Top Scientists, Government Agencies and Publications Have – For Over 100 Years – Been Terrified of a New Ice Age

Fear of the Big Freeze

There has been an intense debate among leading scientists, government agencies and publications over whether the bigger threat is global warming or a new ice age. As we’ve previously noted, top researchers have feared an ice age – off and on – for more than 100 years. (This post does not weigh in one way or the other. It merely presents a historical record.)

On February 24, 1895, the New York Times published an article entitled “PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again”, which starts with the following paragraph:

The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.

In September 1958, Harper’s wrote an article called “The Coming Ice Age”.

On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article entitled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future” which stated:

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters–the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends.

In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:

Dear Mr. President:

Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.

The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.

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.

Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.

The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:

(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.

(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.

With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …

With best regards,

George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)

R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)

The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity looking into the threat of an ice age.

On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:

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.

Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.

As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:

There were also a number of short-term climate events of national and international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El Niño of 1972-1973.

A killing winter freeze followed by a severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive up food prices.Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late 1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein feedstocks.

The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S. Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric energy requirements for the region.

On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled “Another Ice Age?” which stated:

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere …

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

(here’s the printer-friendly version).

Science News wrote an article in 1975 called “Chilling Possibilities” warning of a new ice age.

A January 1975 article from the New York Times warned:

The most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years.

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.

Newsweek discussed its 1975 article in 2006:

In April, 1975 … NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” the magazine warned of an impending “drastic decline in food production.” Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect “just about every nation on earth.” Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you’d have known that the threat was: global cooling…

Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it’s probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.

New York Times science columnist John Tierney noted in 2009:

In 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay [titled] “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.

They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote:

The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.

A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:

Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.

The American Institute of Physics – the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article – notes:

For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with “clean” thermonuclear explosions.

***

The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.

A 1994 Time article entitled “The Ice Age Cometh?” stated:

What ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the temperature dangerously over the next 75 years or so. But if last week is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established part of the planet’s history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago; the next one — for there will be a next one — could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.

The Register reported last year:

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.

sunspot decline Suns Output to Fall ... Leading to a Mini Ice Age?

***

The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun’s recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

***

This could have major implications for the Earth’s climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.

As NASA notes:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

***

According to the NSO:

Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.

In parallel with this comes research from the US Air Force’s studies of the solar corona.

***

“Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists … No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.”

According to the collective wisdom of the NSO, another Maunder Minimum may very well be on the cards.

“If we are right,” summarises Hill, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

***

The big consequences of a major solar calm spell, however, would be climatic. The next few generations of humanity might not find themselves trying to cope with global warming but rather with a significant cooling. This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2 emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide.

And Agence France-Presse reports:

For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century.

The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles, said experts from the National Solar Observatory and Air Force Research Laboratory.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” said Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, as the findings of the three studies were presented at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

“But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

Solar activity tends to rise and fall every 11 years or so. The solar maximum and solar minimum each mark about half the interval of the magnetic pole reversal on the Sun, which happens every 22 years.

Hill said the current cycle, number 24, “may be the last normal one for some time and the next one, cycle 25, may not happen for some time.

“This is important because the solar cycle causes space weather which affects modern technology and may contribute to climate change,” he told reporters.

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715, a period known as the “Little Ice Age.”

“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate,” said Hill.

And the Wall Street Journal wrote in January:

The entire 10,000-year history of civilization has happened in an unusually warm interlude in the Earth’s recent history. Over the past million years, it has been as warm as this or warmer for less than 10% of the time, during 11 brief episodes known as interglacial periods. [In other words, the Earth is in an ice age most of the time, and that the warmer "interglacial" periods are rare.] One theory holds that agriculture and dense settlement were impossible in the volatile, generally dry and carbon-dioxide-starved climates of the ice age, when crop plants would have grown more slowly and unpredictably even in warmer regions.

This warm spell is already 11,600 years old, and it must surely, in the normal course of things, come to an end. In the early 1970s, after two decades of slight cooling, many scientists were convinced that the moment was at hand. They were “increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age,” said Time in 1974. The “almost unanimous” view of meteorologists was that the cooling trend would “reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” and “the resulting famines could be catastrophic,” said Newsweek in 1975.

Since then, of course, warmth has returned, probably driven at least partly by man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. A new paper, from universities in Cambridge, London and Florida, drew headlines last week for arguing that these emissions may avert the return of the ice age. Less noticed was the fact that the authors, by analogy with a previous warm spell 780,000 years ago that’s a “dead ringer” for our own, expect the next ice age to start “within about 1,500 years.” Hardly the day after tomorrow.

