This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice - In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age

George Washington's picture




 

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.

Why were scientists considering melting the arctic ice cap?

Because they were worried about a new ice age.

Newsweek discussed the 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.

Newsweek was not alone. Some scientists and the press have been warning about an ice age off and on for over 100 years.

For example, 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.

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.

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.

Note 1: One
of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must
make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems
themselves.
For example, the Washington Post noted
that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to
another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole.
However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government
demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' "   Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying themOther ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.

And
Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

Suppose
it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way
understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to
set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well,
given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably
have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that
would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd
even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right
now." (page 388).

Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?

Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.

Note
2: Given that scientists considered pouring soot on the North Pole to
melt the ice in the 1970's, it should come as no surprise that soot may
be having a
dramatic effect on the ice sheets and glaciers now.

Note 3: Some global warming advocates warn that a warming-induced shut down of the huge ocean current known as the thermohaline circulation could cause a new ice age in certain limited parts of the world that are warmed by the by the North Atlantic current, such as Iceland, Ireland, the Nordic countries, and Britain. But scientists in the 1970s were talking about something different: the start of a worldwide ice age due, for example, to a 100,000 year cycle in solar radiation hitting the Earth.

Note
4: I studied global warming at a top university in the early 1980's. I
was taught - as Al Gore was taught in college - that temperatures are
directly correlated with CO2 levels.

Note
5: I not only do not receive a penny from oil or any other energy,
industry or political person or organization of any nature whatsoever
(I make a few peanuts from ads on this site, which I do not choose, but
are selected without my input by my ad service), I am also wholly and
completely against big oil, big coal and big nuclear. As I have
repeatedly argued, power should be taken away from the oil giants and
decentralized. I have repeatedly argued for microgeneration and for
alternative energy. These things are beneficial for a number of reasons
- including better health, less corruption of our political systems
through decentralization of power, and a boost to our economy - in
addition to whatever climate benefits they may have.

Note 6: For further information on the swing between warnings of ice ages and runaway global warming, see this and this.
I have verified all of the facts made in the main post above, but I
have not yet verified all of the claims made in the last two
aforementioned web pages.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 12/19/2009 - 22:35 | 170222 loup garou
loup garou's picture

Holdren is a far-left extremist and a crackpot.

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198

 

From ages 942-943 of  Ecoscience, a book he co-authored with fellow nutcase Paul Ehrlich:

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

Fri, 12/18/2009 - 00:55 | 168473 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Here's a nice forensic audit of how the IPCC mafia cooked the books. Madoff style.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Here's a little more context.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick

Climategate was about more than just those emails comments which paint the picture of anti-scientific fraud. It also revealed some of their actual 'tricks.'

One can only imagine how fraudulent any carbon trading system would be!

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 22:32 | 168332 Woodshedder
Woodshedder's picture

500 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 22:48 | 168349 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

that's what, 5% of the 10,000 peer review papers supporting global warming?

Fri, 12/18/2009 - 14:26 | 169021 Woodshedder
Woodshedder's picture

And we now know that there was very little peer reviewing. Rather, their was peer exclusion of any research that didn't fit the agenda of the climate alarmists.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 22:02 | 168314 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

warming - cooling - all the same... just another rouse for globalisation and new trade routes. Copenhagen is more about PANAMA Canal capacity increasing by 300% in 2014 than about anything scientific. The silly thing is the scientists and protesters are doing exactly what they are programmed to do - distract everyone from the globalists real bread and butter. International trade = fewer jobs for the non-cheap labor pools.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 21:19 | 168242 Tell me lies
Tell me lies's picture

Lets get a grip. What poses a bigger risk to the world? Global warming or an asteroid impact? These assholes should be spending the money looking for a planet killer as opposed to a finance killer.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:37 | 168240 heatbarrier
heatbarrier's picture

If the global warming effect is likely, how come nobody is talking about climate engineering as catastrophe insurance? That's what makes me think something is not right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEys3PeseA

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:25 | 168225 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Some interesting data from NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

Final word from NOAA on climate change:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

".... There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future. "

Also some physicists asked APS to reconsider its 2007 policy statement on climate change:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_St...

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/dissenting-members-ask-aps-to-put-...

By the way, given the complexity of the climate system, I am quite amazed at people's confidence on what these models say. We all know how all those economic models (also models used to describe complex systems) turned out ...

