many of the (young) faithful that there was no new iceage scare in the 70s this is a wonderful posting.

    Thanks to all

  7. MarkW says:

    It’s amazing how the solutions to global cooling are almost identical to the solutions for global warming.

  8. The ‘solutions’ always remain the same even though the scare has evolved to the complete opposite claim of what it once was. This is basically a give away that the motivations and goals of these people are political, not scientific. It’s called “…therefore, socialism.” It’s getting too hot, therefore, socialism. It’s getting too cold, therefore, socialism. There are too many people, therefore, socialism. There are too few people, therefore, socialism. Funny, how no matter what the problem is, the solution always seems to be to give a select group of people, with no discernible expertise in any particular subject, more and more of our money and freedom.

  9. James Ard says:

    No doubt brought to us by the same likely suspects who are currently running the warming scam. These guys never give up.

  10. Richard111 says:

    Brilliant work. Thank you.

    I shall advise any warmists I meet that clearing up atmospheric pollution in the 1970s to prevent a coming ice age is directly responsible for our present global warming and I have a lovely list of citations. Thank you.

  11. Jimbo says:

    Now let’s have some Fire and Ice. Here we have a small compilation of global warming and global cooling scares since 1895 reported by the media. These alarms run in cycles, just like the climate.

    Fire and Ice Published 2010
    http://www.mrc.org/node/30586

  12. John Whitman says:

    Authoritarians for hire. We do not work for individualists, only for collectivists.

    Just contact any of the IPCC’s Directorates or get a referral from anyone with an alias email account at the US EPA.

    John

  13. Otter says:

    I would very much like any and ALL pro-AGW commenters who come by here, to explain how all of the above evidence is ‘meaningless,’ ‘didn’t happen,’ ‘no real scientists involved.’

    Please include my name in your comment when you do, it will make it easier for me to search it out.

  14. MattS says:

    MattS says:

    Oops, some text [got] picked up as HTML tags, corrected below
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 1, 2013 at 10:33 am

    ciphertext,

    ” Did the pendulum swing that far? Or have we gotten to a point where we are so smug in our belief that our understanding of climate has reached a point such that we can declare the imminence of catastrophe with such precision and surety?”

    No and No. What this article demonstrates it that it has NEVER been about what the climate is really doing, it has ALWAYS been about using [scary story] to control the world. The only thing that ever changes is [scary story].

  15. philjourdan says:

    Thank you for the research! It will come in handy.

  16. PaulH says:

    There sure were a lot of experts convinced that their conclusions were absolutely correct and that we had better act before it’s too late. The more things change…

  17. Luther Wu says:

    A few years ago, the Lefty sites were claiming that we didn’t really remember the cooling claims of the 70′s because just a couple of nuts made the claims and they weren’t widely known, i.e. the cooling meme didn’t really exist.
    I’d show some Lefties this article, but I’d only make ‘em mad and they’d turn the air blue making Anthony’s ears burn… while denying this list of articles is real.

  18. anotherfred says:

    It always comes down to the same thing: “Due to ‘X’ you have to give me more money and power over your life.”

  19. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    What is so funny is that the articles are being recycled concept for concept with cooling replaced by warming. The parallels indicate that there is an in-built human penchant (in Western cultures, anyway) to blame anything that happens on ‘us’. ‘It is all our fault!’ ‘OMG think about the children!’

    It is interesting to me that other cultures have a different mechanism for self-blame, or the blaming of those all around in an effort to generate a socially agreeable need for compensatory behaviour.

    The list of articles is amazing for their lack of breadth of vision and re-parrotting without checking the alarmism against the historic record (at that time far less contaminated by the sticky fingers of GISS). Alas, how news repeats itself!

  20. Bob says:

    I remember discussing the coming ice age with a member of the meterology faculty in ’74. He was telling us how fast the new northern glaciation would happen. Scary stuff. He got a bit upset when we started calculating how fast we would have to run to stay ahead of the northern state’s glacier. I’ve been a bit skeptical about climate change and humanity’s sins ever since.

  21. Mark Bofill says:

    :> Listen to you guys generating all this counterfactual thinking and conspiracy ideation. Obviously, it was global wierding that was misunderstood to be global cooling that gave rise to what was once thought to be global warming but is now known conclusively to be extreme weather, until we see what to label it next after it happens.
    /sarc

  22. be cause says:

    So our University of East Anglia were warning of a ice age .. 09.11 1972 and now ???

  23. Jeff L says:

    Since the claim was pollution was the cause of cooling do we need to polite more to offset our CO2 warming ??? Seems logical enough . /sarc off

    Seriously, has anyone looked at what % of 80s-90s warming might be due to less pollution? If pollution was the cause of cooling & we cleaned it, might the result be warming ???
    The irony is killing me … Or roasting me.
    The law of unintended consequences in full effect.

  24. Otter says:

    Luther Wu~ Please DO contact those lefties. I’m down with a major case of SADS, and I could really use the entertainment of the Mindless.

  25. Jimbo says:

    Great video of Schneider. Now here is his 1971 paper predicting another ice age.

    Description/Abstract
    Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971:
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate.

    Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html

    And years later Dr. James Hansen is predicting a runaway Venus style Earth. By the way they used a program written by Dr. James Hansen. Here it is in Hansen’s own words.

    “……What was that program? It was a ‘Mie scattering’ code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols…..”
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/28/nasa-s-james-hansen-claims-he-s-being-swift-boated-critics

  26. Otter says:

    Shoutout to everyone: If anyone knows of any more such links, please post them! This list is great but it can’t even be close to all of them.

  27. David, UK says:

    Yep. The Ice Age. The Russians. Acid Rain. Islam. Global Warming Climate Disruption. If it’s not one bogeyman it’s another. Governments; I despise them for the evil they are.

  28. D.B. Stealey says:

    nuclearcannoli, excellent post.

  29. fearless says:

    Scientists are covering their tracks with today’s AGW alarmism. Looks to me like we’re headed more towards a cooling trend than a warming one. When the new ice age hits, these same alarmists can point back to the 70s cooling scare and say “See??? We were right all along!”

  30. Jeff L says:

    Many good comments on how this compilation destroys the all too common appeal to authority argument currently made by CAGW proponents.
    I hope this article gets some wider circulation so the general public gets a better understanding of the fallacy of the appeal to authority argument. The pro-CAGW supporters seem to be getting pretty vocal lately so this could be very timely

  31. RS says:

    No matter the problem, no matter the question, the answer is ALWAYS a global government with unlimited power to control all aspects of life and commerce.

    Funny that.

  32. McComber Boy says:

    Anthony,
    Typo in the first paragraph. “at the article in the Owosso” looks like it should be “as the article”.

    Thanks for the post.

    pbh

    [Now "the suspension of ... as the article" Mod]

  33. john robertson says:

    The irony, remember the “Teams” response to Wegman?
    Plagiarism.
    The sin of academia.
    Lying, falsifying results and stealing grant money; Not a problem.
    Plagiarism; we get rid of all kinds of academics with, its so powerful in academia that its used to deflect attention from a scathing critique of the stats skills of team IPCC.
    Now much of the alarmist “science” is recycled, word for word from past works.
    Same solution, same causative agent, deferring effect.

    Small wonder the UN wants to control the internet, this tool never forgets.
    Unlike the compulsive liars of the Cult, or do I mean the cause?

  34. [Mods: please delete my 11:07 am above and use this one instead. The blockquotes are better formatted]
    The Intersection of Climate Change and the Clean Air Act
    • 43 ARIZONA STATE L. J. 901(2011).
    Arnold W. Reitze Jr.
    University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
    Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 901, 2011

    Paragraph 2:

    In the United States, CO2 is the chemical responsible for 81.5 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) emissions in 2009. Ninety-eight percent of the CO2 was emitted from fossil fuel combustion, which is 80 percent of the nation’s total GHG emissions. Electric power generation produced 39.91 percent of the CO2 in 2008, and the transportation sector produced 30.15 percent. For this reason, fossil fuel combustion is the focus of stationary source GHG control efforts in the United States.

    For PDF, follow the link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2153842

    The misrepresentations are breathtaking!
    H2O is also a green house gas, a product of hydrocarbon combustion, more powerful than CO2, but is not counted as such. “Ninety-eight percent of the CO2 was emitted from fossil fuel combustion,” like animals and termites aren’t sources of CO2.

    It is a first class paper and summarizes into a few pages (and 345 footnotes!) all history and law about the Clean Air Act and how the EPA is using it for CO2 regulation. A worthy reference to keep handy.

    His concluding paragraph:

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that GHGs are air pollutants under the CAA was not a wise decision, but a good result could flow from the decision if it spurs Congress to adopt an intelligent energy policy that would
    protect both the environment and the economy. Unfortunately, Congress has demonstrated little interest in solving the nation’s pressing problems, which includes addressing climate change and developing a sustainable energy
    policy. So, EPA will continue to use the CAA as the vehicle for developing a national energy policy, primarily by increasing the stringency of stationary source emission control and mandated improvements in mobile source fuel economy. Pollution control requirements may make coal too expensive to burn. This is not the intended role for a pollution control
    statute, nor should EPA become the czar of energy policy. But, the CAA has become the basis for a default energy policy in the United States.

    Bold mine. He may be a good lawyer, but he’s no skeptic.

  35. Brilliant compilation. It shows the same constellation of dark forces of money and control at work these days. Now that “AGW science” is fully in the grip of the aforementioned constellation, the emphasis will shift to the activities of Ball and Monckton in the legal sphere.

  36. Pointman says:

    We’re not actually dealing with a particular scare, just a certain type of anti-human mentality that revels in the certitude of its own ignorance.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/sleeping-with-the-enemy/

    Pointman

  37. Nigel S says:

    “It’s weather Jim, but not as we know it.”

  38. BJ says:

    Looks like someone figured out how to use the “find/replace all” feature and changed “cooling” to “warming”… Does this qualify as plagurism???

  39. Gary Hladik says:

    nuclearcannoli says (March 1, 2013 at 10:25 am): “The ‘solutions’ always remain the same even though the scare has evolved to the complete opposite claim of what it once was.”

    Snake oil salesmen will always be with us.