Still, it’s striking that most interglacials begin with an abrupt warming, peak sharply, then begin a gradual descent into cooler conditions before plunging rather more rapidly toward the freezer. The last interglacial—which occurred 135,000 to 115,000 years ago (named the Eemian period after a Dutch river near which the fossils of warmth-loving shell creatures of that age were found)—saw temperatures slide erratically downward by about two degrees Celsius between 127,000 and 120,000 years ago, before a sharper fall began.

Cyclical changes in the earth’s orbit probably weakened sunlight in the northern hemisphere summer and thus caused this slow cooling. Since the northern hemisphere is mostly land, this change in the sun’s strength meant gradually increased snow and ice cover, which in turn reflected light back into space. This would have further cooled the air and, gradually, the ocean too. Carbon-dioxide levels did not begin to fall much until about 112,000 years ago, as the cooling sea absorbed more of the gas.

Our current interglacial shows a similar pattern. Greenland ice cores and other proxy records show that temperatures peaked around 7,000 years ago, when the Arctic Ocean was several degrees warmer than today, trees grew farther north in Siberia and the Sahara was wet enough for hippos (Africa generally gets wetter in warm times). Data from the southern hemisphere reveal that this “Holocene Optimum” was global in extent.

An erratic decline in temperature followed, with Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods peaking at successively lower temperatures, culminating in the exceptionally cool centuries of the “Little Ice Age” between 1550 and 1850, when glaciers advanced all over the world. In the Greenland ice cores, these centuries stand out as the longest and most consistent cold spell of the current interglacial.

In other words, our own interglacial period has followed previous ones in having an abrupt beginning and a sharp peak, followed by slow cooling. The question is whether recent warming is a temporary blip before the expected drift into glacial conditions, or whether humankind’s impact on the atmosphere has now reversed the cooling trend.

This entry was posted in Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Zachary Smith

    This blog has been publishing some darned good stuff lately, so it’s a shame somebody felt to need to post nonsense like this.

    • Cpip

      Nonsense? Don’t dismiss it so readily. The facts stated in the post are accurate and have been taken in the correct context. I know. I have worked in the solar and space physics fields for over 20 years. We are well on-track to seeing a lower sunspot maximum in 2013. The latest research that I have read (March 2012) clearly indicates a continued reduction in the solar magnetic field strengths, which again supports a weaker solar maximum. That isn’t nonsense. That is fact. Tying this activity to possible ice ages has not been conclusively proven, so perhaps that is what you are considering “nonsense?” If so, I think that is a harsh word, given all that we know concerning how global climate can be affected by quiet solar conditions and changes in irradiance. The evidence is tipping against “nonsense.” You might look like a fool in 4o or 50 years for having made this comment. But by then, who will care, right?

    • Claudiu

      would you care to elaborate? For me, as someone who knows little about the matter, this was a nice perspective, and one that should make me think twice about riding my (man powered) bike to work (again). Maybe our leaders are illuminated after all and we do need to burn as much fossil fuel as possible before moving to thorium or who knows what else.
      I’d very much like to see a documented rebuttal of this article. Because if none is available, looking at climate change through this lens changes things and invalidates dogmas.

  • Kathy

    Zachary, yes exactly. The professional global warming deniers have succeeded in convincing otherwise intelligent people that there is any question about global warming. Funded by the oil companies and trained by the propagandists used by the Tobacco Industry they have created doubt about the MOST serious threat facing our species.

    For excellent videos on climate change check out potholer54 channel by Peter Hadfield a retired correspondent for New Scientist – one good one here

    Meanwhile the glaciers keep melting – perhaps from the hot air put out by deniers. I expect the fact that 15,000 heat records were broken in March in the US is bringing out the denialists in a desperate effort to keep the doubt going.

    • Zachary Smith

      Kathy, the willful gullibility of the amateur deniers is a very big part of the problem with climate change. A relative of mine who is at least as intelligent as myself (and attended the same university!) has deliberately turned off his brain on important issues like climate change when the use of that organ refutes the belief system he wants to embrace. Another college-educated relative (also in the deep south) has successfully erased any evidence of having ever learned a speck of biology or history. In her case, whatever the preacher at her church is currently saying is the plain and simple truth. In the event that holy person turned on a dime and said the exact opposite of what he did last week, she’d not even blink when she followed the new line.

      I gave up on discussion with these types quite a while back – they are simply immune to any reality besides the one they’ve made for themselves out of thin air. A person can’t expect “evidence” and “logic” to have any influence with these poor folks when they are – in real time – denying the inputs from their own eyes and ears.