It is one thing to use it in the lab, it is entirely a different thing to decide the fate of billions. It'd better be correct or we will be putting all the precious resources in the wrong places.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:19 | 168223 Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now's picture

Truth doesn't matter to luciferians, in fact they are inclined to serve the prince of falsehoods delighting in wickedness. 

They will support anything that could give them more power, truth as Al Gore's move title hinted is in a word, inconvenient.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:13 | 168215 Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now's picture

OK Zero Hedge faithful -

This is the one short video you absolutely must see on the subject, a new one and it is golden!

Worth 5 minutes of your time and the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.

Enjoy a good laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds&feature=player_embedded

Priceless, still laughing

 

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:25 | 168224 heatbarrier
heatbarrier's picture

All those short alternative energy stocks leave the room.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:03 | 168206 tradertim
tradertim's picture

Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice - In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age

and now they want to paint every house and street in the world white to prevent global warming. oh jeez!! it never ends. i think they just get bored and dream up new global nightmares to see which one sticks. it takes about 30 to 40 years for the last global nightmare to pass before they can dream up a new so the new generations don't know anything about the last one and the older generations forget.

i remember very well the 'coming ice age' propaganda in the '70's because i was in high school, and growing up on the coast in california, i was excited at the idea of having it snow where i lived. so i waited and waited and waited, and it never happened. once i got wise and realized it was just all about control, politics, money, then i just laughed about it.

once we get bored with global warming, i think the next one is going to be the 'horror' of having more than 1 child per family. china is already preparing for this by wanting to make it a global law that every family on earth can only have 1 child so we don't run out of food and water. anyone been following this one??

i have been in civil engineering for 30 years, and one thing i did over and over again was design storm drain systems and flood channels for each years rain and the 100 year storm. we didn't try and control the weather, we designed 'stuff' to handle the weather. if this administration and our scientists are so convinced that global warming is going to melt all the ice bergs and the seas are going to flood all the coastal cities, then why don't we put millions of engineers and designers and construction people to work by building flood walls and channels and anything else to prevent flooding?? why are we trying to control the weather?? the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. i'm pretty sure the earth has cooled and warmed a few times without humans being around.

 

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:00 | 168201 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

They call themselves scientists, soot would absorb more light and this retain more heat. Idiots!!!

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 19:58 | 168197 Winisk
Winisk's picture

Anyone who won't even entertain the idea that we as a species can alter the climate catastrophically has apparently not heard of a nuclear winter.  Of course we can affect the climate if we so choose. Talk about apocalyptic endings.  Anyone out there care to deny that science?  Nature doesn't have a plan.  Evolution isn't directed.  Ecosystems respond dynamically to constant change.  It is also incredibly resilient which gives me hope. 

I agree with the main point that we should first do no harm, but one can easily debate that that is precisely what our current path is doing. We are on an unsustainable course. It needs to change if we stand any chance of leaving our planet in a condition that supports a healthy life for the generations that follow.  I also agree that dramatic quick fixes are likely hazardous and any solution should be carefully measured.  The scientific community should be listened to, not renegade scientists that seek publicity, and certainly not politicians and corporate interests.

We can choose to slow down or we can race to a certain crash ending. Mother Earth doesn't give a damn about us.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 21:57 | 168311 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I think the "crash ending" is just a part of the evolutionary cycle you embrace.Understanding that the clear consensus of "scientists" is we are all Evolutionists, it seems absolutely absurd to worry about "climate change." Humans will evolve to adapt to warmer or colder temperatures -- right?? And who are we to deny other species (our moral equivalents in every way) the warmer or colder temperatures they may actually prefer? Why are humans so self centered in this way?

And if humans (as we know them) get wiped out, why is that "bad?" Are we happy or sad dinosaurs got wiped out? A true Evolutionist would be indifferent.

What exactly is the "correct" temperature for the earth and why should "humans" get to dictate such??

All of the climate alarmists should answer these kinds of questions before we "inconvenience" ourselves with their view of "truth."

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 19:47 | 168186 Tom North
Tom North's picture

Breaking News on the Climate front:

"Heat Rises In Copenhagen As Cap & Trade Deemed Too Inconvenient"

http://outsidethe-cardboard-box.tumblr.com/post/286334520/heat-rises-in-copenhagen-as-cap-trade-deemed-too

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 22:59 | 168358 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Good stuff Tom.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 19:29 | 168167 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Wonder if anyone here noticed these:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/dissenting-members-ask-aps-to-put-...

