Terrifying new book about climate change

A photograph of the snow surface at Dome C Sta...

Image via Wikipedia

Normally I don’t go for anonymous guest posters, but this one is from the famous “zombie” of zombietime.com whose identity remains hidden so that he/she may continue to record the anarchy and socially bereft behavior that permeates the McKibbenesque protestor culture of America. Zombie wrote to me yesterday asking that I bring attention to the post, and I’m happy to do so. The text is below, but please follow the link to the evidence (dozens of scanned pages) presented.

The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era?

Guest post by “Zombie”

I just finished reading a terrifying new book about climate change. I learned this:

• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.

• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:

– Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;

– Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;

– Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;

– Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;

– In general embrace all environmental causes.

You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in my narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” — it was published in 1977.

The Solution Remains the Same

As many other pundits and analysts have pointed out, in the mid-to-late 1970s we endured a massive “climate change scare” that was the exact opposite of the one we’re enduring now. Back then, the media and activists trumpeted the arrival of a new ice age, with the specter of ice sheets and glaciers covering half the northern hemisphere, and brutal winters in the remaining ice-free zones.

The fact that the media and popular culture and academia have veered from one panic-inducing disaster scenario to another one which completely contradicts the first one is funny enough in its own right. But reading The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age opened my eyes to an even more significant aspect of this serial crisis-mongering:

The “solutions” prescribed to solve both Global Warming and the looming Ice Age are exactly the same.

In both cases, proponents of the theory-du-jour say that in order to stave off disaster, we must reverse the march of civilization, stop our profligate use of carbon-based fuels, cede power and money from the First World to the Third World, and wherever possible revert to a Luddite pre-industrial lifestyle.

I realized: The solution (commit civilizational suicide) always remains the same; all that differs are the wildly divergent purported “crises” proffered up to justify the imposition of the solution.

Seen from this angle, the entire Climate Change field should be more properly reframed thus:

In order to weaken and eventually destroy the existing industrialized nations, we must devise an ecological “crisis” so severe that only voluntary economic suicide can solve it; and if this first crisis doesn’t materialize as planned, then devise another, and another, even if they flatly contradict our previous claims.

I had long suspected that this is the most accurate characterization of Climate Changeology; but reading The New Ice Age clinched it for me. The true purpose of climate change disaster-mongering is to permanently cripple the First World, and to elevate the Third World, in order to create a planet with no economic inequality. The goal remains constant; the supposed imminent catastrophes justifying it come and go as needed.

Below, I’ll present scanned pages from the book so you can see for yourself.

The scenario we’re in reminds me of the classic Twilight Zone episode called “The Midnight Sun”: At first we see the characters sweltering in increasingly unbearable heat as the Earth, knocked out of its orbit, slowly plummets into the sun. Just as they are all about to burn to death, in typical Twilight Zone fashion, the lead character wakes up — she had in fact merely been having a fever dream about the world getting hotter; in reality, the Earth had been knocked away from the sun, and they’re all going to freeze to death. Ha ha — gotcha! Just as in the narratives spun by the climate change catastrophists, the Earth is doomed either way, even though the disaster scenario flips from one extreme to its exact opposite. Hot, cold, whatever; one way or the other, Mother Nature will wreak revenge on us for our hubris!

Ice Ages Are Making a Comeback

Turns out my choice of reading material (discovered recently at a rummage sale for 25¢, in case you’re curious) was fortuitous, as climate change — and ice ages — are suddenly back in the headlines this past week. And the news is not good for the crisis-mongers.

First we learned that the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is actually helping us stave off the next inevitable ice age by a few years. Yes, you read that right: the “runaway global warming” scenario is now off the table; a new ice age is coming for sure, and whatever human warming effects there may be will only make our descent into the deep freeze a little more comfy.

Then, in a different breakthrough, leading scientists announced the discovery of a heretofore undetected type of molecule in the atmosphere which spurs cloud formation and negates global warming effects. Thanks to something called “Criegee biradicals,” the more we pollute, the more clouds form, and the cooler the planet becomes. Thus, the cumulative effect on the climate due to mankind’s activity: zilch. So for the second time in a week, the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming theory was fatally undermined.