    • http://n/a garrett

      wattsupwiththat.com is the best site on truth regarding ‘global warming/change’ On this site the Climategate emails were shown where the Anglia University/U.N. scientists requested monetary support from the Big Oil companies. The CO2 ruining the planet is aimed at a global tax enslaving the masses and establishing a global rule. ugh
      What is killing the planet is of course the BP explosion, Obama not allowing the tankers from foreign countries to clean up early in the game, the criminal millions of gallons of Corexit (banned in the U.K. for 30+ years) etc. etc. etc. totally disgusting! and there is this-
      Since the 1980s, weather warfare took a leap. H.A.A.R.P. (see Nick Begich), scalar weapons, chemtrails or ‘persistent contrails’ (military chaff) are drastically controlling weather patterns and intensifying ‘tornado’ or what in reality are inland hurricanes, flooding or drought etc.
      aircrap.org or geoengineeringwatch.org or an Aussie w/ his great links from bluenomore.com
      The movie, ‘What in the World Are They Spraying’ and the more recent one, ‘Why in the World are They Spraying’, are excellent documentaries. But HEY! Monsanto has an aluminum resistant seed for the GMO franken seed/plants your elites you parrot from, want the masses to eat. (vaccines in corn is a goodie, ooh yum)
      dutchsinse predicted the Joplin MO, inland hurricanes, shows the radar and the HAARP circle returns and scalar lines for your own eyes to see. China doesn’t hide their weather manipulation, their people cannot bark about it. They blew it and made it snow so heavy there were many deaths some years ago. Check out Paul McCartney clearing the area from clouds for his concert years ago… Russia blames us for their drought, Haiti is another issue……..The radiation from Fukushima is 200 times higher than EPA levels allow, and it’s getting worse. Oh, but our loving elites don’t allow that news on the mass media.

  • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd

    “Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate. As NOAA …”

    NOAA is still monitoring global warming induced climate change:

    The temperature analysis released by the U.S. government each month usually isn’t all that riveting, but the one that came out Monday is a doozy — and not just for weather wonks. Highlights for the contiguous U.S. (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) include:

    *Last month was the warmest March on record (records go back to 1895) at 51.1 degrees; this is 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    *January-March was the warmest first quarter on record; the average temperature of 42 degrees was 6 degrees above average.

    *April 2011-March 2012 was the warmest stretch of those 12 months on record; at 55.4 degrees, that period was 2.6 degrees above average.

    *In March, 15,292 records were broken for warmth; 7,775 were new daytime highs in cities across the country and 7,517 were new nighttime highs.

    “What is so amazing to me is that 25 states had their warmest March on record,” he told msnbc.com. “In addition, another 15 states had a top ten warmest March. Add the two numbers together and that makes a mind-boggling 40 states that had a March that was among their warmest on record.”

    (MSNBC).

    This is the reality scientists have warned about for over a century, and which the GOP resists, to this day, because of oil baron influence over them.

  • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd

    Here is a video showing over 15,000 record breaking high temperatures, in March alone in the U.S.: Record Breaking Warming

  • Charles Crispen Pendragon

    At this point, we need to look at the science. Just Remember, lead climate scientists at NASA have come out and debunked Carbon as a global warming creator, claims… “Carbon follows temperature rise, not the other way round,” like saying, you don’t FIRST get steam, then the kettle boils… it is the other way round.

    With more than 1000 International Scientists recent dissent over Man- Made Global Warming, asserting that man-made global warming is nothing more than data manipulation, “a lie”, when the science is taken out of the political realm and examined empirically. Point is, not a time to be dogmatic about Global Warming.

    I smell a rat. Global warming or Global cooling, as correctly pointed out in this article here, has and was used as an excuse to implement Global Tax Schemes… worth potentially trillions. Kind of getting ridiculously obvious that the general public is being played for caring fools who want to save our beautiful earth and protect our nature. Unfortunately, everyday, as the science shows us… Global Warming looks like a ruse with Geo Political and financial agendas attached to it.

    Have you ever thought Al ‘manbearpig” Gore is just a salesman? Do you feel lied too? Do you feel like you have been played for a caring fool who loves nature, like I do? Well you have…

    Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. You might have thought someone had mistakenly hacked into the Soprano family computer network. But no… these are the leading lights in collating scientific data for the UN IPCC. YES…We are talking the CLIMATE GATE SCANDAL.

    In November 2009 somebody illegally hacked into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK, subsequently publishing 10 years of emails and documents on the Internet. However reprehensible an act of cyber-pilfering, the contents of the authenticated emails carried within them the seeds of a major science scandal; a scandal Andrew Bolt rightly sees as the “greatest in modern science”.

    What was particularly explosive was the unheralded insight it gave us into the scientific world of some of the leading promoters of man-made Global Warming (GW) theory. Charges were laid, people where fired, fraud was found, data manipulation rampant. These are the group that write the climate report for the IPCC & UNITED NATIONS, and global policies are based around.

    You’d have to have a non-melting ice-cap for a heart not to laugh. The following did make me laugh in a worldly sort of chuckle:

    “New research from the Arctic’s Bering Sea also found that ice is thickening to ALL-TIME RECORD HIGH LEVELS.”