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Richard_Lindzen.html

From NOAA's data, the temperature now does not seem to be too much warmer and the trend seems to be burried in the noise.. I must be missing something here ..

Direct quote from NOAA:
"There are, however, questions remaining concerning global warming. For instance, what caused the warming and what are the implications for the future? The answers to these questions are not simple.

There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future."

and the questions remain to be answered

"However, there is uncertainty about some issues. For example, these questions remain to be answered with complete confidence:
How much warming has occurred due to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels?
How much warming will occur in the future?
What other changes will occur with future warming?
"

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 19:21 | 168162 Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

Back in the 90's I seem to remember a Popular Science cover about jet contrails causing global cooling.

Anyone want to rig up some weather balloons to carry up a bunch of sulfur dioxide cylinders and then empty them into the upper atmosphere?

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:57 | 168129 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I think Fat All Gorelione is not only a great politician, but also a great poet.
"Neptune's bones disolve in the midnight sun..."
Fucking poetry baby!

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:51 | 168120 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

"would you also suggest that medical science in 2010 that contradicts science from 1975 suggests a lie is lurking? is it possible that with advanced technology and processing power, we now have information well beyond what they had back then?"

Hubris. A disease you never know you have. Years later, it becomes obvious to all.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 22:49 | 168350 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

In 1975 medical science discounted the idea that dietary cholesterol promotes heart disease.  Now years later the pendulum has swung exactly the opposite way (helped in no little measure by effective cholesterol-lowering drugs) and now it is accepted dogma that the food police have every justification to outlaw the more delicious ways of making french fries (lard) for the fu-fu fries (yuck) that now pass in most restaurants.  Not only that, you better take your Lipitor.  Never mind that all this "advanced technology and processing power" has not produced one iota of improvement in the cardiac mortality statistics.  But, as a physician who has witnessed all this for years, I'm most saddened by the dearth of common sense.  Really, if you think about the very best way to go, wouldn't it be better to die of a nice clean heart arrythmia than the alternatives?  Give me back my fries!

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:49 | 168118 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Scientist today are no smarter - and no better informed about climate - than those of any other era. They are SURE they are right this time, and just as surely will be proven fools in the long run.
Had they acted on their certainty years they would have done a lot of damage, and they will again today.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:47 | 168113 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

R.E.

"And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now." (page 388)."

So if you could manufacture a global warming consensus, it would be the PERFECT COVER for a Fascist take-over, as even Noam Chomsky would submit to it. Do you think someone might have read Chomsky's quote and experienced an ephiphany (a "Brilliant Idea")?

Possible?

Seems so.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:01 | 168055 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

"And if humans (as we know them) get wiped out, why is that "bad?" Are we happy or sad dinosaurs got wiped out? A true Evolutionist would be indifferent."

Sheer outright self-interest. Science may tell us what happens -- it doesn't tell us what we want to happen.

Sure, in the "big picture", maybe humanity will go extinct and some better-adapted species will dominate the earth (maybe the descendants of tropical squirrels -- who knows?)
The Earth doesn't care.

However, as humans, we tend to be a bit biased in our own favor.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 19:50 | 168189 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

But as enlightened Evolutionists we should not be "biased in our own favor" -- we now understand and appreciate how equal we are with say cock roaches. "Bias" has no place in a true science-based world. There is no good "reason" for humans to place their wants above another species. Science should be our guide to "what we want to happen."

And our political order is very much in favor of stamping out the "evil self-interest" you refer to -- now it's all we, village, community, whole earth, etc.

Come on man, get with the program.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 22:33 | 168333 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

Good luck getting rid of bias. Seriously, man stop deluding yourself.  Your little picture of the universe is just that, a single point of view.  Among other reasons why there can never be a one world government: the world is round and no one can stay awake continuously to govern it.  Try it and the coup will occur in your sleep.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:51 | 168122 the bohemian
the bohemian's picture

exactly-

I wonder if the Inuit were wetting thier walrus britches when they realized the Bering Land Bridge was being submerged under water-

it must have been all those camp fires that did it-  lol

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:57 | 168048 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Newsweek's article was never taken seriously by a significant number of scientists. Just do the research.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:55 | 168043 Andrei Vyshinsky
Andrei Vyshinsky's picture

And the Church is piloried about its treatment of Galileo by such supercilious devotees of reason? I mean this just has to be case #45,876 in which the arrogance of scientific methodology shows itself in need of prayer. I'm not sure which contribution these air-heads can point to that does them the most justice, this one or frontal lobotomy.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:49 | 168039 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Understanding that the clear consensus of "scientists" is we are all Evolutionists, it seems absolutely absurd to worry about "climate change." Humans will evolve to adapt to warmer or colder temperatures -- right?? And who are we to deny other species (our moral equivalents in every way) the warmer or colder temperatures they may actually prefer? Why are humans so self centered in this way?