  40. Mark says:

    I Find it rather ironic that the experts predicted a coming ice age in the 70′s and right on queue, the climate stalls and warms up a bit. Now the experts are predicting unprecedented warming and right on queue, the climate stalls and cools down a bit. Perhaps the experts should tell us the opposite of what they think will happen to actually get it right.

  41. Rob Ricket says:

    Nice work poptech!

  42. Copied from “Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971:
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate.” posted by Jimbo supra:-
    An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K.
    There’s no such unit as ‘degrees Kelvin’. A real scientist would know this.

  43. JDN says:

    May I suggest you look for all politicians in the 80s that said sea levels would rise significantly by 2020 (or in that time frame).

    Also, did they cancel the SST (supersonic transport, the US Concorde project) because of the ice age or because of ozone. I can’t remember.

  44. Latitude says:

    During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age
    ==========
    That is absolutely impossible….
    …for one thing, we now know that “history” didn’t even start until the late ’70s
    for another, no honest scientist would start measuring temp increases at a low point

    SNARK

  45. Manfred says:

    Thank you for a riveting post! A couple of observations spring to mind, that demonstrate ‘consistent’. First, MSM reporting favours ANY alarmism over vapid reporting. Second, Arnold Reitze was perspicacious in the 1970′s.
    His publications are available on the Social Science Network.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=361683#show1618596

    ‘New Source Review: Should it Survive?’ (2004) Environmental Law Reporter, Vol. 34, No. 10673. Arnold Reitze reviews the Clean Air Act’s new source review program and concludes that as applied to existing major emission sources it is uncertain, vague, complex and often ignored. It concludes that it should be replaced with a cap-and-trade program imposed on all industries on either a regional or national basis.

    ‘Electric Power in a Carbon Constrained World’ (2010) Arnold Reitze observes that using existing laws is a poor way to develop an energy policy, and Congress should create a comprehensive energy policy that will reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels in a manner that does not harm the economy, but the pending cap-and-trade bills will not accomplish this goal.

  46. Jimbo says:

    Add these to the list.

    “John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely”
    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873

    “Here are some “global cooling” quotations and comments from an earlier era.”
    http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/the-global-cooling-scare-revisited/

    “A New Treasure Trove Of 1970s “Global Cooling” Articles”
    http://omnologos.com/a-new-treasure-trove-of-1970s-global-cooling-articles/

  47. This is very good stuff and a useful reference. Congratulations on all the research behind it.

    Coincidentally I did a brief response on the global cooling scare last week in response to someone who posted the notorious Connelley article in which he cited material that claimed the scare didnt exist.

    My item may be useful in putting the documentation provided here into an overal scientific context so I have reproduced it below;hope its useful as an addendum to your useful article, sorry for its length.

    —– ——– —
    Response from a warmist posted here;

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/#comment-298268

    “mosomoso, more scientists were predicting warming in the 70s than cooling. See: Who sparked the global cooling myth?”

    My response;

    er…Lamb, Mitchell, Budyko, Ladurie etc etc sparked it. I thought that ‘study’ by Connelley had gone the same way as the hockey stick-into the forgotten cellars of history.

    As Budyko himself says (who seems to have subsequently changed his mind about cooling as did Lamb-as scientists should do when new evidence comes to light) in his 1982 book “The earths climate past and future’ pages 148 ;

    ‘it was generally accepted that a tendancy towards climatic cooling appeared during the last few decades; since the sign of temperature fluctuations changes relatively rarely, the scientists concerned with climatic change almost UNANIMOUSLY (my capitalization) believed that the temperature would continue to decrease in the near future…Lamb 1973 mentioned that more than 20 forecasts of the early 70′s concerning climatic change predicted a cooling trend in the next few decades, but (then) indicated a lack of sufficient scientific grounds for these forecasts and two years later obtained the FIRST (my capitalization) evidence of a possible climatic change towards warming.”
    (The temperature cooling can be seen in the Willett/Mitchell curves of the time)

    Budyko continues;
    ‘in the 1940′s the warming trend was overcome by a cooling trend which intensified in the 1960′s and in the mid 60′s the mean air temperature of the Northern Hemisphere (once again) approached the level of the cold seasons of the late 1910′s .”

    To summarise, here is what seems to have happened; As you know there was a very substantial warming from the 1920′s to 1940′s. This reversed itself. By 1962/3 the dropping temperature made Callendar himself doubt his greenhouse theory. Budyko, Lamb and an almost ‘unanimous’ agreement of climate scientists believed we were heading into a significant cooling phase . Lamb eventually pointed out in 1973 that the cooling was not sufficiently long lived to be a a scientifically meaningful climatic trend of at least 30 years. The widespread scare of cooling changed into a scare of warming as temperatures started to recover.

    Here are a couple of additional links and a quote;
    “The second important group analyzing global temperatures was the British government’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, founded by Lamb in 1971 and now led by Tom Wigley. Help in assembling data and funding came from American scientists and agencies. The British results agreed overall with the NASA group’s findings — the world was getting warmer. In 1982, East Anglia confirmed that the Northern Hemisphere cooling that began in the 1940s had turned around by the early 1970s.
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
    Also see;
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php

    So the 20 year long (very real) cooling scare was most rife during the 1960′s and came to an end in the early 70′s. It is pointless of Connelley to cite selected later studies when the scare had ended, rather than the earlier studies when it was in full swing.”

    ——— end of original post——-
    tonyb

  48. Jack Maloney says:

    Dr. Reitze’s current CV from the University of Utah lists “climate change policy” as an “area of expertise,” and he has published numerous articles on climate change, greenhouse gases, carbon sequestration, etc. The climate alarms may change, hotter or colder, but the “experts” remain the same. :-(

  49. Ray says:

    Our vision of the future died in the 70′s. Before the 70′s, people had ideas of how the future should be. Then these doomsday ideas came by. Unsurprisingly, those were times of personal liberty, sex drugs and rock&roll. I guess some people did not take the changes well and decided to find a way to scare people back in submission, like the Church did before that. But by then the Wrath of God had no more power over the People.
    The list of proposed solutions is all about control of the people but nothing about the change of technologies to make combustion engines more efficient and less polluting. I don’t think they even thought that people could make better technologies. But we did.
    I was never about protecting the people, but more about controlling them.

  50. Bart says:

    cipherstream says:
    March 1, 2013 at 10:17 am

    “I can remember the “global cooling” scare from when I was a child in grade school.”

    I want to be sure to echo this sentiment and bear witness. They scared the pants off of us back then with incessant assurances of the coming Ice Age. Young people are so vulnerable to being influenced by cherry picked source re-writing of history, so for all you babes in the woods, this is the straight dope: Yes, the Global Cooling scare was real. Yes, they assured us that scientists were all in agreement about it. Yes, they proposed the same “solutions” they are proposing now for Global Warming. No, world history did not begin on the day you were born.

    At least this time around, we have a huge paper trail, all captured on the internet, so that nobody can deny that they were serious about Global Warming when the next Global Cooling scare comes around.

  51. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    After a period of rising sun spot maximums with each sucessive cycle until the 60′s, the 70′s cycle was a lot lower. The sun spot maximums then again rose until the 1990′s, then the sun spot maximums began to fall. A perfect fit to global temperatures.

    With rising maximums the oceans store up the heat. As the maximums fall the oceans release the heat thus acting as a damper on the temperatures.

  52. Jimbo says:

    Here are some more for the list.

    ———–
    George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) Letter to the President – 1972
    “The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.”
    http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2009/10/an-important-letter-sent-to-the-president-about-the-danger-of-climate-change/
    ———–

    White House letter to Secretary of Commerce – 1974
    Changes in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.
    http://www.meteohistory.org/2004polling_preprints/docs/abstracts/reeves&etal_abstract.pdf
    ———–

    H/t Washington’s Blog

  53. thelastdemocrat says:

    In the “In Search of…” video, along with Nimoy’s voice, the bitter-wind sound makes the show even more alarming. But listen more closely: the scenes change, but the wind sound is continuous. Done for dramatic effect.

    Mid-clip, the wind sound gets quieter when the woman is interviewed, so you can hear her better.

    Listen more closely: you will also hear the 1970s synthesizer background music.

    Listen more closely: the wind sound is synthesized – this could and can be done by many of the analog synthesizers of the day, by their noise functions. Done for dramatic effect: PANIC!!!

  54. paddylol says:

    Pull My Finger: You are spot on. But remember, Nixon and those damn republicans are responsible of enactment of the Clean Air Act. The air became cleaner and it started to warm up. That is when CO2 became significant. Its odorless, colorless properties rendered it inconsequential during the cold, dirty air days. Now with clean air it is the main culprit responsible for warming, mostly because it is an invisible “pollutant.”

  55. john robertson says:

    @ pointman 11:23.
    Nice comment,very flowing explanation for the chemistry challenged, I have on occasion told the alarmed they should remove all carbon from their own lives, before they return to lecturing me.
    Their ignorance is legion.
    I wonder what would happen if the local paper ran a spread of just these headlines and a question; How gullible are you?

  56. stacase says:

    I remember Global Cooling (Nuclear Winter) and Global Warming stories running in the press at the same time. Late ’80s or early ’90s as I recall.

  57. trafamadore says:

    “The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today”

    Except today there is a supporting scientific base.

    REPLY: and there was then too, note NCAR for example – Anthony

  58. Rigid Controls on the marketing of new products which will be required to prove a minimum pollution potential

    Remarkably similar to the World Future Council’s


    The “Top Runner” policy mandating ongoing resource-saving product improvements by banning the least efficient products, to become legally binding. This system compares the energy efficiency of all appliances or machines of a particular kind (for example refrigerators, laptops or vehicles). The appliance that uses the least energy is then defined as a standard for the entire sector.
    Appliances that exceed this energy use threshold may not be sold after a certain date.

    The WFC also believe that
    Global common goods to be placed in trusts, coordinated by a revived UN Trusteeship Council, setting sustainable usage caps and distributing “commons income” usage fees as a basic citizen’s income.

    A certain John Gummer, who will be familiar to British readers, has been a policy making Council Member for the WFC during 2012, despite never declaring such in his Register of Interests in Parliament.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/john-gummer-and-the-world-future-council/

  59. Jimbo says:

    I can attest to the scare. I was a kid in the UK and in school our Environmental Studies teacher often reminded us of a looming ice age. We sometimes talked about it in the playground.