    “The amount of floating ice in the Arctic’s Bering Sea – which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace – reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites,” reports the Register.

    The article points to a 1999 Greenpeace prediction that sea ice in the area “could vanish altogether,” another piece of alarmist propaganda debunked by reality.

    Despite a multitude of data that continually serves to eviscerate the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, illustrating again that the earth has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles since its very genesis, climate change snake oil salesmen like NASA’s James Hansen, who this week will call for a global tax on CO2 emissions, continue to ignore real science in pursuit of their political agenda to exploit heartfelt environmental concerns for profit and power.”

    No matter how hard we try to ignore it or deny it, eventually the lies fall away. Whether we like it or not. But here’s the truth about the truth. We are being played for fools…. played for caring fools. The worst thing about being lied to is knowing you’re not worth the truth.

    Well, I am at the point, as Friedrich Nietzsche says, “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you….” Say hi to the globalist’s for me Al Gore, next time you are at a Bilderberg meeting.

    • Terry Yonker

      How about the work of Richard Muller at Berkley BEST project funded by Charles Kok that actually verifies global warming trends from all the data that was available to East Anglia, Mann and others. You are a year behind the curve.

      • Joseph

        Except you’re actually behind the times, it’s all been proven wrong already.

  • Yulek

    I don’t believe any side anymore.

    If both sides would want to be transparent, they would actually have a big freely accessible database of research, raw measurements, methodology, complete models with source data for peer review by anyone. And yet I can’t even find yearly global emissions of CO2 by cars, planes and boats. Can’t find where exactly are placed measurement tools.

    I can find a lot of articles regarding how it’s warming or not warming, how acidification is bad, or not so bad. Real sources? Data? Nothing. If it is so important, why is it not widely published for everyone to see?

    The funniest thing is, both sides say that the other side gets paid by:
    a) Deniers by big oil and other lackeys
    b) Promoters by IPCC (UN bureaucracy) and other lackeys

    Besides it’s getting religious, people who don’t understand a bit of science are preaching to others, as if some god gave them a revelation.

    • Binky Bear

      All the climate data is publicly available online, as are the climate models used to analyze them. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

      Of particular note in rebuttal to the original poster is an article from AMS:
      http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

      What is most important to keep in mind is that one side is pursuing science; the other is defending profits using a script perfected by the heirs of Eduard Bernays for tobacco, asbestos, creationism, and other industries that manufacture public harm on a massive scale. This denial industry is a cost of doing business for companies that make rather substantial profits under present conditions, and finds it worthwhile to fund the US Chamber of Commerce, Heartland Institute, and a multitude of think tanks, lobbyists, PR firms, media companies and celebretard spokesmodels because they can do so and still profit obscenely.
      The global cooling myth is popular because it uses a smidgen of truth to catapult the propaganda-the sun does produce heat at levels that have varied over time that is a substantial input to the climate system-then sells the lie that CO2 and other parts of the climate system are inconsequential.

  • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd

    The equation is: x = y – z (the perfect values are: 0 = 1 – 1)

    Where:

    x” is Earth’s warming / cooling value (’0′ is preferred, stable value)
    y” is incoming solar energy (which becomes heat)
    z” is the Earth’s retention factor (how much solar induced heat escapes as heat radiation)

    As “y” fluctuates there is a natural impact on the warming / cooling of the Earth (“x”).
    As “z” fluctuates, likewise there is a natural impact on the warming / cooling of the Earth (“x”).

    Since the Sun’s ~11 year cycles have never caused catastrophic warming or cooling (“x”), then the relation between “x” and “z” is the factor we focus on.

    That is, the radiation of heat into space (“z”) must equal the incoming solar “heat” (“y”) to keep “x” at the perfect zero value (neither cooling nor warming).

    The global warming science focuses on what affect human endeavors have on “z”.

    The dumping of gases into the atmosphere (“d”), which hamper heat radiating into space in the manner “z-d”, cause x to go out of balance.

    These gases, like CO2, methane, etc., prevent the Earth’s heat from being radiated into space, and therefore “x” is no longer the balanced value of “0″, it begins to increase.

    That warming causes more green-house gases to be released from the various heat sinks, ocean, forests, land, etc., and a runaway factor begins.

    Video of climate scientists who, in 1988, wrote a paper predicting the increased melting of the polar ice caps, the opening of the Northwest Passage, ocean level rise, and weather upsets (which have all now come to pass): http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang///id/1380

  • James Crow

    Believing in government statistics is like believing in Santa Claus. You all really have to be kidding in posting such drivel. This study says, that study says…get real.

    • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd

      The key is when to believe or not believe government or any other statistics.