And if humans (as we know them) get wiped out, why is that "bad?" Are we happy or sad dinosaurs got wiped out? A true Evolutionist would be indifferent.

What exactly is the "correct" temperature for the earth and why should "humans" get to dictate such??

All of the climate alarmists should answer these kinds of questions before we "inconvenience" ourselves with their view of "truth."

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:47 | 168036 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Note 3: I studied global warming at a top university in the early 1980's. I was taught - as Al Gore was taught in college - that temperatures are directly correlated with CO2 levels.
GW;
JUST BECAUSE A PROFESSOR SAID IT WAS SO. "DOESN'T MAKE IT SO"
Two days in a row you have tried to fly something by us that can't even walk!!
The hilarious side effect of AGW now being provable fraud. Is all the guilty victims not knowing where to point their fingers!!

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:19 | 167995 Sun Tsu
Sun Tsu's picture

GW: http://news.discovery.com/earth/black-soot-himalayas-glaciers.html

  The lofty goals on the minds of AGW scientists and a few zealots are near inseparable.

-follow the Money to the Soros.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:15 | 167989 Prophet of Wise
Prophet of Wise's picture

pure Luciferian globalist political fraud and FOLLY

http://www.moresureword.com/globalwarming.htm

 

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:00 | 167967 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

as a doctor - i guess that kinda counts as scientist - i find this article very amusing.

would you also suggest that medical science in 2010 that contradicts science from 1975 suggests a lie is lurking? is it possible that with advanced technology and processing power, we now have information well beyond what they had back then?

there is no question that science can be abused politically. but personally i wouldn't waste time reading research on multifactorial complex algorithm theoretical science that was conducted prior to the computing revolution...and btw i don't think this is evidence that either of the scientists (global cooling or warming) intentionally created bullshit propaganda either. the world is complex and our analytical framework of it is based on several assumptions which are constantly being "upgraded".

personally, i don't understand why any one gives two shits about discrediting global warming. let's say it doesn't exist and keep using oil. there are several other reasons gas-chuggers are horrible:

1) health - the asthma epidemic is through the roof in this country. everyone has allergies. pollution in most cities is not exactly in everyone's best interests.

2) supply and demand of nonrenewable energy sources - if we have the technology available to eliminate oil and replace it with renewable energy why the hell would we not do it? i never get this with the anti-global warming fanatics...i mean if goldman sachs controls cap-and-trade and converts it into a market (which they will) it doesn't exactly please me. but, on the other hand, given money to a bunch of middle eastern sexist idiots/princes is not a better alternative by any means.

Keep blogging against global warming guys and keep driving your cars so that you can prove Gore is wrong. At the end of the day it is always more important to be correct about your opinion than to have a logical understanding of the overall picture.

Men.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:11 | 168064 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Doc - follow your oath: "first do no harm" ...

Here's a new addendum I just added:

Note 1: One of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems themselves. For example, the Washington Post noted that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole. However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' "   Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying themOther ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.

And
Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now." (page 388).

Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?

Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 22:07 | 168317 Cistercian
Cistercian's picture

 Obviously Human Beings are evil and must be destroyed.Kill them all...before it's too late!!

 The forgoing statement is one that many of today's psychopaths would agree with in principle.From China's wonderful population control methods to every other way to endorse Malthus these lunatics are consistent in proposing solutions to problems created from whole cloth that diminish human life.They are true destroyers, bent on annihilation of the race.