    As for Warmists who say there was no scare I say it’s like people who never went to Vietnam telling people that no one got shot. :-)

    Here is the Jekyll and Hyde New York Times which has been blowing hot and cold over the weather for one and a half CENTURIES! Oh, the humanity.

    “150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times”
    http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

    Get ready for their next offering:
    “The Earth is cooling. Scientists are agreed [again] that we could be heading towards another ice age……………..”

  60. thelastdemocrat says:

    A Global-Warming Cultist provides an answer to the question:
    “Question: Weren’t scientists all predicting global cooling in the 1970′s?”

    http://climatechangesme.com/?p=105

  61. philjourdan says:

    @ Bart says: March 1, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    One thing I find amusing is the use of children in their scare tactics. While I was not a child in the 70s (chronologically), my siblings were (half of them). When the scare started, they were excited! Why? They figured more snow days which meant more days out of school.

    In other words, children are not easily scared – until a parent or authority figure tells them they must be scared. Since the Cooling of the 70s was at best a miscalculation, and at worst a hoax, I consider the scaring of children with false calamities to be akin to child abuse. Now as it was then.

    It is apparent that those who seek power over everyone do not care about anyone but the amassing of power. Least of all the “children” which they pretend to be in favor of.

  62. Very often the folk wisdom captured in proverbs is more accurate then we may like to believe.
    plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same) I was more then skeptical of the cooling stuff then just as I am about AGW. Both movements are examples of faith overpowering reason.

  63. Oldjim says:

    A question – who is plagiarising who – This http://www.populartechnology.net/ is a dead ringer for this article and is dated one day earlier

  64. starzmom says:

    A few years ago I ran across a book by Lowell Pointe, titled “Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age”, published in about 1974. It struck me at the time that all the language was the same as today–just substitute warming for cooling. It was an easy read–not overly technical, but lots of great(?) ideas for preventing the next ice age, such as a dam across the Bering Strait, to keep the cold water up in the Arctic. The times may change but there is always a crisis.

  65. BezorgdeBurger says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/#comment-1236065

    David (UK), islam is a real problem no government scare. Maybe you try to fools us Here?

  66. TonyG says:

    ignore – following comments

  67. Anthony Watts says:

    @oldjim Poptech invited me to repost it here and a link is given with his name at the top. Consider reading before bloviation of accusation. – Anthony

  68. policycritic says:

    This is the start of a serious compilation that you should peg on your homepage. A straight html list that people could add to (with moderation). Maybe a graphic frame on the right called Global Cooling History with a link to a place under Resources?

    I remember being told in school in 1971 that the upper half of the northern states and all of Canada would be under 6 Ft of ice by 2001. Scared the hell out of me. Then.

    Thank you, Poptech.

  69. Oldjim says:

    I wasn’t accusing anyone – I was asking a semi serious question – just because I missed the link is no need to be so unkind

  70. Gunga Din says:

    nuclearcannoli says:
    March 1, 2013 at 10:25 am
    The ‘solutions’ always remain the same even though the scare has evolved to the complete opposite claim of what it once was. This is basically a give away that the motivations and goals of these people are political, not scientific. It’s called “…therefore, socialism.” It’s getting too hot, therefore, socialism. It’s getting too cold, therefore, socialism. There are too many people, therefore, socialism. There are too few people, therefore, socialism. Funny, how no matter what the problem is, the solution always seems to be to give a select group of people, with no discernible expertise in any particular subject, more and more of our money and freedom.

    =========================================================
    The lever keeps changing but what they want to tip over remains the same.

    And what those of us (and those who believe them) who do have ethics and morals need to remember is that to “them”, the end justifies the means.
    Don’t expect them to “play fair”.

  71. Oldjim says:

    To add – I had never heard the abbreviation Poptech before which is the reason I missed it

  72. Two diametrically opposed problems, both mythical, are proposed to be solved by the self-same solution. Does this make sense? No, but it brings in the funding that we want, so that’s quite OK. Give us your money and give us all power over your life.

  73. A couple of years ago I was informed by some youngsters that the stories about the Ice Age scare was an invention of Evil Oil. When I told them I lived through it and remembered it clearly, and also remembered how we laughed when the story suddenly changed to Global Warming, they told me my memory was faulty and that it never happened at all. I couldn’t believe just how cock-sure of themseves these youngsters were, how unprepared to listen, and how arrogant to dismiss my life experience simply because it didn’t fit their narrative. It also made me wonder why it was so important for them to believe that it never happened; as if they believe that Science has to be correct about everything all the time, rather than being an iterative process.

    So: thank you. This is a very useful resource. A whole decade’s worth of references should shut up all but the most rabid 70′s Ice Age Scare Denier :)

    [Mods, if my use of the D-word (which was intended as humour) is deemed inappropriate, please snip.]

  74. BruceC says:

    @ Oldjim;

    See here for PopTechs ‘treatment’ at SkepSci:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-censorship-of-poptech.html

  75. Luther Wu says:

    Derek Sorensen says:
    March 1, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    “I couldn’t believe just how cock-sure of themseves these youngsters were, how unprepared to listen, and how arrogant to dismiss my life experience simply because it didn’t fit their narrative. ”
    ____________________
    Yep. They certainly fit the profile.
    It would not shut them up if you showed them this thread.
    I call them the “Oh, but…” people; able to rationalize anything to support their reality.

  76. Sadly, the Time article from 1974 is now paywalled.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    It does still appear to be on archive.org, here (had to go back to 2011 to get it):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110101083132/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    page 2 here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110108155030/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html

    I remember it being longer than two pages, but perhaps not. Anyway, I’m going to save it this time, before it gets removed …

  77. pkatt says:

    Do you honestly think the people who are pushing agenda do not know there is a roughly 30 yr cycle?.. The downfall of that is that about the time everyone starts to believe… it changes:) Unfortunately we have let pseudo science agenda get away with stupid things like ozone hole scares and acid rain.. now they are on a rampage, time to take back our lives and freedoms from the greebly ones.

  78. A Crooks says:

    I agree with Jimbo at 10:30 that the climate scare stories are cyclic.
    They are so cyclic, It looks like a 60 year cycle – 30 years cooling 30 years warming, they can be used as a predictor. Note also that in the past, there actually is a long lag time between when the temperatures start to turn and when the climate stories start to change. On that basis, I predict that a cycle of ice age scare stories is due – and wouldn’t you know it – the press is actually just starting to turn.

  79. DirkH says:

    Schneider was such a master propagandist, and now he’s dead, and warmism is in shambles.
    Honesty or Efficiency….

  80. DirkH says:

    David, UK says:
    March 1, 2013 at 10:57 am
    “Yep. The Ice Age. The Russians. Acid Rain. Islam. Global Warming Climate Disruption. If it’s not one bogeyman it’s another. Governments; I despise them for the evil they are.”
    BezorgdeBurger says:
    March 1, 2013 at 1:20 pm
    “David (UK), islam is a real problem no government scare. Maybe you try to fools us Here?”

    I think David is right. While Islam is a real problem it’s mostly a problem for its followers. (just like Soviet collectivism was mostly a problem for its followers, only secondarily for the West (which created it in the first place, see Carol Quigley and/or Anthony Sutton))

  81. DirkH says:

    A Crooks says:
    March 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    “On that basis, I predict that a cycle of ice age scare stories is due – and wouldn’t you know it – the press is actually just starting to turn.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised at all if a top warmist “scientist” would switch to become an Ice Age scare prophet; much like Schneider switched in the 70ies – they had no problems blaming CO2 for the ice age threat, and later for the warming threat.
    It is easy for climatists to postulate any kind of weird shit:
    “n short, the theory is that during interglacial periods, over thousands of years, the earth’s soils get depleted of minerals, the plants become less robust and weaker at absorbing carbon dioxide and so carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere. It causes more water in the equatorial belt to evaporate and move to the poles where it accumulates as snow. This snow causes the ice caps to advance and a new 100,000 year glacial period begins.”
    Stopping The Coming Ice Age by Larry Ephron & Andy Caffrey – ca. 1988 (!)

  82. andy says:

    Can you also compile the warming stories from the 1920s and 30s please. To get a better picture of the overall warming-cooling news cycle.

  83. Theo Goodwin says:

    climatereason says:
    March 1, 2013 at 11:54 am

    ‘So the 20 year long (very real) cooling scare was most rife during the 1960′s and came to an end in the early 70′s. It is pointless of Connelley to cite selected later studies when the scare had ended, rather than the earlier studies when it was in full swing.”’

    Not quite sure what you mean. The scare extended into ’78 or so and was embraced by first rate scientists at first rate universities.

    Something you might want to research is the attempt to create a new scare based on several theories of Nuclear Winter following a nuclear war. It was extremely popular as Reagan’s popularity grew. It peaked and disappeared in the early Eighties.

  84. Jimbo says:

    Oh noes! Get ready for it’s what global warming looks like. Is there anything this trace gas can’t do?

    1 March, 2013
    “Tackling northern Japan’s record snow”
    One of the houses has completely disappeared under the snow. It is so deep I can simply walk up the snow bank on to the roof.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21626040

  85. Theo Goodwin says:

    philjourdan says:
    March 1, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Very well said. The Left’s scare stories directed at children have been effective and just might be their greatest sin in the CAGW fiasco. I cannot forgive them.

  86. D.B. Stealey says:

    andy,

    This is probably what you’re looking for.

    And this video from around 1980 is pretty well done. Spock narrates the ‘coming ice age’ scare. Very convincing. But then, we know what happened… nothing.