But wait! We’re not done. Next up: A study out of Harvard proving that warming and cooling cycles are caused by orbital wobble and precession of the poles; and that the only reason the next ice age hasn’t arrived quite on schedule yet is due to our beneficial increase in carbon dioxide. Yes, that’s right: more data showing that another ice age is inevitable sooner or later.

A third nail in AGW’s coffin in less than a week? Why wasn’t this front page news?

But brace yourself — because those nails in the coffin were just the opening act. The next bit of news was the real blockbuster, a stake through AGW’s heart:

Now we learn that the world has not warmed at all for the last 15 years, and that the entire recent “global warming” hubbub was totally imaginary. Furthermore, the recent cooling is so significant that we may be headed for — you guessed it — a “mini ice age.”

Still not enough for you? The coup de grace came from our own USDA, which released a new “Plant Hardiness Zone Map” indicating that the mild global warming spike of a few years ago was actually good for plant growth and biodiversity. In other words: Even if we do experience warming, it makes the world a nicer place.

And that was just one week’s news. I wonder what next week will bring?

Now, you’d think that this devastating barrage of body blows would basically bring an end to the whole Global Warming “controversy.”

But no. Because, you see, true believers are nearly impervious to facts. In the midst of all this, the AGW activists and bullies continued their relentless quest to reshape the world’s economic landscape, as if they still had the upper hand. They even launched a witch hunt against “denier” weathermen, threatening to get any TV meteorologists fired unless they present global warming propaganda during their forecasts. Meanwhile, Al Gore continued on his decade-long tirade, declaring that “civilization is at risk” if the presidential candidates don’t cave into his demands immediately. And if you check the Web sites of any number of climate change nonprofits and organizations, they’re all still in hysterical crisis mode about the coming calamity. To them, you see, news stories like the ones we saw this week may come and go, but Global Warming is forever!

Something’s Gotta Give

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold,” as William Butler Yeats once wrote. This disconnect between reality and hysteria can’t last forever. As impervious as Global Warmists may be to facts, they’re highly sensitive to their social environment. Eventually, as the general public loses interest in humoring the hysterics, whose status is rapidly dropping from “cutting-edge hipsters” to “embarrassing kooks,” the Alarmists will go into a huddle and emerge with a new crisis scenario so horrifying and immediate that something must be done NOW! And that something, as we learned above, will be the exact same something prescribed to solve the previous crisis.

We already saw the first half of this transition just a short time ago. For years, the crisis peddlers threw all their weight behind the phrase “Global Warming” to describe the looming disaster. But in recent years as data crept in casting some doubt on their prognostications, the phrase “Global Warming” was inconspicuously discarded and replaced with the more flexible “Climate Change.” Voilà! No matter what the weather did, it could be chalked up to “climate change,” because hey, change could go either way, right?

Needless to say, however innocuous “climate change” may have sounded, the activists said Trust us, it’s way worse than mere “global warming,” so the drastic solutions we proposed earlier are still required.

But the ever-growing mountain of evidence pointing to an eventual (naturally occurring) ice age phase in the distant future may trigger yet another huddle among the climate change crowd. Perhaps after a suitable wait, banking on everyone’s short memory, they’ll re-emerge from the huddle this time dropping “Climate Change” for something ice-age themed, like “Accelerated Glaciation,” or perhaps “Man-Made Chill Factor.”

And you can guarantee that they’ll have a solution for this new crisis; and it will be the exact same solution they announced for climate change, and for global warming before that, and yes, for the looming ice age they worried about the previous time back in the ’70s: De-industrialize the First World, end civilization as we know it, and cede power to “the global south,” i.e. the Third World.

The Evidence

To prepare you for this eventuality, I hereby present scans from The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, published in 1977 and written by “The Impact Team,” a coalition of authors from various fields.

Each scan below is taken from a page in The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age; click on any image to see the passage in context on the full page.

Under each passage I’ll make a few comments; but in general, the text speaks for itself.

Think of this as a warning from the past. Not a warning about looming ice ages, but rather a warning to ignore politically motivated disaster-mongers.

See the rest of the post and all the scanned pages here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ThePowerofX

[Multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

Ken Methven

The “not so new” book is interesting in that it illuminates the scare-mongering teams and the political agenda, but why is it not as obvious to those who hold the purse strings on public purses? They cannot all be gullible? But they will go along with it….if the ‘concensus’ of voters think its true. Keep getting the message out!