      When papers are published at a time when neither political party had any clue about “global warming” or “climate change”, e.g. 1988, as I said, then one can believe what is written in competent papers.

      Political propaganda from Bullshitistan only shows up when the public shows up.

      You need to go back a century and closely follow the foot prints, because that way you will know what is stalking YOU.

    • Binky Bear

      Democracy depends upon the voting public being well informed and rational. You are failing democracy by simply walking away from your duty to explain to us why the statistics used to make policy are not correct, inappropriately applied, or otherwise flawed. Just walking away is the weak response that tyrants rely on to take over democracies. Do your duty to your country and explain why the satellites are wrong, why the tree rings are wrong, why the glacier cores are wrong, and why the government would benefit from misrepresenting these numbers.
      The changes are already occurring in the Arctic and the government is already making plans for adjustment to a new climate regime-DOD has been studying the problem for decades and other agencies in the executive branch are studying the phenomenon. If reality and democracy are too hard for you perhaps you are better off staying on the couch and sending your deeply considered opinions to the Yahoo message boards.

  • Longjohn

    I found the part about sun spots and low solar activity especially ironic because just 2-3 years ago that was the #1 Global Warming Skeptic excuse, that Global Warming was caused by increased sun activity.

    Which of course many people pointed out was ridiculous because we had just had our warmest years during the low of a weak solar cycle ….

    But Global Warming aside here is something that really should concern everyone. Right now, today we live with a higher level of CO2, nearly double, than any time in Homo Sapiens existence on this planet and anyone who tells you they know for sure it won’t harm humans or cause mutations is lying to your face … We don’t know because we have no record of it and all testing with CO2 is done on a scale of minutes and hours, not years and entire lifetimes of exposure

    I’ll leave y’all something else to think about:
    Didja ever notice that those who say they believe in Intelligent Design are the ones most likely to muck that Intelligent Design all up?

  • Eric

    This article is supported by “The Global Warming Scare” at http://www.serendipity.li/capitalism/global_warming_scare.htm which begins by considering “graphs, derived from NOAA data from ice cores in central Greenland, showing ice temperature in degrees Centigrade plotted against historical time over the last 50,000 years” and concludes that the claim of anthropogenic global warming is a scam.

    • Zachary Smith

      The first sentence at the link:

      “On December 15, 2009, Richard K. Moore sent a message to subscribers to his mailing list entitled global warming — The official NOAA ice core data. ”

      Who is Richard K. Moore?

      About the author: Richard Moore – Wexford, Ireland
      Stanford University, 1964, B.S. Mathematics, with distinction.

      http://escapingthematrix.org/about_author.html

      Some thoughts: the guy isn’t stupid. But nor is he young. Assuming he entered Stanford at 18 and spent four years there, he was born in 1942. 2012-1942 = 70. Another safe assumption is that he either didn’t learn any physical science while at college, or has forgotten it all. Why would I say that? Because down in your link I found this nugget:

      “I agree with you that a case can still be made for global warming, if proof of CO2′s alleged influence can be produced. ”

      This is a pretty amazing statement! Conclusion: Mr. Moore has an agenda. His devotion to that agenda has caused him to reject anything which stands in its way. The blinders he puts on are necessary because he couldn’t maintain his views about the evil AlGore without them.

      http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7693

      Please note this section:

      “In this context, the net consequence of a major biofuel agenda comes down to intentional genocide. In order to provide marginally more fuel to the over-consuming industrialized nations, untold millions will starve in the third world, in addition to those untold millions that are already starving. The marginal energy gain is so small by comparison, that we must accept that the biofuels agenda is primarily about genocide.”

      Mr. Moore is by no means an evil person, but with regard to regard to his views on climate change he’s merely a well-meaning old crank with some astonishing delusions.

      • Eric

        When you can’t refute an argument then a common intellectually dishonest tactic is to try to discredit the person presenting the argument. That’s exactly what Zachary Smith has tried to do.

        ZS says, “the guy isn’t stupid. But nor is he young.” Is ZS really unaware that the age of a person presenting an argument is irrelevant to the validity of the argument?

        ZS claims that Richard K. Moore’s statement (quoted without any context) that “a case can still be made for global warming, if proof of CO2′s alleged influence can be produced” is “amazing” (no reason given for why it is “amazing”) and justifies ZS’s “safe assumption” that Moore “didn’t learn any physical science while at college, or has forgotten it all”. But obviously there is no connection at all between Moore’s statement and ZS’s “safe assumption”, and it certainly does not follow that “Mr. Moore has an agenda” (whatever ZS wishes to insinuate by that). ZS then continues with some vapid pop psychoanalysis of Moore which is obviously a product of his fantasy.