  87. tonyb says:

    Theo

    Concern was at its greatest in the climate science world in the early 1970′s as the 20 year cooling trend reached its lowest point. Temperatures then started to rise again and eventually concern switched to warming. This was pre internet days and science papers, research and especially books, would take some time to reflect the changing beliefs.There were few top climate scientists by the late 70′s who were still promoting cooling, other perhaps than those who didnt like to admit they were wrong. Im not sure who would fall into that category although to be fair a 20 year cooling trend followed byonly a five year warming trend -at the time- might still be considered as a threat

    Yes, whatever happened to nuclear winters?
    tonyb

  88. Jimbo says:

    In one of my earlier comments I quoted a letter to the President of the USA from a scientist named Kukla. I thought his name seemed familiar as I vaguely recall that he has stated in the 1970s that ice ages start with global warming!!!! And I was right. I think he has had too much rum, but here is what he has to say:

    March 28, 2011
    Prepare for new Ice Age now says top paleoclimatologist

    “He explains that glaciation during an Ice Age comes from the icecaps. The poles only account for about 14 percent of the entire Earth’s surface. The Ice Age begins at the poles and ends at the poles and is fed by water vapor moving to the extreme north and south from the tropics.

    What happened then was that the shifting sun warmed the tropics and cooled the Arctic and Antarctic. Because the tropics are so much larger than the poles, the area-weighted global mean temperature was increasing. But also increasing was the temperature difference between the oceans and the poles, the basic condition of polar ice growth. Believe it or not, the last glacial started with ‘global warming!’”
    http://www.helium.com/items/2125333-prepare-for-new-ice-age-now-says-top-paleoclimatologist
    http://www.helium.com/items/2125333-prepare-for-new-ice-age-now-says-top-paleoclimatologist?page=2

    I vaguely recall that he was one of those who stated in the 1970s about an impending ice age. Too tired to check right now.
    http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/an_unrepentant_prognosticator.php

  89. Eve says:

    Not only do I remember the proposed new ice age coming, I remember we lost spray-on antiperspirant over it. I really liked spray-on antiperspirant. I was pissed. I agree with the above commenter on the evil that governments do. I think like unions, their time is done

  90. Poptech says:

    Yes, whatever happened to nuclear winters?

    Dr. Singer embarrassed Carl Sagan on national TV in 1991 when Sagan flaunted nuclear winter theory as an outcome of the Kuwait Oil Fires, this obviously never happened and I’ve never heard it brought up seriously again.

  91. Caleb says:

    Excellent. It is very important to show that the proposed “answers” are the same, no matter what the alarm is.

    In the face of such duplicity, even the average Joe pauses to scratch his jaw and, even if he says nothing, he is doing a bit of private thinking.

    You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    The Alarmists have a limited number of tricks. Most of them follow a dogma, and fear original ideas. Because they can’t think up anything new, they just get repetitive. Eventually the simple concept of, “Fool me once; shame on you, but fool me twice; shame on me,” starts to kick in.

    We have to keep hammering with the truth of what they said, the truth of what they’ve done, and the truth of how their predictions have been incorrect, and thus have been scientifically invalidated.

    The danger is that Alarmists will be cornered rats, and do really foul and desperate deeds, rather than be humble and confess they were mistaken.

    In China the “Great Leap Forward” was a total disaster, however it lead to the “Cultural Revolution,” where all those who were old and wise enough to point out the disaster were attacked.

    Teachers who have blindly taught “Global Warming” as a fact, yet who are starting to become aware that, like the “Great Leap Forward,” it is a disaster, should be aware what happened to teachers in China during the “Cultural Revolution.”

    It didn’t matter at all that teachers had supported the government and urged students to support the “Great Leap Forward.” They were deemed “the problem” and were beaten up by their students, (who formed the “Red Guard,”) and were purged to such a degree that, when China attempted to recover from the spasm of insanity called the “Cultural Revolution,” and reestablish it’s devastated schools in order to deal with the problem of growing illiteracy, no teachers remained to teach. China had to start over with a few of the better students, who had survived the madness, acting as full-fledged teachers.

    We are living in dangerous times. Even if you are a coward and inclined to back away, you should be afraid of the cliff China backed over.

    Be brave. Speak truth. Dare to be great.

  92. Justthinkin says:

    As a 12-yr old,June 1st,1970 at 18:34 UTC,the sun was totally hidden from my back yard.The water in the puddle from the recent rain was frozen,solid.I remember stepping on it,and wondering what could have caused that.. The temp,as told me by my Dad,dropped 25 degrees F in 10 minutes.And the sun has no effect on our climate?And yes I did look up at the Sun,but our real scientific teaches back them made sure we had pinhole thingies to view with(sorry,can’t remember name)And the teaches where NOT at school,but with us in our back yards following, watching, explaing,and learning with us.So I guess we where headed for an ice age,if the moon had co-operated.

  93. Poptech says:

    Oldjim says: A question – who is plagiarising who – This http://www.populartechnology.net/ is a dead ringer for this article and is dated one day earlier

    ROFLMAO! Even if he did it would be an honor but Anthony has far more integrity than those who throw around such baseless allegations. Clearly I have his permission to repost this here so the global cooling scare of the 1970s can stop being denied.

  94. Poptech says:

    D.B. Stealey says:

    And this video from around 1980 is pretty well done. Spock narrates the ‘coming ice age’ scare. Very convincing. But then, we know what happened… nothing.

    That is the full episode of – In Search of… “The Coming Ice Age” [1978], where I took the intro clip from in the main article. The show was rerun in the 90s on A&E and The History Channel with slight editing changes to the intro and music so there could be 3 slightly different versions out there but they are all the same exact show from 1978.

  95. Otter says:

    Hello Poptech! Permission to repost your article to Deviantart, if I may!

  96. Rob Ricket says:

    This one is a smoking gun mentioning a 1.5 deg. C. Increase in global temp before the decline started in the 70′s:

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/37739/description/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES

  97. Rob Ricket says:

    Correction, make that a 1.1 deg. C increase.

  98. Martin van Etten says:

    there are indeed a lot of popular media that in the 70’s narrated a coming ice age scare;
    it’s a bit like today while some media and blogs again are talking / dreaming / being afraid of a cooler sun, a new Maunder minimum, that will compensate for global warming and lead to an ice age;
    you could take Wally Broecker as a fine example of a gifted scientist who just did his work back in those 70’s while the popular press people were busy with their coming ice age stories;
    In the article Happy 35th birthday, global warming! Stefan Rahmstorf wrote that on 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?” in the journal Science.
    Here is the link for the realclimate article:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/
    another group that didn’t follow the ice-age craziness are the people of the Club of Rome who in 1972 wrote their report Limits to growth. They explained that industrial growth would lead to exponential growth of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which would lead to warming (and not to an iceage)
    so the lesson is: stick to the scientists and be carefull with popular press and blogs;

  99. During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause.

    Man-made pollution caused some cooling, mostly through aerosol seeded clouds. We don’t have data to say how much. But when we cleaned up the pollution, it warmed. And when we reached the point of no serious atmospheric pollution left to clean up, it stopped warming.

    Surprise, surprise.

  100. kim says:

    I’d like to thank Oldjim for his alertness and urge to communicate. He did say ‘dead ringer’, so I guess he read it. I have made the same mistake, repeatedly. You’d think I’d learn before blogiating.
    ================

  101. rogerknights says:

    policycritic says:
    March 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    This is the start of a serious compilation that you should peg on your homepage. A straight html list that people could add to (with moderation). Maybe a graphic frame on the right called Global Cooling History with a link to a place under Resources?

    I second the motion.

  102. Mike Wryley says:

    Actually, it seems that it’s busy bodies and fascists that never sleep. What is more sobering about the compilation of global cooling propaganda is the realization that the press and MSM have been worthless accomplices to the lie du jour for a lot longer than I realized.

  103. Jeff Alberts says:

    I find it particularly stupid that NCAR was worried about TOO MUCH arctic ice, and are now worried about TOO LITTLE. Do they really expect everything about this planet to be static? What kind of morons are these people??

  104. Jeff Alberts says:

    In the article Happy 35th birthday, global warming! Stefan Rahmstorf wrote that on 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?” in the journal Science.

    And, he got it wrong. We had mild regional warming. Nothing global about it.

  105. Mr Lynn says:

    Cool!

    /Mr Lynn

  106. Poptech says:

    Otter says: Hello Poptech! Permission to repost your article to Deviantart, if I may!

    It should not be necessary to repost the whole thing, just summarize and link to it directly or here to Anthony.

  107. john robertson says:

    @ Jeff Alberts 7:31, indeed, thats twice in my life the media has attempted to stampede us into servitude. Hopefully this time the conditions are right to pay them back in kind.
    Last seen reporting from the spring ice in Hudson Bay, works for me.
    Who pulls the strings of our media?
    Or is group think really that pervasive?
    After this we will abolish political correctness and go back to physically educating bullying fools.
    I notice some of the smarter ones, already fear this internet thingy.

  108. Patrick says:

    “Bart says:

    March 1, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    I want to be sure to echo this sentiment and bear witness.

    cipherstream says:
    March 1, 2013 at 10:17 am

    I can remember the “global cooling” scare from when I was a child in grade school.”

    So can I. But having already have studied the solar system and planetary science as well as avidly watching Patrick Mores’ The Sky at Night when the TV worked and we had power when power workers in the UK were not on strike, I didn’t fall for the scare. Accepted the fact that it was just another cold phase this rock has been through many times before, so I just went out and enjoyed the cold, snow and ice.

  109. Tim Ball says:

    I was pleased to someone mention Ponte’s book “The Cooling”. In the preface Ponte wrote,

    “It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”

    It is standard alarmism that begins with a false premise and then appeals to emotions by threatening the children. It’s a pattern repeated many times since.

    Another influential book, “The Weather Conspiracy”, was produced by journalists who called themselves The Impact Team. It was subtitled “The coming of the New Ice Age.” On the cover it asked an appropriate question, but then essentially ignored it in the book, “Have our weather patterns run amok? Or are they part of a natural and alarming timetable?” They tried to add credibility by adding a gold sticker on the cover advising it, “Includes two CIA Reports.”

    Themes developed by the CIA reports are representative of academic and political thinking of the day. One CIA report was titled, “Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate”. It argues,

    “Trying to provide adequate world food supplies will become a problem of over-riding priority in the years and decades immediately ahead -….Even in the most favorable circumstances predictable, with increased devotion of scarce resources and technical expertise, the outcome will be doubtful; in the event of adverse changes in climate, the outcome can only be grave”

    The UN through the WMO carried out several studies on the impact of cooling on major agricultural regions.