Truthseeker

Isn’t scanning pages from the book and posting them on a web page a breach of copyright?
Just sayin …
P.S. I absolutely agree with your point about alarmism and scare-mongering.

LazyTeenager

Think of this as a warning from the past. Not a warning about looming ice ages, but rather a warning to ignore politically motivated disaster-mongers.
———–
I always ignore politically motivated disaster mongers. I also ignore politically motivated disaster ignorers.

Truthseeker says: February 2, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Isn’t scanning pages from the book and posting them on a web page a breach of copyright?
I don’t know where “Zombie” is, but excerpts (as opposed to the entire manuscript — something that college professors do) with attribution would be considered “fair use” under US copyright law.

Roger Knights

R Sweeney says:
December 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm
The answer is punish the Americans and establish an all-powerful world government with the power to tax the west and its imperialist cabal.
Now…. what was the question?

Mark Hladik

Truthseeker:
Not sure what the copyright laws say, but there might be something in regards in an attempt to “profit” from said violations; there is also something about ‘fair use’ in an educational setting, or at least I think I’ve see something like that.
And as we all know, WUWT is ALL about education, right?
My best to all,
Mark H.

kwik

“I had long suspected that this is the most accurate characterization of Climate Changeology; but reading The New Ice Age clinched it for me.”
Okay, so you realized that just now, in the beginning of 2012. A bit late.
Dont you remember the attacks on the car industry back in the seventhies? The attacks on the family as an institution? The attacks on logic and reason in the Universities? The attacks on the right to own private property?
All attacks on the main pillars of the western civilisation. Grinding….grinding….grinding.
All part of marxist tactics. It is called Dialectism, me thinks.

Chris H

This is exactly the point that James Delingpole makes in his new book, Watermelons. It was never about the climate, it was always about political control by an unelected elite. It’s like the Hydra, lop off one head and two more appear. Debunk one crisis and they will find two more.

ShrNfr

The paper cited by Dr. D’Aleo on his site is interesting: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/bicentennial_decrease_of_the_total_solar_irradiance_leads_to_unbalanced_the/ We live in interesting times. But yes, the followers of Ludd have not died, they went for Eugenics, then they went for ZPG, and now they are going for AGW. “Ah, the world would be such a happy place if everyone else dropped dead.” Personally I have little use for that sort of thinking myself.

Robert M

Yes, but this time, they are right, fortunately for the low low price of everything you hold dear, thay can save your sinning, wasteful, uneducated, unwashed selves. Offer ends soon, don’t wait!!!

aperson

Truthseeker says:
“Isn’t scanning pages from the book and posting them on a web page a breach of copyright?”
There’s a principle called “Fair use” whereby if someone is reviewing a work, or analyzing it critically, they are permitted to reproduce portions of it (though not all of it). This instance is a clear case of “Fair Use.”
Furthermore, this book is long out of print, so the authors (if any are still alive) should be overjoyed that it’s getting some attention 35 years after the fact. To insist that references to the book be removed from the Web would be foolish, since it would then just remain back in unknown oblivion.

I don’t think we should claim that the Harvard study is the third nail in the coffin. Read the final paragraph where they blame the fact that their theory isn’t working at all well now as being due to carbon dioxide.
In the scale of things, 100 years isn’t much out of 20,000. So why didn’t we see an approaching glacial maximum 100 years ago? Apparently carbon dioxide has turned the whole thing around from a maximum to a minimum in the last hundred years when world temperatures rose about 0.6 of a degree C. Wow!
There probably are other “orbital” reasons – they just didn’t get the right one.

hotrod (larry L)

Read it when it first came out, which is why I have always been highly suspicious of the whole global warming propaganda campaign, it just was the same record by a new artist.
Larry