        ZS then cites an article published by globalresearch.ca (entitled “The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis”), and quotes a few sentences in which Moore is discussing the global food crisis, but ZS makes no attempt to explain how this is relevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming.

        ZS concludes that Moore is “merely a well-meaning old crank with some astonishing delusions.” Well, any fool can mouth off with insults instead of rational argument, and intelligent readers can read Moore’s articles and decide for themselves which one is the crank.

        Perhaps ZS’s insulting of Richard K. Moore in the manner he has done is really an instance of a classic troll tactic, namely, to distract attention, in this case from the criticism of the claim of anthropogenic global warming (and the conclusion that it is a scam) which is contained in the page I cited: “The Global Warming Scare” at http://www.serendipity.li/capitalism/global_warming_scare.htm

        • Zachary Smith

          “When you can’t refute an argument then a common intellectually dishonest tactic is to try to discredit the person presenting the argument. That’s exactly what Zachary Smith has tried to do.”

          Pointing out that some individual is a delusional ignoramus, and providing evidence of that situation, that’s usually enough to discredit their wild claims.

          “ZS claims that Richard K. Moore’s statement (quoted without any context) that “a case can still be made for global warming, if proof of CO2′s alleged influence can be produced” is “amazing” (no reason given for why it is “amazing”)”

          As for why it’s “amazing”, I’m providing a link to a text I found on Google Books titled ‘The Physics of Atmospheres’. The link is to the very first page and the subject is “Some Basic Ideas”. This is the college-level equivalent of ‘baby talk’.

          http://tinyurl.com/cecarye

          A second link gives quite a bit more detail.

          http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-1/

          Denying basic stuff about physical science is the essence of Denialism.

          I trust you now see why I used the word “amazing” – this is basic physics which Mr. Moore pretended (?) not to understand.

          • Eric

            Zachary Smith said: “Pointing out that some individual is a delusional ignoramus,” — but ZS’s claim is false — “and providing evidence of that situation,” — but ZS provided no evidence — “that’s usually enough to discredit their wild claims” — and just repeating baseless insults is apparently all ZS can manage to do.

            There’s no need to get into a discussion of atmospheric physics because ZS says “Denying basic stuff about physical science is the essence of Denialism”, whereas Richard K. Moore’s statement (which ZS found to be “amazing”) is “I agree with you that a case can still be made for global warming, if proof of CO2′s alleged influence can be produced”, which in no way is a denial of any established proposition of physical science.

            ZS’s troll tactic of trying to distract our attention from the facts (in particular the graphs showing ice temperature plotted against historical time over the last 50,000 years), reasoning and conclusion presented at “The Global Warming Scare” at http://www.serendipity.li/capitalism/global_warming_scare.htm is simply not going to work.

      • http://n/a garrett

        global research (above) is one of the best, well documented resources out there….
        it’s tragic how many truly ignorant persons have not delved into the both sides of the global ‘cooling’, then ‘warming’ then ‘change’ debate. Evidently, not following those attempting to save their hides from the oligarchy- ‘hell bent’ on taking over with a greening agenda they knew would be a more palatable way to smooze young concerned minds, then coercing them by suggesting a communist way of life. Brilliant!
        Banks and Big Oil are behind it. watts had the emails to prove it, money being requested by U.N. scientists in emails (Climategate) Hiding the decline etc. etc. etc.
        Maurice Strong thought most of it out. Just love his extended plot of ‘Agenda 21′ which the movie ‘Hunger Games’ outlines to a great extent. Land grabbing is going on in the U.S. every day now. Look it up!
        What a wonderful world, huh? Why do you suppose some former communist countries and others have thrown out Monsanto’s GMO seeds and frankenfoods? Once controlled by elites driving them into the grave, never again? (North Korea, great example, starving masses mindlessly honoring their leader) wattsupwiththat.com will refute and prove the CO2 harmful to the planet is an agenda and B.S. I always wonder why why do the global warming ‘alarmists’ NEVER mention the massive geo-engineering of destructive chemicals being sprayed daily throughout the world? ‘What in the World are They Spraying’ is a movie for those blind to the obvious.
        The amounts of aluminum and barium, nano-particulates, fibers and crap…
        The planet is being killed off. If you want to be very shocked, google the dolphins burned in Iran by H.A.A.R.P. – worst I have ever seen yet.
        aircrap.org /funny name, seriously great site!
        I love this glorious environment we enjoy, I am a scientific field worker outraged by the weather warfare directed at the planet. Get a real concern, one that is fiercely upon us! Don’t give into mind control, think for yourselves please.

    • Zachary Smith

      After some additional research about Mr. Moore, I find I’ve been entirely too kind to him.

      https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/cyberjournal/2012-01/msg00006.html

      He’s a freaking anti-vaxxer!

      So allow me to amend my previous characterization of him from “delusional ignoramus” to “dangerous delusional ignoramus”.