    In the Climate section of the CIA report is this comment.
    “Far more disturbing is the thesis that the weather we call normal is, in fact highly abnormal and unusually felicitous in terms of supporting agricultural output. While still unable to explain how or why climate changes, or to predict the extent and duration of change, a number of climatologists are in agreement that the northern hemisphere, at least, is growing cooler.”

    Geo-engineering was another activity that relates to the global warming alarmism. The Soviets proposed a dam across the Bering Straits to block the outflow of cold arctic water resulting in a warmer North Pacific and by connection around the high middle latitudes. Another proposal suggested large reflectors in geo-stationary orbit and directing solar energy to cold northern cities.

  110. gallopingcamel says:

    “Global Cooling” or “Global Warming” are problems that only governments working together can solve.

    To fix such problems we need “Heroic Projects” that will inspire and consume the best and brightest of our children.

    The great pyramids of Egypt were “Heroic Projects”. In hind site all that effort might have been better employed building roads, aqueducts or schools.

  111. Great post. I’ve bookmarked it.

    What would be great is to have a list of the surviving activists that authored or backed this screed back in the day, cross referenced with what they are saying about AGW (or whatever the current term is). Does anyone doubt that a substantial number are being paid for trotting out their well honed “climate doom” talks?

    I’d love to read and share THAT list!

  112. I didn’t see any headlines in there that read “the polar bears are starving” ’round about 1974 and 1975 – did you?

    If anyone spotted a mention of polar bears starving due to the thick ice (from the cold) in any of those stories, please let me know. Otherwise, I can only assume the polar bear scientists never told anyone until much later.

    I discussed this catastrophic mortality event of polar bears in the eastern Beaufort Sea a couple of weeks ago here:

    http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/21/where-were-the-appeals-to-feed-starving-polar-bears-in-1974/

    Susan

  113. Joe Sumrall says:

    Great post, Anthony. Thanks for the effort.

  114. Goode 'nuff says:

    Lots of volcanic activity in the 60′s and 70′s in the large holocene eruptions list as well as year by year. Probably lots of junk in the stratosphere started building in the late 1950′s.

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

    But don’t tell Willis… shhhhhhh

  115. David Cage says:

    Back when as an young engineer I together with some friends used to fix valve based data logging equipment for some young what would now be called environmentalists looking at the sulphur emissions of power stations. The fears then were more about cooling than warming. At the time this group of us had just learned about Fourier analysis to understand the way waveforms were built up and showed the clearly cyclical nature of the patterns but with no way of even trying to understand why they were that form. We showed even back then they were cyclic but they lost our support for them when instead of listening they dismissed us as the spanner merchants who fixed things after helping to get the evidence that gave rise to power station cleaning.
    This cyclic nature shown up by the Fourier analysis is really clear on the rainfall patterns and can be transferred across to see the underlying temperature patterns where the dominant ripple can easily be removed to see the temperature aberration as it really exists. Sadly the climate scientist at the top are so convinced the science is settled they refuse to even contemplate any explanation outside CO2 based warming and only recruited like minded people to the profession for the last two decades.

  116. PCB UK says:

    Anthony I could not find this piece by Fred Hoyle in your list: He rather fell out of fashion because of his views on continuous creation and a steady state universe.
    http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html

  117. Mindert Eiting says:

    This post and some comments nicely show that the argument goes from the right to the left. We need a global totalitarian rule. In order to attain that goal, all people should comply. People will comply if there is a global danger we can do something about. The latter excludes local enemies and global dangers we cannot do something about. Some remaining candidates are a pandemic and the climate. It does not matter whether the world cools, warms, or both, provided it is dangerous. We need some science for the justification of the danger and that we can influence the climate in the opposite direction.

    Some reasons why the cooling scare of the sixties/seventies did not work fine. (1) The Cold War was considered more dangerous but this divided mankind, (2) the temperature record could not be manipulated enough, (3) there was no additional scare of rising see levels, (4) if carbon dioxide were the human factor, we should have produced more of that stuff, unless science had discovered that it is a coolant, (5) air pollution was already a concern of many decades before and for quite other reasons.

  118. Espen says:

    Martin van Etten: To the extent that it’s yet possible to verify them (the most dire predictions are still in the future), the Club of Rome were wrong. And they keep spewing their totalitarian nonsense: Jørgen Randers, now a professor at a Norwegian business school, just recently argued for birth control and non-democratic measures. He actually thinks China is the model society – somehow completely ignoring that China currently has the worst environmental problems in the world…

  119. mosomoso says:

    Honestly, if you could just make this a sticky for a while…

  120. Ted Davison says:

    And it’s been going on for a century at least…

    8. EVIDENCE UNNECESSARY, HYSTERIA ESSENTIAL
    A century’s worth of screaming headlines from the world’s leading news media illustrates their preference for excitement over accuracy:

    ICE 1895, New York Times
    Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.

    FIRE 1922, Associated Press
    …the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot.

    ICE 1923, Chicago Tribune
    Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.

    FIRE 1930, New York Times
    Alpine glaciers are in full retreat.

    ICE 1974, New York Times
    And unless government officials reacted to the coming [cooling] catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result.

    FIRE 2009, Time Magazine (Entire issue on AGW)
    Be Worried, Be Very Worried.
    Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it.

    It scarcely needs be said that…
    IPCC forecasts small temperature rise by 2100
    … would scarcely make an inside page.

  121. DirkH says:

    Poptech says:
    March 1, 2013 at 8:46 pm
    “Otter says: Hello Poptech! Permission to repost your article to Deviantart, if I may!

    It should not be necessary to repost the whole thing, just summarize and link to it directly or here to Anthony.”

    I recommend duplication. Skeptics are under constant attack; currently Roy Spencer, a few days ago the German EIKE, several times. Warmists are warming up for all out cyber war.

  122. DirkH says:

    Some people mentioned Carl Sagan’s nuclear winter. this link tells about the stupid computer model behind it. Like the modern charlatans, Sagan was adept at letting the computer do the talking, and people believed. (Except for the Russians)
    “In 1982, the so-called TTAPS team (Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan)
    undertook a computational modeling study ”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
    Details about the wrongness of the work:
    http://www.textfiles.com/survival/nkwrmelt.txt

  123. Poptech says:

    Anthony I could not find this piece by Fred Hoyle in your list: He rather fell out of fashion because of his views on continuous creation and a steady state universe.
    http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html

    That is because it is from 1999 and the list is about the 70s.

  124. Poptech says:

    I recommend duplication. Skeptics are under constant attack; currently Roy Spencer, a few days ago the German EIKE, several times. Warmists are warming up for all out cyber war.

    It is already duplicated on three separate sites. Unless WordPress and Google disappear it is not going anywhere anytime soon.

  125. Richard M says:

    Some folks may not be aware but the coder of the first global cooling model was none other that James Hansen.

    Also, if you look at some of the papers from the 1970s you occasionally find a temperature reconstruction. In all cases the temps of the time are equivalent to around 1910. If you look at the current data the 1970s are significantly warmer. Who to believe?

  126. @ richard m / “coder of the first global cooling model was none other that James Hansen”

    this is not completely true; it happens that I am just right now reading an article by Roger Revelle in Scientific American august 1982 Vol 247 nr 2 titled “Carbon Dioxide and World Climate” ( You can find it online)
    on page 35 it reads:
    “Under these conditions they (Hansen and collegues) found that doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxie would raise the global mean surface temperature by 2.8 degrees…”

  127. @ Espen says: / March 2, 2013 at 3:05 am “To the extent that it’s yet possible to verify them (the most dire predictions are still in the future), the Club of Rome were wrong.”

    Espen, I was referring to the prognosed carbondioxideconcentration of the atmosphere;
    in Limits to Growth, figure 17 they predict 380 ppm in the year 2000;

    in reality this concentration was realised a little bit later, in 2005, but to say that they were wrong?

  128. @ Jeff Alberts / March 1, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    Wally Broecker: “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”
    And, he got it wrong. We had mild regional warming. Nothing global about it.

    Alberts,
    I provided both links to show that not everybody was in this ice age scare and that the list popular media promoting the new iceage is just showing one side of the picture;

    if you want to blame popular media, go ahead; but dont forget that you also like to rely on those populars as The mail Online for the 17 years temperature standstill (David Rose) and recently The Australian for the Pachauri item (Graham Lloyd);

  129. Martin van Etten says:

    This is one of the provided links: St Petersburg Times: ( http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=h_0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I3wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3656,4469550 ):

    “If man keeps piping pollution into the atmosphere, he could bring on a new iceage that would cover states like Florida with 400 feet of water, television meteorologist Paul Cato told High Noon Club Yesterday”
    I hope you all see the stupidity in this first line of one of the articles you rely on for your statement about the Coming Ice Age; a new iceage that would cover states like Florida with 400 feet of water
    One lesson should be clear: don’t believe all television meteorologists;

  130. Martin van Etten says:

    Some of the links contain correct information:
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oKspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AOUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3323,8047767
    ‘Dirt will bring New iceage’ is an explanation for the standstill and even decline in the warming tendency! from 1940 – 1980 aprox;
    this could also be a lesson for now; if dirt cooled down the atmosphere from the fourties into the seventies, there is possibly also some kind of explanation for the ‘standstill in temperature since 1998′;

  131. trafamadore says:

    Except today there is a supporting scientific base.

    REPLY: and there was then too, note NCAR for example – Anthony

    one magazine article on NCAR does not a “supporting scientific base” make. Certainly “climate books” don’t count, they are just opinion, but that the motivation for about half of the articles you found. Actually, I am not sure that even 5 to 10 research pubs would even do it. But isn’t that what you need to make a case, that “the scientists said this back then and say this now”?

    Having lived in Buffalo during the big Great Lakes Blizzard of ’77 and two weeks of driving ban (and then moving to Mich the next year to catch the big anniversary storm that shut down Detroit for a week) I am surprised that I never noticed this big cooling scare, I mean, wouldn’t have we been the target for such news? I only remember the Sagen Nuclear Winter, but that was in the 80s.

  132. D.B. Stealey says:

    I see the trolls are out trying to convince people that the global cooling scare wasn’t real. But I survived the ‘coming ice age’, so I know the truth of the matter.

