Note that this super cold period from 1975 is now understood by climatologists to have been a super hot period, thanks to pioneering work done at Penn State University.
People in 1975 just weren’t intelligent enough to know if they were hot or cold.
Deep within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go belly up.
We don’t have to go too far back in time to witness man’s fear and fascination with climate fluctuations, natural or man-made. The Global Cooling and “New Ice-Age” scare of the late 1970’s promised mankind ‘political upheaval, social unrest, major economic damage and global food shortages.’ However given lots of money and “urgent” action from the top, clever man was able to miraculously avert such global catastrophe.
Fast forward only 35 years and the dire warnings and economic scenarios we read about in today’s current Global Warming ‘crisis’ are straight out of the 1970’s Global Cooling playbook; simply swap cooling for warming and voilà ~ another “man-made” global catastrophe to match the temperature of the day. And another excuse for Government’s to steal your hard-earned money and play weather-god’s to fix a perceived ‘climate crisis’. The United Nations’ IPCC now aims to prove human CO² is causing global warming as part of their belief that industrialised populations will exhaust all resources and must be shut down.
• Short memories we have.
- Highlights from “A United States Climate Program” 1974 :
- The recommended U.S. Climate Program will require $39.8M of new funding in FY 76, with further increases of $7.3M in 77and $9.4 in FY 78.
- Because the impacts of climate fluctuations are felt directly or indirectly by all nations, and because the processes that control climate and the systems to monitor them are global in scope, international efforts will be needed. The United States should foster them in all appropriate forms.
- It is clear that climate fluctuations are resulting in major economic, social and political consequences. Our vulnerability has a increased; as the world’s population and the affluence of part of it have grown, grain reserves have shrunk to the point …. These concerns are compounded by mounting evidence that man’s industrial and agricultural activities may cause changes in climate inadvertently….
Scoundrels at NOAA and NASA have been working tirelessly to rewrite the history of the period, but sadly for them, the Internet never forgets.
By Paul Homewood
Most of us will be aware of the stories about the “ice age scare” during the 1970’s. Many have dismissed these as little more than journalistic hype, but some facts are incontrovertible.
- Northern Hemisphere temperatures fell sharply between the 1940’s and 1970’s
- Arctic ice expanded rapidly.
- Many severe weather events were linked to this cooling.
The US Government was concerned enough about this climatic change that, in 1974, it set up a Subcommittee on Climate Change, under the auspices of the Secretary of the Interior.The Committee was to be chaired by Robert White, Administrator of NOAA, and made up of representatives from various Federal agencies and offices.
I have obtained copies, from the NOAA archives, of some of the original documents relating to the setting up this Committee, along with their December 1974 report, “A United States Climate Program”. Excerpts…
View original post 242 more words
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
A valuable post from Joanne Nova investigating the ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.
This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”
The systemic failure self-perpetuates :
- Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
- How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
- It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair, 1935
The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.
The scientific process has become distorted. One side of a theory receives billions, but the other side is so poorly funded that auditing of that research is left as a community service project for people with expert skills, a thick skin and a passionate interest. A kind of “Adopt an Error” approach.
Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
- UN-Settled Science
- 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum | CACA
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- Modelling Climate Alarmism
- GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best
- Obamaclimate and Europe’s Green Energy Basket-Case | CACA
- One Of The More Illuminating Articles You May Ever Read On Global Warming | CACA
- SHOCKING NEWS! Arctic Summers Ice-Free in a Few Days! | CACA