William Abbott

My son brought home the book, LIMITS TO GROWTH, from a library sale. Written in 1972 by the
“Club of Rome” It argued its point in exactly the same pattern. It’s already too late. We have to do terrible, draconian things, to people and their liberty and freedom to keep it from being worse. We are all going to die!! We are either going to starve to death or die in the bread riots. There are too many people!! It was all very mathmatical. Lots of charts and graphs. But they are all nonsense.
But… I don’t think you are being thorough or entirely fair in your review of THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY… I was reading in the reproduced pages on your blog and I noticed they advocate degregulating gas and oil prices to encourage exploration and conservation. They advocated a free market solution; and they are quite upbeat about how much potential oil and gas might be recovered off-shore and from, thats right, shale formations. They even downplay the Santa Barbara oil spill and think the concerns about blow-outs are over done. I think it was around page 107.

thingadonta

Academics say most of the 1970s scaremongering abotu coming cold came from media outlets and not from scientists. They say more papers were published in the 1960s and 1970s that argued for coming warming rather than cooling, and this was overwhelmingly the case by the 1980s.
I remember seeing Leonard Nimoy telling us an ice age could arrive within 200 years on one of the ‘In Search of.. ‘ series, but I wouldnt describe Mr Spock (in real life that is) as a serious scientist.
Would be interesting to see a survey of such papers.

Chris.

Yes – but fortunately this time around they will have significantly less credibility (even factoring in the apathy and short memories of folk).
And of course their real problem is that its going to be difficult to sabotage industry, energy production and quality of life if they no longer CO2 to point to as the culprit…

stanj

I note they say that the world’s proven oil reserves would only last another 35 years – in other words till 2012, as it happens – looks like they were slightly out on that prediction!

mikemUK

Can this be proof of a new:
“Theory of Perpetual eco-Motion”?

Richard Patton

They are all watermelons: Green on the outside, but red (socialist) on the inside.l

hotrod (larry L)

Truthseeker says: February 2, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Isn’t scanning pages from the book and posting them on a web page a breach of copyright?

Small selective quotes of books in print qualify as “fair use”, especially if the use can be classified as “news” or “educational”.
It is basically a book review, no different that a million other book reviews out there.
Larry

Peridot

The BBC had a programme to support the crisis of ‘Global Cooling’ due to CO2 in the 70s . It was called ‘The Weather Machine’ I remember it well and I didn’t believe a word of it because I had been very interested in the subjects of Earth, the Universe and Everything since my schooldays.
When the alarmists switched to AGW the BBC switched with them. But young activists know nothing of this and the warmist industry have been busy airbrushing their own history along with airbrushing climate history and even physical laws.
Shades of Orwell’s 1984 and Winston Smith’s job of constantly rewriting history to fit what the government wanted the people to believe.

PaulH

The more things change, the more things stay the same. ;->

eco-geek

In my last “open thread” post very near the bottom I demonstrated that GHGs cooled the planet while lleaving out the obvious implications of this: as the Earth becomes a cooler place over the next few decades,the alarmists would re-invent man-made CO2 as a cooling gas and demand the same and immediate response to the forthcoming cooling disaster. Global Government, lots more taxes to keep themselves prosperous, an end to modern industry and a re-distribution of wealth from the first world poor to the third world rich…..
The goal is an equality of inequality which is most easily accomplished by the imposition of Big Government and a controlled media.

juanslayton

At present, it is the armadillo that is sounding the alarm.
How did Dr. Mann miss Texas road kill as a temperature proxy?

Nick Frosty

Taxing carbon and pollution is a subtle way of taxing productivity. Back in the 70’s, the now-developed counties were hard at work creating their fortunes and burning fossil fuels in order to do it. But these developed countries no longer do as much of this, opting to offshore most of the dirty production to other nations. So who are the richest countries and most productive? You seriously cannot say the West is rich because they hold unfathomable amounts of debt. No, the rich countries are once again the most productive and polluting – the developing Eastern nations who also hold the most dollars and little debt. In fact the West owes them a lot of money. What better way to even everything up than by indirectly taxing their productivity? And what better way to force everyone to pay their productivity taxes than to say destruction of the Earth is imminent if they don’t?

BJ

Can’t believe I’m the first to see the OBVIOUS connection here … It’s Groundhog Day!!!

Lazy Teen says:
“I always ignore politically motivated disaster mongers. I also ignore politically motivated disaster ignorers.”
I won’t ignore the disaster. Just show it to me. Where is it, Lazy?