    I got my first job out of the military in 1970, and I clearly recall all the ‘coming ice age’ hype. It was everywhere. But there was no ‘coming global warming’ hype. The media runs in a herd, and they report the same things.

    Sure, by digging through tens of thousands of newspaper accounts you can find a handful of anything. But the fact is that global cooling was the big news, and it lasted about a decade until the planet resumed its natural recovery from the LIA.

    It must be tough on their egos to see Planet Earth debunking the alarmist myths. But that is what’s happening. The CO2 scare lives on grant money and True Belief. But it certainly isn’t science.

  133. kirkmyers says:

    The global warming scare is just that: an attempt by unscrupulous scientists to scare up more research funding. They need to keep the fright fest alive. Their careers depend on it. Plus, they’re desperate to salvage what’s left of their already diminished reputations. Their inflated egos won’t permit them to admit that real-world data has driven a stake through their theory of man-made global warming. Like a child hugging his favorite Teddy Bare, they cling desperately to their cockamamie climate models.

  134. Jeff B. says:

    Clearly the climate is irrelevant to the Alarmists. They are concerned with the manifestos and the human control. And this is the kind of person that a majority elected as the president of the US and Prime Ministers in UK, AUS, etc.

  135. Zeke says:

    It is an utter failure for science and scientists to wish to become managers and micro-managers of other people’s lives. It really is that simple. A true scientist in spirit loves to seek truth, and knows the limitations of his knowledge and understanding.

    Instead all scientists are ridiculous little philosopher-kings, easily pleased with pointy hats and bibs, and seeking to control individual lives.

    And speaking of science, these collectivists and totalitarians also ignore the fact that their systems have been falsified by the destruction and death they have caused in Russia, China, Korea, Cuba, and Socialist Germany. Yet they corrupt youth and abuse reason by claiming it will work this time, because they, the chosen people, the pointy hats with bibs, are here to “change the world.” Therefore, the insistence on collectivism and totalitarianism is an article of pure religious conviction.

  136. lsvalgaard says:

    The clip from an article by the founder of NCAR, Walter Orr Roberts, brought forth some memories. Several joint papers by Walt, John Wilcox and myself, et al., e.g.
    “Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere”
    Wilcox, John M.; Scherrer, Philip H.; Svalgaard, Leif; Roberts, Walter Orr; Olson, Roger H.
    Science, Volume 180, Issue 4082, pp. 185-186, 4/1973, doi:10.1126/science.180.4082.185
    “The solar magnetic sector structure appears to be related to the average area of high positive vorticity centers (low-pressure troughs) observed during winter in the Northern Hemisphere at the 300-millibar level. The average area of high vorticity decreases (low-pressure troughs become less intense) during a few days near the times at which sector boundaries are carried past the earth by the solar wind. The amplitude of the effect is about 10 percent.”
    were widely credited for reviving Sun-Weather-Climate research in the 1970s. Unfortunately, the field died again in the 1980s as the various correlations were [as usual] found to be spurious [although there are still people out there believing in them]. That solar cycle 20 [1965-1976] was a rather small cycle stoked the idea that as the Sun quieted down that would ‘help’ to push the climate into a cold period. [sigh] been there, seen that, didn’t happen, etc.

  137. Sam the First says:

    Meanwhile there has been record snowfall in Japan and Russia recently.

    And the BBC, true to form, reported the snowfall in Japan with breathless alarmism and without a shred of background research, asking “Could this just be a one-off? of could it be due to Global Warming?”

    Luckily the clip is still online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21625702

    Even The Guardian managed to put the snowfalls in Japan and Russia into some kind of context: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/01/japan-record-snowfall-not-deepest-ever

  138. James says:

    Yes, I remember the sensational headlines at that time. However, other than some silly journalists, most thoughtful people noticed a continuing lack of credible evidence for such claims.

  139. Gary Pearse says:

    Jack Maloney says:
    March 1, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    “Dr. Reitze’s current CV from the University of Utah lists “climate change policy” as an “area of expertise,” and he has published numerous articles on climate change, greenhouse gases, carbon sequestration, etc”

    Stephen Rasey says:
    March 1, 2013 at 11:14 am

    “The Intersection of Climate Change and the Clean Air Act
    • 43 ARIZONA STATE L. J. 901(2011).
    Arnold W. Reitze Jr.
    University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
    Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 901, 2011

    Paragraph 2:

    “In the United States, CO2 is the chemical responsible for 81.5 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) emissions in …”

    What isn’t in Dr. Reitz Jr’s CV is that his father Dr Arnold Reitze Sr. was a foaming at the mouth new ice age fear monger::

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jjgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9KsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1371,2354081

    I think a “genealogy” of the cold-hot climate scares would be an entertaining research proj. I note abundant references to the usual intstitutions: NASA, UEA, etc. in the news clippings of the post..

  140. Harry van Loon says:

    Were there no peer reviewed papers on the 1944-1976 cooling/

  141. Jeff Alberts says:

    Martin van Etten says:
    March 2, 2013 at 8:27 am

    Alberts,
    I provided both links to show that not everybody was in this ice age scare and that the list popular media promoting the new iceage is just showing one side of the picture;

    if you want to blame popular media, go ahead; but dont forget that you also like to rely on those populars as The mail Online for the 17 years temperature standstill (David Rose) and recently The Australian for the Pachauri item (Graham Lloyd);

    Well, you spectacularly failed to address my one-line statement. Please show where I have mentioned a “temperature standstill” anywhere. If you’re going to quote me, at least make your reply relevant to what I said.

  142. Martin van Etten says:

    Jeff Alberts,
    you mean this one? “And, he got it wrong. We had mild regional warming. Nothing global about it.”

    I prefer Broecker to yoy ( I disagree)

  143. Martin van Etten says:

    Jeff Alberts, please read; I did’nt say that you promote a standstill, I just gave two examples where this website relays on the popular media while it is condemning them for the ice age scare;

  144. DirkH says:

    Definitive timeline of Global Warming and Global Cooling scares for the past 120 years, with sources, including so reliable ones as the Grand Old Rag itself: (for the leftists)
    http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

    Google ngram viewer:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/a-modest-proposal-to-skeptical-science/#comment-752836
    The Google ngram thingy is a great toy. For fun, I made it look for the terms “Eiszeit” – ice age – and “Erwärmung” – warming – in German books from 1900 to 2008. The two terms show clear correlation – you can exactly see what hype was en vogue at which time.
    http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=erw%C3%A4rmung%2C+eiszeit&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=8&smoothing=3

  145. A. Crowe says:

    What’s with the headline? Are these US newspapers still speculating about global cooling? How silly would that be.

    The list just goes to show you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the newspapers (especially US newspapers) or on the internet!

    On climate matters, better to check what science finds and look at the evidence. If you can’t understand the science, then there are plenty of reputable scientific organisations providing information for the layperson in terms even the average person should be able to understand.

    (Re the headline, must admit I’ve read comments and articles from some non-experts who still say we are on the verge of an ice age – even here on WUWT! There are people in this world who’ll ignore reality and believe just about anything.)

  146. A. Crowe says:

    “We will be forced to sacrifice democracy by the laws that will protect us from further pollution”

    “…could be fatal to our concept of a free society”

    Love the scare campaign back whenever that was written! Could be straight from one of the shock jocks today. Luckily for us, most people had more sense.

    There are still a few drongos around who are so scared of laws to ensure clean water and air that they’d rather live in Beijing (where similar laws are only now starting to be implented)!

  147. Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.
    ~Robert Frost

  148. John@EF says:

    REPLY: and there was then too, note NCAR for example – Anthony
    ================
    Do you you intentionally present your site to be a joke? The overwhelming scientific research, even then, pointed to man made global warming. You present sensationalized media hype, as if it means squat, rather than science based projections? Pathetic.

  149. D.B. Stealey says:

    John@EF,

    There is nothing “overwhelming” about the false claim of catastrophic AGW. That is only your baseless assertion. In fact, it is the alarmist cult that sensationalizes the runaway global warming narrative. There is no runaway global warming, and there never has been. That is merely a desperate alarmist scare tactic, with no scientific evidence to back it up. In fact, the climate over the past century and a half has been a true ‘Goldilocks’ climate, with only minuscule fluctuations of ±0.8ºC. So much for your scary narrative. If it were not for fabricated scare stories, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have much to say.

    And ‘science based’? Who are you trying to fool? The fact remains that there is no measurable, testable evidence of AGW. None. Your false assertions are just that: false.

    So run along now back to Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science, or whatever silly blog you get your anti-science nonsense from. This is the internet’s ‘best science’ site, not some alarmist propaganda blog. We know the difference, and we know a troll when we see one. You’re it.

  150. okie333 says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/us-sea-level-rise_n_2687427.html

    This finding will prove to be key for changing the rhetoric from warming to cooling in the coming years. It links to a paper which shows a slight slowdown and shift southeastward of the Gulf Stream in the last several years. Strangely the article mentions nothing about the mid-latitude cooling effects of a slower Gulf Stream, instead dwelling on the increased sea level it would cause on the East Coast. When the cyclical drop occurs, this slowdown will be hailed as the reason, and the melting of sea ice due to CO2 will inevitably be considered to be the cause. When The Decade After Next (reference intended) begins, alarmism like this will be in full swing.

  151. Kajajuk says:

    anotherfred says:
    March 1, 2013 at 10:40 am
    It always comes down to the same thing: “Due to ‘’ you have to give me more money and power over your life.”

    The Patriot Act-or struts and frets on the stage…

  152. Kajajuk says:

    Otter says:
    March 1, 2013 at 10:34 am

    “I would very much like any and ALL pro-AGW commenters who come by here, to explain how all of the above evidence is ‘meaningless,’ ‘didn’t happen,’ ‘no real scientists involved.’”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well, i am not one nor am i ALL; but the “devil’s advocate” in me shall take up the challenge…

    NONE of the citations are peer review articles and are the media mouths releasing “news” as they still do; speculating dramatically for readership as they still do, mindful of the interests of their owner’s agendas, as they still do…
    At least now there are Climate Journals hehehe.

  153. daveburton says:

    Wonderful collection!