    • Zachary Smith

      I posted my earlier remarks too quickly, for from the same site I found Mr. Moore’s reply to a query about the Worldwatch Institute. A woman asked him about his thoughts regarding their aims of 1) Stabilizing population; 2) Shifting to renewable energy; 3) Increasing energy efficiency; 4) Recycling resources; 5) Reforestation and 6) Soil Conservation.

      His reply: “This article is a propaganda piece, defining for its readers the meaning of ‘politically correct’ when it comes to sustainability. It begins with ‘stabilizing population’, a euphemism for systematically reducing population in the third world, so that more of their resources can be stolen. It talks about ‘increasing energy efficiency’, a euphemism for maintaining unsustainable infrastructures, and working only toward marginal efficiencies. ”

      Fruitcake!

      • Eric

        The topic of this page of Washington’s Blog is the possibility of a new ice age, so we should not allow Zachery Smith to distract us from the subject. Those interested in the scientific data and what we can infer from it (rather than in ZS’s tiresome anti-Moore tirades) would do well to look at Richard K. Moore’s main article on this subject:
        Climate science: observations vs. models — the global-warming illusion
        which has a lot more graphs of ice-core temperatures than the web page I cited previously. Especially interesting is the final section, “What is the real agenda of the politically powerful factions who are promoting global-warming alarmism?”

        Thanks to ZS for drawing attention to Richard K. Moore’s writings. Many of Moore’s articles (on topics other than climate change) are available on the Serendipity website. See here for a list of 18 of them, including A Brief History of the New World Order.

    • Zachary Smith

      The saga of the old Ireland-based writer isn’t quite finished. Using the keyword “9/11″ I’ve established the fellow is a genuine “9/11 Truther”.

      “Perhaps the most compelling physical evidence, contrary to the official story, is the manner in which the Trade Center towers collapsed. The videos of the collapses look exactly like professional demolitions, the buildings collapsing inward, in a perfectly balanced way. Eyewitnesses, including professional fire fighters, reported hearing multiple explosions throughout the buildings, and seismic records indicate a strong blast at the base of each tower prior to its collapse. Elaborate simulations have been presented in the mass media that attempt to explain that the first tower collapse could have been caused by heat from the burning fuel.”

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=565

      BTW, in the same article Mr. Moore introduced me to his ‘Oklahoma Federal Building Truther’ stance. Who knew!

      From what I can tell Mr. Richard K. Moore writes to pay the bills. He writes a LOT, and about subjects he’d have been well advised to avoid. From his article titled “The Grand Story of Humanity” we learn the real reason humans have large brains.

      http://www.gaiamedia.org/content/english/templates_06_medien/article_e_humanity.html

      “In fact, the development of our intelligence had nothing to do with survival. Rather, it had to do with our love of conversation, stories, music, and songs. Our brains co-evolved along with the complexity of our languages. As the languages became more complex, more brain power was needed to deal with the syntax and vocabulary, which then led to even more complex language, and so on. There was evidently, early on, a sexual preference in our species for good story tellers and good listeners.”

      Yes, a few hundred thousand years ago a female looking for somebody to father her children paid special attention to the fellows who harmonized best as the happy gang of proto-humans sat around the fire holding hands and singing their version of Kumbaya.

      Despite being out of college for over half a century, Mr. Moore has some firm opinions on energy technology.

      “Other alternatives, such as wind farms, nuclear, and solar cells, even with massive investments, can contribute only marginally to our total energy usage.”

      http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12433

      Never mind that he pulled this nonsense straight out of his heinie. Wind power could produce mankind’s energy right now. At considerably more expense, so could solar cells. These could be on rooftops, on huge dedicated ‘farms’, and in high orbit around the earth. The latter would be pretty pricey, but entirely practical. And the same is true for nuclear power. It would be by far the most expensive, and vastly more dangerous than anything else, but the reserves of uranium and thorium and the unsafe power plant technology to produce humanity’s energy certainly do exist.

      One final example of how careless Mr. Moore is with his writing.

      “The new report is from scientist Joseph D’Aleo and was highlighted in a report on global warming on KUSI television in San Diego.

      It comes only weeks after the tumultuous climategate e-mail scandal in Britain erupted, proving top global warming scientists manipulated data there.

      The report from D’Aleo, a retired climatologist who has been skeptical of global warming, contends climate data has been corrupted and skewed by “urbanization and other local factors such as land-use-land-cover changes and improper siting.”

      If Mr. Moore had bothered to google “Joseph D’Aleo” he’d have found him to be a meteorologist – a cable TV weatherman. Don’t know whether or not ‘scientist’ is a proper description for D’Aleo, but “retired climatologist” damned well isn’t. Does this faux pas fall under “ignoramus” or “careless fanatic” – take your choice.