Joe Haberman

If the earth continues to cool over the next decade or so, we will probably see the same cast of climate mongers pointing to this book and saying that we’ve known what the problem and the solution is since 1977!!! Stop the debate! Hand your liberty over to the government or we’ll all be doomed!!!

crosspatch

“The true purpose of climate change disaster-mongering is to permanently cripple the First World, and to elevate the Third World, in order to create a planet with no economic inequality.”
Exactly. It is a mechanism by which fear of climate change is promulgated through the society and that fear is used as a lever to convince people to buy into a global socialist agenda of redistribution of wealth on a global international scale.
It feels rather satisfying to see others independently reaching the same conclusion. I think the jig ought to be just about up by now. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and exposing what is going on tends to inoculate against the fear.

Tim Minchin

It’s Fair use. Amazon have the first 10 pages of all books scanned and Google has almost book ever written scaned online

J Fischer

Ah good, so we once again confirm that your oft-proclaimed dislike of people not sharing their full name with everyone here extends only to those who you disagree with.
And please – the myth of a “global cooling scare” has long since been comprehensively debunked. There was no such thing. It was invented after the fact to try and discredit concerns about global warming.

Randy

Be interesting if someone could out the Impact Team authors. I did a couple searches but found nothing. Not worth the effort from a phone keyboard.

Markus

Nope. No dissenters here.

mkelly

thingadonta says:
February 2, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Spock was had the late Dr. Schneider (sp) on the show explaining why we were going into an ice age. The late doctor changed his mind when the ice didn’t pan out.

Matt

What is going on ? Only because the Daily Mail writes something, that does not make it a fact. Someone reading it, making a rant out of it, which you subsequently post, still does not make it a fact.
Is this peer reviewed? Of course not, the author does not have any peers.

robr

William Abbott says:
Back in the day, I was taking a chemistry course at a college and was to forced to read that book. We were then tasked with writing a paper about what to do. I did a lot of research and found the Army had isolated a yeast that could breakdown cellulose into ferment-able sugars. I calculated the amount of energy that could be obtained by fermenting our cellulose waste. I got the only F ever in my studies. I learned that with these people it is not about technological solutions, but deprivation. By the way I went on to graduate with honors from Johns Hopkins, in mechanical engineering.

Gneiss

I started reading this post about a “Terrifying new book” and thought … Really??? Being skeptical, I googled it myself and the first thing that came up was this 1977 book review by Steve Schneider, an actual climate scientist who thought The Climate Conspiracy was a mess. Excerpts from his review:
It has man of the trappings of an instant book. Since its ‘author’ is “The Impact Team”, a group of 18 non-weather experts calling themselves reporters, writers, researchers, and “back-up” (whatever that means) people, they had to turn elsewhere for scientific credibility. They chose the wrong people….
Space doesn’t permit a detailed critique of the two CIA reports on climate … upon which the book leans so heavily for what it calls “true facts”. I must, however, mention that Professor Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin, whom the CIA and the Impact Team cite as the expert predicted most of the coming climatic disasters, has publicly repudiated much of the CIA reports; and they quote him as a principal source of specific climatic predictions.

After more about the book’s faults and mistakes (discredited publicly by many in the scientific community as sensationalist and technically innacurate … overstated cases shrieked out of instant books), Schneider concludes,
Instead of meeting its page one stated purpose: “to inform the public of the true facts about a topic ofter clouded by fiction, superstition, and alarmist misrepresentation”, The Weather Conspiracy leads the pack in clouding up further precisely what it is intended to clear.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Schneider1977.pdf

TerryS

Here is Stephen Schneider discussing the book in Nature vol 270 22 December 1977
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Schneider1977.pdf

Scott R

J Fischer says:
“And please – the myth of a “global cooling scare” has long since been comprehensively debunked. There was no such thing. It was invented after the fact to try and discredit concerns about global warming.”
I lived through the 1970’s. The consensus at that time in the media and in academia was that we were headed toward an Ice Age due to coal and diesel particulates as well as aircraft-caused clouds. The only way to stop it was said to be elimination of our capitalist consumer economy and its dependency on fossil fuels.
It is the same thing now, just a new boogieman.
Global warming is so over. Gotta find a new problem to justify the “progressive” fight.

k scott denison

J Fischer says:
February 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm
And please – the myth of a “global cooling scare” has long since been comprehensively debunked. There was no such thing. It was invented after the fact to try and discredit concerns about global warming.
==================
Sure, that planted Newsweek story from April 28, 1975 was the hardest piece to invent after the fact. But the PDFs are really convincing. Not to mention the book referenced here. Another excellent piece of after the fact invention.
Are your senses so fogged by your faith in AGW that you can’t see what is right under your nose?