    Also, Here’s the rest of the 1974 Time article:
    http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Time_6-24-1974.html

    Also, here’s another list, from Kirk Myers:
    http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Media_Historical_Quotes.html

    Also, perhaps most delightfully, h/t to Steve Goddard for finding these 1972 warnings from none other than Hubert Lamb, the founder and first Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:
    Sept. 9, 1972 Windsor Star, There’s a New Ice Age Coming!
    Sept. 18, 1972 Charleston, South Carolina News and Courier, Another Worry. Phil Jones now works in the “Hubert Lamb Building” at the UEA.

  154. Gdn says:

    “It struck me at the time that all the language was the same as today–just substitute warming for cooling. ” -starzmom

    and in some cases, the exact same people using that same language.

  155. Poptech says:

    I added an additional 20 news stories and an update with a clip from the 1974 BBC documentary, “The Weather Machine”.

    The ice age is due now anytime” – Professor George Kukla, Columbia University, 1974

  156. Evan Bedford says:

    Andrew Weaver has noted that the only peer reviewed paper which ever postulated cooling was that done by Schneider in 1971. And that was postulating a 4-fold increase in aerosols. I can see why folks might want to blame the MSM for the hype. But why attack the underlying science?

  157. Curt says:

    John@EF says:
    March 2, 2013 at 8:40 pm
    ” The overwhelming scientific research, even then, pointed to man made global warming.”
    ================================================
    Then why were the conferences and committees of prominent climatologists (e.g. at Brown in 1972, at the CIA in 1974) overwhelmingly worried about cooling?

    Fundamentally, there were three major effects that virtually all climatologists acknowledged at the time:

    1.) The length of the present interglacial (the Holocene) was already as long as the complete length of the previous several interglacials, and the dominant evidence was (and frankly still is) that on the scale of millennia, the late Holocene was cooler than the early Holocene.
    2.) Rapid industrialization was putting more (real) pollutants in the air, reducing the clarity of the air and reflecting more sunlight back into space.
    3.) Rapid industrialization was putting more CO2 into the air, increasing the greenhouse effect.

    The question was which of these effects predominated. Given 30 years of measured cooling in the face of rapid CO2 increases, it was not surprising that many, and probably most, climatologists at the time, including Lamb, Bryson, and Kukla, were more worried about cooling.

    Some people cite each scientific paper in that period (or even later!) examining the greenhouse effect as evidence that those scientists believed that this was the dominant effect. I don’t think that is the case at all.

  158. agfosterjr says:

    “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 glacial age…. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, 1972″ –National Geographic, November 1976, p.595.

  159. Dave72 says:

    AGW. The greatest scientific scam since Piltdown Man.

  160. Kajajuk says:

    Davey72,

    What about cold fusion?

  161. John@EF says:

    agfosterjr says:
    March 3, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    “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 glacial age…. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, 1972″ –National Geographic, November 1976, p.595.
    =============
    National Geographic isn’t a science journal. That feature article was pretty neutral on the subject.

    How did you miss this? ….
    p 582: “Were the cooling trend to reverse… the earth could warm relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect.” National Science Foundation, 1975.
    …. Never mind, I already know.

    Kajajuk nailed it when he said this:
    “NONE of the citations are peer review articles and are the media mouths releasing “news” as they still do; speculating dramatically for readership as they still do, mindful of the interests of their owner’s agendas, as they still do… At least now there are Climate Journals hehehe.”

    This thread is all about sensationalized media reporting, not science. It doesn’t represent the predominant view of climate research at the time, but it is perfect for the internet’s ‘best science’ site … of a certain, profound bent.

  162. Richard M says:

    Kajajuk says:
    March 3, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    Davey72,

    What about cold fusion?

    Haven’t been keeping up with the science? Check out LANR and MIT for starters. Read about ECAT and LENR for additional information.

  163. agfosterjr says:

    John@EF says:
    March 4, 2013 at 6:57 am
    =============================================================================
    The AGW problem has little to do with science and much to do with psychology. True, the NG article was neutral on the warming/cooling issue–I was more interested in the National Science Board perspective, which happened to be quoted by NG. But the NG article is hardly neutral on the question of climatic danger! The selfsame symptoms are treated as dire whatever the cause, and this attitude lies at the bottom of the controversy: it doesn’t matter whether SST is rising or falling–we’re all doomed because it’s changing, and we’re all guilty because we caused it.

  164. Richard M says:

    One can only marvel at the mental gyrations of people like john@ef. Faced with quotes from the top scientists of the time, CIA reports, media provided scientist quotes, etc., they somehow finds a way to “believe” it all never happen. Only one word describes this kind of thinking … denial.

  165. agfosterjr says:

    Well that hasn’t happened before–I hit enter and the paragraph posted–prematurely. Let me start again.

    John@EF says:
    March 4, 2013 at 6:57 am
    =============================================================================
    The AGW problem has little to do with science and much to do with psychology. True, the NG article was neutral on the warming/cooling issue–I was more interested in the National Science Board perspective, which happened to be quoted by NG. But the NG article is hardly neutral on the question of climatic danger! The selfsame symptoms are treated as dire whatever the cause, and this attitude lies at the bottom of the controversy: it doesn’t matter whether SST is rising or falling–we’re all doomed because it’s changing, and we’re all guilty because we caused it.

    This is the proof: when symptoms are cited historically independently of cause de jour, you know you are dealing with mindless hysteria rather than science. Weather and climate are in fact confused by these scientists; their prognoses are historically based on about three decades of climate/weather. This is why I say there is not a competent scientist on the globe who is worried about global warming. The smart ones should still be more concerned about potential cooling.

    By the way, the National Science Board is the governing board of the National Science Foundation. That’s why I thought it was worth mentioning. –AGF

  166. Eli says:

    We’re all gonna die. That’s all there is to it. Apparently we’re gonna globally burn or freeze, but one way or the other, we are all dead. Not sure why everyone is so intent on arguing about it.

  167. John@EF says:

    agfosterjr says:
    March 4, 2013 at 7:29 am
    ==========
    Here’s the amusing part, AGFjr. You start your comment with …

    “The AGW problem has little to do with science and much to do with psychology.”

    … and then you end your comment with this …

    “By the way, the National Science Board is the governing board of the National Science Foundation. That’s why I thought it was worth mentioning. –AGF”

    … because, I suppose, you believe the board made a statement that could be construed as supporting your POV.

    I hate to be the one to inform you that your National Science Board quote was incomplete – it was truncated mid-sentence. Here’s the actual 1972 National Science Board report with the quote starting half-way down the page in the first column.

    http://www.archive.org/stream/patternsperspect00nati#page/55/mode/1up

    Note that the full sentence reads:
    “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.”

    In its true form, the sentence doesn’t seem as supportive anymore, does it. Then, stunningly, and in direct contradiction to what you thought the NSB was conveying, the kicker is administered in the very next sentence, which is:

    “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.”

    You don’t think these parts were left out intentionally, do you? The origin of the intentional mis-quote (read “lie”) was from a 1974 hack piece by Gary Sutton written for Forbes magazine. The full story about that astounding work of dishonesty can be found at Dr. Drang’s blog, here:

    http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2009/12/climate-bullshit-from-forbes/

    I hope you read it – doesn’t take much time, and full story is significantly worse than what ended up in the 1976 Nat Geo Mag.

    Again, this thread is about advantageous use of sensationalized and sloppy media hype from the 70s, not science. And, yes, the predominant scientific opinion then pointed toward global warming, as reflected by the peer reviewed research articles of the time.

  168. John@EF says:

    Excuse me, agfosterjr, that hack piece I referred to by Gary Sutton was from 2009, not 1974 (not sure why I typed that) … and, of course, the remnants of the lie live today because they can be used for advantage and the expectation is that people will not make the effort to verify.

  169. D.B. Stealey says:

    John@EF says:

    “Again, this thread is about advantageous use of sensationalized and sloppy media hype from the 70s, not science.”

    Thank you for your assertion, which is totally contradicted by the huge number of supporting links in the article. In response, you posted a couple of links that are nothing but opinions, for example:

    “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.”

    Since there is no measurable evidence quantifying AGW, that statement is merely a conjecture, nothing more. AGW is not a testable hypothesis, nor is it a falsifiable theory. AGW fits the definition of Langmuir’s “Pathological Science”. Your links to hand-waving opinions like that are fine; just be sure you understand that’s all they are.

    I got out of the military in 1970, and I clearly remember all the ‘coming ice age’ news. It was everywhere, on all the channels, in newspapers, magazines, etc. And plenty of scientists were quoted as being convinced that a probable Ice Age was imminent. It is one of the alarmist canards that scientists were widely predicting global warming. Back in the day that didn’t generate grant money or publicity like ‘the Coming Ice Age’.

    Today’s hype is runaway global warming. And although they don’t dare call it that any more, every bit of the alarmist hype refers to warming, AGW, etc. These people totally ignore the Scientific Method, testability, the Null Hypothesis, and anything else that debunks their false alarm. Boatloads of money have corrupted the science, while anti-science enablers promote science fiction and conjecture as fact.

  170. agfosterjr says:

    John@EF says:
    March 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    “…You don’t think these parts were left out intentionally, do you? The origin of the intentional mis-quote (read “lie”) was from a 1974 hack piece by Gary Sutton written for Forbes magazine. The full story about that astounding work of dishonesty can be found at Dr. Drang’s blog, here…”
    ============================================================================
    While I appreciate your digging up the correct source of the quote, the fact is you are quite confused as to the order of events: Dr. Drang in 2009 was responding to a recent article by Sutton–he didn’t dig up something 35 years old, and of course nobody was making fun of GW pseudoscience in 1974. Accordingly NG’s writer in 1976, Samuel W. Matthews, could not possibly have been misled by Sutton. Rather, Sutton was probably misled by Matthew’s innocent truncation, as was I.

    This is all quite irrelevant. The fact remains that distortion and sensationalism are the stock in trade of the GW fanatics, and accusations of the reverse are more likely to be more distortion from the GW camp than to be legitimate. Let me pick the prime example: sea level rise. Will you deny that the threat of rising seas has been ballyhooed for two decades? And will you deny further that the record gives not the slightest evidence for concern? An inch per decade for the last 80 years, no sign of acceleration?