      So why have I taken this time to beat up on poor Mr. Moore?

      It’s because he’s a typical “authority” dragged out by amateur Deniers. They don’t have enough real climate scientists on their side that they’d need to take off their shoes and socks to count them, so they’re forced to go with the third and fourth string guys – people who appear to be literate and can draw pretty “scientific-looking” pictures and graphs.

      Does their current “Important Climate Denier” guy hatch silkworms in his hat? Does he think he has conversations with gnomes in his garden? Does Exxon pay have him on an allowance to write his Denials? It Does Not Matter – his ramblings about Climate Science must be respected.

      Contrariwise, evil Government Scientists cannot be trusted under any circumstances. They are the exact opposites of the Amateur Experts because they’re intelligent, educated, and have vast amounts of experience in their field.

      So we see and will continue to see the parade of clowns and jokers who Must Be Respected in their Denials.

      If anybody has guessed I’m not going to be respectful of those clowns and jokers, they’ve guessed right.
      :)

      • Eric

        Thanks to Zachary Smith for causing so many readers of Washington’s Blog (the best blog on the net) to discover Richard K. Moore’s many informed, informative, intelligent and insightful articles.

        Actually I believe Moore has not written much on 9/11. Those interested in this subject may care to read a few of the many articles listed here. ZS will probably take this as an excuse to post a denunciation of those supporting 9/11 truth, but this is a typical troll strategy (in this case to distract us again from the global warming scam), and it is always good to remember the saying: “Do not feed the trolls.”

  • Vierotchka

    Global Warming or Global Freezing… either way we’re screwed.

  • yobarnacle@yahoo.com

    Originally Posted by Yobarnacle
    HERE IS:
    Proof of lack of ethics among Warm-mongers
    AND
    Proof CO2 doesn’t drive climate
    AND
    Proof we are not headed for climate disaster
    AND
    Proof peer review process has been co-opted.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/p…es-reveal.html

    Peer-Reviewed Research: Unprecedented Global Warming During Medieval Period, Boreholes Reveal
    Way back in 1997, researchers published a paper that was based on data from 6,000 plus borehole sites from all the continents. The reconstructed temperatures clearly showed a Medieval Period warming that was, and is, unprecedented. ( chart below) The data also makes clear that subsequent warming began well before the growth of human CO2 emissions and this natural rebound would obviously lead to temperatures similar to the Medieval Period.

    A year later, the infamous Mann hockey-stick temperature chart ( posted bottom) was published to wild acclaim by the IPCC and AGW-centric activists. So popular did the Mann chart become, the 6,000+ borehole chart was completely ignored since its data refuted the Mann study. The borehole scientists (Pollack, Huang, Shen) then decided to re-publish their study with primarily only the blue-side (the typical AGW-favored data cherry-picking) of the chart below. This repackaged borehole study became accepted by the AGW-centric scientists as it seemed to support their cause and the Mann’s hockey-stick.

    Now

    Antartic ice cores confirm, Medieval Warm Period was global.

    http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

    By peer reveiwed data a Global Medieval Warm period DID exist 1000 years ago The temperature was about 1 degree C warmer than it is now.
    And afterward a global Little Ice Age DID exist, much colder than now. We are still on the natural warm swing from the little ice age.

    This PROVES climate cycles are natural.
    Proves they are not man made.
    Proves CO2 doesn’t drive climate.
    Proves even a degree warmer climate than now is beneficial, and not a catastrophe!

    Mann DID publish the lying hockey stick chart 1 year later, totally erasing and ignoring the MWP and the LIA.
    Not only did the IPCC endorse this lie, all the “consensus” endorsed it, even the scientists who did the original MWP study, REPUBLISHED their modified chart, now only showing the recent 500 years, because, they didn’t want to conflict with Mann’s lying chart and it’s message!

    Proof the global warmists lie!
    Proof they doctor data!
    Proof they ignore what doesn’t agree with them!
    Proof they pressure even peer reviewed studies to be truncated.

    It all adds up to:

    Man Made Global Warming is CRAP!

    Now ask yourself WHY the lies?

  • Wilco Willy

    All this climate change stuff is shifting our focus away from the our real problems of financial collapse.
    The U.S. lacks the financial structure to deal with climate change. Most folks don’t seem to buy into the CO2 warming thingy. It simply tracks temp changes rather poorly. What really needs changing is our tax climate to a more favorable geoeconomics coupled with evironmental concerns. Only when the global financial structures are reshaped can the world deal with the potential whatever if it is still of concern.

  • Eric

    The final word on this climate change scaremongering should be that of the 16 scientists who signed a letter published May 29, 2012, in the Wall Street Journal:

    No Need to Panic About Global Warming
    There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

 

 

Twitter