A compilation of news articles on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s
Does 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)
And from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
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
Related articles
- CIA 1974 National Security Threat: Global Cooling/Excess Arctic Ice Causing Extreme Weather (climatedepot.com)
- 1974 Shock News: Global Cooling To Kill One Billion People (junkscience.com)
- NCAR 1974 : Global Cooling And Extreme Weather Is The New Normal (stevengoddard.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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…
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.
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.
“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.
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
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?
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.
“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.
AGW. The greatest scientific scam since Piltdown Man.
Davey72,
What about cold fusion?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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