    If we can stand back from the rhetoric and stick to the data for just a few seconds, all becomes clear: CACC is a farce, and only fools and liars defend it. –AGF

  171. agfosterjr says:

    John@EF says:
    March 4, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    Excuse me, agfosterjr, that hack piece I referred to by Gary Sutton was from 2009, not 1974 (not sure why I typed that) … and, of course, the remnants of the lie live today because they can be used for advantage and the expectation is that people will not make the effort to verify.
    ==========================================================================
    OK, you’re excused, but you’re still confused. The author was not lying–nobody was back then, moreover he was on your side. As I said, Sutton clearly depended on Matthews, and Matthews had no anti-CAGW axe to grind in 1976. –AGF

  172. John@EF says:

    agfosterjr says:
    March 4, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    OK, you’re excused, but you’re still confused. The author was not lying–nobody was back then, moreover he was on your side. As I said, Sutton clearly depended on Matthews, and Matthews had no anti-CAGW axe to grind in 1976. –AGF
    ===========================
    ⇒ This thread is an attempt to claim that the predominant scientific view pointed to global cooling, providing media hype and anecdotal quotes as support. The subject of this thread IS NOT catastrophic global warming. If you what to argue that perhaps you can find a thread where that is the subject or, worst case, a mirror.
    ⇒ The predominant view, by far, of the climate science in the period from 1966 through 1979 pointed to global warming, not global cooling. The peer reviewed climate research articles during that time makes that fact crystal clear.
    ⇒ I do not know why the Nat Geo article left out very relevant portions of the quoted National Science Board report, but if you are honest you’d have to agree the result was misleading.
    ⇒ The liar I was referring to was Sutton. He may have taken a cue from the Nat Geo article as a way to present misleading information, but he went beyond that. Sutton took a sentence from a 1974 NSB report, spliced it with the butchered quote from the 1972 report, and presented it as a single, misleading, contextless NSB quote in his 2009 Forbes article. I provided you an easy link to that story – you chose not to read it.

  173. agfosterjr says:

    I already admitted at 2:04 to having been misled by NG: “Sutton was probably misled by Matthew’s innocent truncation, as was I.” As for Sutton being the “liar” referred to, that helps to interpret you better. But two things are going on with Sutton’s quote, the “truncation” (your term) and the conflation. The truncation is very probably to be attributed to the identical quote in NG, so that Sutton is only to blame for the conflation, which I will concede was misleading beyond the unintentionally misleading truncation of Matthews in NG. Accordingly I am not convinced Sutton was a liar although I would not excuse his less than transparent conflation of separate sources. I for one did not intentionally misrepresent the National Science Board.

    As for the more relevant argument distinguishing journalistic from scientific attitudes, point taken. I am hardly one to argue that modern journalists accurately portray the current state of the science and scientists. –AGF

  174. Poptech says:

    John@EF says, “This thread is an attempt to claim that the predominant scientific view pointed to global cooling, providing media hype and anecdotal quotes as support

    Actually my only intention was to show the overwhelming evidence of media hype, so the 1970s global cooling alarm can no longer be denied by the warmists.

    Even from just a cursory review of the references it is quite easy to see that these were largely based on scientific positions.

  175. agfosterjr says:

    E.g., “Although there’s some disagreement about causes for this cold trend, there is wide agreement among experts that it’s happening” (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JOtYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mowDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3555,2907200
    –one of Poptech’s examples).

    We might surmise the “experts” (i.e., scientists in other fields) are better documented by journalists than by journals. The journalists after all don’t read the journals; they interview the “experts” (in this case, a geologist), who don’t keep up on the specialist literature much better than do the journalists. This being the case, we might expect a paradigm lag of 10 years or so between peer reviewed literature and periodicals.

    Then again, it must be admitted that the most vocal proponents of a certain position will likely be the last to abandon it in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, as we saw with continental drift. Antipode paleobotanists were way ahead of western geologists. So who were the real experts? –AGF

  176. John@EF says:

    Poptech says:
    March 4, 2013 at 8:24 pm
    Actually my only intention was to show the overwhelming evidence of media hype, so the 1970s global cooling alarm can no longer be denied by the warmists.

    Even from just a cursory review of the references it is quite easy to see that these were largely based on scientific positions.
    ==================================
    You’ll have to excuse me while I call BS. I think you can provide significantly more clarity than that relative to your “only intention”, Poptech. You end your blog piece with this:

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.“ – Life of Reason, George Santayana

    I personally don’t know anyone living through the ‘70s who doesn’t remember the “global cooling” media hype. The “warmist” denial on that point is miniscule.

    The persistent meme advanced by “skeptics” generally falls along these lines: Remember the ‘70s when the scientists told everyone we were entering a new ice age? Remember all news articles, magazine pieces, and television features that spoke about the catastrophe that would ensue? Well, the scientists were wrong. The media was wrong. Don’t be fooled again.

    Isn’t it curious how nicely your blog piece shakes-hands with that meme? … In my opinion, it’s not curious at all – I’ve viewed your blog.

    Of course the meme fails because the climate scientists doing primary research and who published their peer-reviewed findings during that time overwhelmingly concluded that we were not heading into a new ice age. Rather, they projected a period of global warming. It is THAT PART of the “skeptic” meme that “warmists” deny is accurate … and rightfully so. And now with forty years of additional experience and research behind us it’s clear the predominant ‘70s scientific opinion was correct. You don’t get to credibly cling to opinions expressed by PhDs who didn’t do primary climate research and/or didn’t publish their peer-reviewed findings.

    Nobody denies the media propensity to hype, to fail in their subject understanding, and to exaggerate. In fact that’s gotten much worse since the ‘70s. I reposted Kajajuk’s strong comment on that point and on your list. Here it is again:

    “… NONE of the citations are peer review articles and are the media mouths releasing “news” as they still do; speculating dramatically for readership as they still do, mindful of the interests of their owner’s agendas, as they still do…”

    So Poptech, please clarify your “intention”. Because your claimed intention of disproving the “warmist” denial that the ‘70s global cooling alarm ever happened is nonsense. Seems to me your intentions more closely align with the dubious sentiment “don’t believe the scientists – don’t get fooled again”.

  177. Poptech says:

    Poor John@EF arguing against his strawman. Try learning how to read,

    “During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. This media hype was found in newspapers, magazines, books and on television [...]

    While a silent majority of the scientific community may have been more skeptical, you ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider”

    I love warmists who cannot read.

    FYI, I have added 32 more sources since this was published here and keep finding more. So much for the 1970s global cooling alarmism being a myth.

  178. agfosterjr says:

    John@EF says:
    March 5, 2013 at 8:42 am
    =============================================================================
    So while the weather stayed cold the warming predictions were ignored by journalists and nonspecialists alike, but when things warmed up all hell broke loose; scientists became as radical as any journalist–or preacher–with predictions of doom and prescriptions for salvation. Flooding coasts, hurricanes, drought, the works, warming will bring it all on.

    What’s still missing (except around these parts) are scientific voices of reason tempering the hysteria with the recognition that neither warming nor cooling is all bad, that each has its advantages, that warming has more advantages, and that the doomsayers as always don’t know what they’re talking about, including the scientists. We don’t know what caused the LIA (unless a dearth of sunspots) but we don’t want a repeat. Thank goodness for CO2–it should at least give the warmists hope. We search in vain for intelligent climate alarm.

    And whereas no rational argument can disuade the believers, we can only fight rhetoric with rhetoric. “Don’t believe the scientists – don’t get fooled again.” Keep it up, Poptech! –AGF

  179. Jochen Bäumer says:

    How come you “forgot” to include this passage in your quotation:

    “For a long time man has been trying to do something more than talk about the weather. Ironically and unfortunately, he may already have done far more than he imagines, or desires.
    That, at least, would seem to be the moral of the latest horror story from the pollution front. Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, debris form manufacturing processes has been accumulating in the atmosphere to such an extent that the earth is now enveloped in a layer of dust which has the effect of reflecting back into space a portion of the energy radiated by the sun.
    The result has been a measurable lowering of temperatures, not merely in industrial areas but worldwide. So far it is only a fraction of a degree. But even minor temperature changes, if prolonged and widespread, have startling effects on climate and, consequently, on plant and animal development and survival. It would not take many degrees to trigger renewed expansion of the polar ice masses.”
    Owosso Argus Press, 26 January, 1970

    Just change the algebraic sign to plus and the last sentence reads: “It would not take many degrees to trigger a renewed SHRINKING of the polar ice masses.”

    Interesting what both discussions about climate change – although in the 70s it was rather a non-discussion – have in common: both see human activities behind climate change.

    We were able to counter the past challenge by introducing environmental protection. The question now is: will we be able again to meet the challenge?

    Denying that there is a problem in the first place does not do much to help with the issue.

  180. Bob says:

    Jochen Baumer: What is in common between the pending ice age of the ’70′s and runaway global warming is the following: (a) man’s sins are creating a climate disaster; (b) we must atone for those sins immediately to stave off that disaster and (c) we can control the climate. The differences are that the population/resource/ice age disaster of the ’70′s was predicted in just a few years and the global hothouse is predicted too far in the future for anyone to remember the predictions.

    “Cleaning up the environment” has been attributed to increased global warming.

    I don’t believe we can control the climate. I also don’t believe that all affects on the climate have been ignored in order to concentrate on mankind’s sins and the need for redemption. The compilation of failed ’70′s predictions shows just how unscientific and baseless climate disaster predictions have been.

  181. me says:

    “Global warming” is “chemtrails” for 21st Century urban leftists.

    OLDTHINKERS UNBELLYFEEL INGSOC

  182. Cindy Jefferies says:

    Thank you so much for the info on this site! Not scientifically minded myself but a personal witness to the “Global Cooling” messages we were bombarded with in the 70′s. To those who insist the scare didn’t happen, keeping patting yourselves on the back while joining the realm of neo-nazis that claim the holocaust didn’t happen either. I have vivid memories of the the attempted grooming of a generation – tv specials, class discussions, a class field trips to our local planetarium and watching a “star show” that included the message of impeding doom brought on by a new ice age and what our city will then look like under a sheet of think ice; lifeless, cold, abandoned. Don’t think a 9 year old would be completely affected by that? Did you think we would just forget? .

Comments are closed.