 

 As regards the totally unscientific gaia worship/consensus, it is a total crock.The Sahara is no longer a grassland.(our fault how?)The medieval warm period was automobile/industrial production related?Wake up out of your babbling, incoherent fuzzy data induced walking coma you dolts!Here is a hypothesis for you:The Sun is a long period variable star.Have fun with that one.Ever heard of the maunder minimum?You better pray something like it that is deeper and more extended does not happen....or you can ice skate outside on the glacier covering Manhattan.The only thing we know is ice ages are cyclic.Let me know when you have a reliable data set of solar output over several cycles...then we can talk over whether we can prevent the next ice age by burning the entire planet.No data=speculation.Speculation posing as hard science=LIES.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 16:38 | 167918 Prophet of Wise
Prophet of Wise's picture

The substance of these stratagems [for the weakening of the United States so it can be more easily merged into a global government based on the model of Satanic collectivism] can be traced directly back to a think-tank study commissioned by Robert McNamara and produced by Herman Kahn released in 1966 called the Report from Iron Mountain.

Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious; the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the "enemy" sufficient to warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society [government] must be proportionate to the size and complexity of the society [government]. Today, of course, that power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness. 6

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. Remembering, the first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real.

Furthermore, we must not be fooled by pretended concern for Mother Earth. The call-to-arms for saving the planet is a gigantic ruse. The real objective in all of this is world government, the ultimate doomsday mechanism from which there is no escape. Destruction of the economic strength of the industrialized nations  is merely a necessary prerequisite for ensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement is directed totally to that end.

6 Lewin, Report, p. 44

This is taken/quoted from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

 

 

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 21:08 | 168269 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Great points.  I remember that Rand report -- around that time period -- on the upcoming Weather Wars.

Hope that one has Princess Leia too.....

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:35 | 168019 aaronvelasquez
aaronvelasquez's picture

The next bogeyman will be aliens attacking.  Just saying.  You'll see.  Werner Von Braun's secretary can't be wrong on that one.  

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:35 | 168237 tip e. canoe
Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:31 | 168013 Orly
Orly's picture

Bingo.

Outstanding observation and the only one that is true.  Now we know why the "Ice Age" paradigm has been buried for twenty years.  It was so that the young can be re-branded and brainwashed with a completely different mindset.

They realised long ago that there was no boogeyman in global cooling.  It was natural.  Therefore, we do have a boogeyman now and it is CO/CO2 emissions.  (Forget to mention that the trees love it and will only get "greener" as carbon dioxide becomes more plentiful.  How can it be that Nature already has a natural balance in mind?  Shock!)

The hubris of these people is what really has me scratching my head.  Don't they realise that a puny, transitory animal has near-zero effect on planetary systems?

What are they, demi-gods?  Ridiculous.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 16:36 | 167915 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

GW- I recommend the classic essay The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. This book explains the development of scientific knowledge, and when that knowledge becomes a theory. You article did a great job of showing how the press can run away with individual scientific claims, but those claims are by no means theory. Read the book to find out what does constitute a theory.

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/02...

Another great primer is by skeptic magazine, who's editors slammed the idea of global warming for more than a decade before yielding to the preponderance of evidence.

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol14n01.html

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 16:22 | 167894 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Can i buy glacier insurance for my home??? Or is my mortgage so under ice that I should just walk, er, ski away?

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 18:35 | 168098 MinnesotaNice
MinnesotaNice's picture

lol... glacier insurance... funny :-)

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 16:20 | 167892 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

To the author: Newspaper articles have nothing to do with the development of scientific theory. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn is the classic text on what constitutes a working theory (btw, individual claims by scientists make good news copy, but do not constitute scientific knowledge). Read the book to find out what does.

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/02...

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 16:20 | 167890 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I am sort of confused about what point you're trying to make with "Note 2". As a chemical engineer, I can tell you that CO2 insulates better than nitrogen and oxygen. Although there is merit to discussing and debating the existence of anthropogenic climate change, the effect of adding CO2 to a mixture of primarily N2 and O2 is not unknown or up for dispute.

Thu, 12/17/2009 - 16:15 | 167884 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Okay, let me see if I've got this right:

Newsweek, that paragon of intellectual reporting, finds someone on the fringe of science willing to claim there might be an ice age someday... and all the sudden 100 years of peer-reviewded climate reporting based on field research and global meteorology, 4 full IPCC reports, and 30 years of careful analysis of AGW in particular are in the doghouse, not worth the paper they are printed on.

You guys are sick, you know that. Where do you come up with this wingnut nonsense? Antlers screwed on too tight.

Stick to money. You know your money, oh boy. This sort of intellectual dishonesty though is silly.

cougar

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!