Yep, I distinctly remember the big global cooling scare in the ’70s, that was the primary reason why I had difficulty believing Al Gore when he popped up a decade later. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Stephen Schneider was a contributor to this book.
Wish I could remember who it was lately that claimed the ENTIRE global cooling scare stemmed from a solitary Newsweek story………..

Do as I say not as I do to save yourselves (and make me rich in the process).

TerryS

Re: Gneiss
You missed the following from Schneider’s review:

I must, however, confess nagging conflicts that bother me in using The Weather Conspiracy as a butt:
o it includes an impressive amount of material on climate, even if there is little cohesive thinking to link it together; and I don’t want to take the purist role and discourage all mass market attempts to “spread the word” about the very real dangers climatic issues do pose for society merely because such polarisations simplify complex issues;
o many of the Impact Team’s proposed solutions to these dangers, that is, food reserves, weather control treaties, energy conservation, and so on, while not new to those who follow the issues, are plausible and need widespread exposure–something a mass market book can do well;
o most importantly, as one whose own book, The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival (Plenum, 1976 and Delta, 1977) is itself an attempt to raise public consciousness about many of the issues repeated in The Weather Conspiracy. I am keenly aware of scepticism some might express about one author;s seemingly pejorative treatment od a subsequent competitive book. The best that I can do to dispel any such possible suspicion is to state clearly why I believe a “pot boiler” like The Weather Conspiracy” could really retard the efforts of those who seek to persuade society to anticipate and then hedge against the possibility of future climate-induced catastrophe – a goal that seems common to me and the Impact Team

Not exactly the ringing condemnation you would have us believe. In fact it is clear that Schneider supports all the measures that this blog post is about. You will also note that at no point does Schneider claim that the danger isn’t cooling but warming.

Gneiss

Scott R writes,
“I lived through the 1970′s. The consensus at that time in the media and in academia was that we were headed toward an Ice Age due to coal and diesel particulates as well as aircraft-caused clouds.”
Many people lived through the 1970s, and perhaps you believed then there was a “consensus in academia,” but there wasn’t. That is an urban myth popular now as an argument against a scientific consensus that actually does exist.
Steve Schneider is a name often falsely claimed to be one of the scientists who suggested that an ice age was coming soon. Read his 1977 book review that I linked above, to find out what he really was saying. I’ll help, here’s another excerpt (emphasis added).
instead of pointing out that either scenario for climatic change [warming or cooling] could be troublesome since much of human activity, particularly agricultural, is tuned to the present climate, it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic (the subtitle reads “The Coming of the New Ice Age”) rather than the reality of the discipline; we just don’t know enough to chose definitively at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling – or when.

timg56

According to the Mayans, the world ends in a few hours – so who cares about climate change?
I’m just pissed I’m going to miss my birthday. But then that was going to happen at some point in time.

eyesonu

Anthony, good post. A light hearted revelation / rememberance of the past hysteria.
Has me smiling.

Christian Bultmann

In “The Coming Ice Age” no other than Stephen Schneider of “Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest” fame, was commenting on the threat of global cooling and his comments had more todo with social engineering than the global cooling event itself.

Russell C says:
“Wish I could remember who it was lately that claimed the ENTIRE global cooling scare stemmed from a solitary Newsweek story………..”
Wasn’t it our friend Joel Shore? Or maybe Phil.?

Gneiss

thingadonta writes,
“I remember seeing Leonard Nimoy telling us an ice age could arrive within 200 years on one of the ‘In Search of.. ‘ series, but I wouldnt describe Mr Spock (in real life that is) as a serious scientist.”
Or even an unserious scientist.
“Would be interesting to see a survey of such papers.”
Of course that’s been done (Peterson 2008). Here’s the USA Today report on the findings:
The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

“A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
The paper itself was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 2008.