The true Global Warming agenda

[HoustonFarrier]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_sc/climate

"An African delegate said developing countries decided to block the negotiations at a meeting hours before the conference was to resume. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was held behind closed doors. He said applause broke out every time China, India or another country supported the proposal to stall the talks."

Now, lets look at what we've done for the African continent over my lifetime (50+ years). We've given literally trillions of dollars to Africa...and where has it gone ???

Robert Mugabee
Idi Amin
Mobutu
Jean Bedel Bokassa

just to name a few.

Global Warming is NOT about climate...it is about distribution of wealth. It's about "poor" countries banding together and guilting "rich" countries into supporting them. If it was TRUELY about the climate and CO2, then they'd be building nuclear plants like crazy....but they are not. They want you to believe that windmills and solar panels will actually power the world....c'mon man !

NBC news was doing it's propaganda spiel about how the Nile River delta is drying up, and it's because of higher temps causing evaporation....but, they are counting on us being stupid, and not knowing about the Aswan Dam, the Sennar Dam, the Owen Falls Dam. Gee, ya think that diverting the Nile River along it's course and using it to irrigate and feed en ever growing population isn't going to have an effect on the Nile River delta ?????

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

I have a much different take on this Steve.

Global warming summits are all about preventing industrialization and agriculture that would allow these developing nations to develop and enjoy the standard of living we have. They have every right to build hydroelectric dams and power plants, and log jungle for grazing and crop land, to basically enjoy the same life and comforts we take for granted. But climate change politics seeks to tie the hands of developing nations so that we can feel good about their rain forests, and their nature preserves, while they continue to starve, and America agrees to token reductions in our own "pollution". We think it's chic to be anti-industry. To us it's a luxury to think about being green. They'd just like basic electricity and to be brought into the modern world, including manufacturing, industry, agriculture... economic growth.

That all this political trading is based on an unproven and ultimately very suspect basis is almost beside the point. We are treating these developing countries like amusing and quaint little climate experiments.

There is a new film out I've been trying to find to watch... Called "not evil just wrong" that speaks to this aspect of climate change politics. IMHO, it's evil, and wrong.

[mare]

I'll bridge the two views and weigh in that it is about money and control.

[OffGridGuy]

Oh, if things were just so simple. I don't normally go down this road, but this morning I'm feeling a bit more sensitive to these issues. Standard disclaimer.. These views do not represent the ....., just my 2cents worth.


The modernized world is doing to Africa what the N. Americans did to Native Indians.

We show them how much better we are with our luxuries, and of course they want what we have. It's kind of an addiction really. We hook them and they become dependent on an unsustainable model. A model built with money given away. Essentially a subsidized energy (drug) habit.

Africa is just the new low man on the totem pole. Basically the new people on the block to exploit and ravage. By modernizing them, we've doomed them to our own fate. I wonder how long before they have billion dollar deficits ?

We steal their heritage, their way of life and livelihood. No more low tech housing, no more outhouses, no more labor based irrigation or processing. Got to have all those modern conveniences ya know. Trucks (no more oxen), Cars (no more horses or camels), Tractors, planters, the whole mega agra business (don't forget the GMO plants, and seeds that only produce 1 generation). All this is part of the hidden cost that no one talks about and is only evident after the 'people' are hooked.

Ways of life that have existed for thousands of years corrupted and destroyed in a meer decades. I keep asking myself for what ? Do average people really benefit ?

So it is about money and control. Yes we've 'invested' trillions there and of course that money has corrupted individuals and governments. Nothing new there.

I don't blame developing nations for wanting 'developed' nations to cut back on their/our emissions. I believe it's a reasonable and responsible expectation. What I find intriguing is that China and India (both high populace nations) are supporting it.

We 'already developed nations' have become gluttonous (addictive) energy consumers and now that all the inexpensive solutions have been exploited we claim we're too poor to actually do anything more than break our promises and withdraw from our 'landmark' decisions of the past.

I'm not claiming I have any solutions, just observations. It's really a personal decision as to whether or not we subscribe to their model. I do believe a balance between high tech and low tech is achievable but it's not an easy existance, nor is it cheap.

Solar, Wind and Methane are viable alternatives, and I support their use in a decentralize fashion. (we don't need megawatt generators for cities, we need cities that generate megawatts).

Most residential customers are actually subsidizing big businesses and their power use. Don't forget, more power is lost on the transmission lines that whole towns consume.

Well enough of this soapbox, I've got to go muck stalls and snuggle up to the horses. There's snow on the ground here, just a dusting but it makes everything seem so much 'cleaner'.

[WashingtonBay]

Ways of life that have existed for thousands of years corrupted and destroyed in a meer decades. I keep asking myself for what ? Do average people really benefit ?


Do average people really benefit from having power, wealth and comfort? Medicine, agriculture, industry and modern conveniences? Yes, I believe they absolutely do.

This horrible 'fate' we have so horribly doomed them to, if it turns out to be life anywhere near as good as we have it here? Is not so horrible at all. I'd argue this is the best time in all of history to be a child, in the Western world, with life in front of you.

Now, I'll grant you that you have a unique perspective on the grid. One that I think is really interesting to explore, not just for them, I'd like to hear more about that part.

But as for whether there's something intrinsically valuable about living in a mud hut with no plumbing or electricity and the constant threat of malaria... I do think it's a bit arrogant to say that we should try to save them from wanting a bit of what we have, instead.

[Tiz]

"We show them how much better we are with our luxuries, and of course they want what we have."

From what I've seen of Africa, the vast majority of the people there don't have any idea what luxuries we are accustomed to. So many of them are happy to simply find enough cardboard to cover the walls of their homes, I don't really think they have access to television, and internet.

Just another bad. bad USA take on the situation, and frankly, I'm up to here with hearing about how wrong this country is, no matter what the reality is.

[HoustonFarrier]

Oh, if things were just so simple. I don't normally go down this road, but this morning I'm feeling a bit more sensitive to these issues. Standard disclaimer.. These views do not represent the ....., just my 2cents worth.


The modernized world is doing to Africa what the N. Americans did to Native Indians.

We show them how much better we are with our luxuries, and of course they want what we have. It's kind of an addiction really. We hook them and they become dependent on an unsustainable model. A model built with money given away. Essentially a subsidized energy (drug) habit.

Africa is just the new low man on the totem pole. Basically the new people on the block to exploit and ravage. By modernizing them, we've doomed them to our own fate. I wonder how long before they have billion dollar deficits ?

We steal their heritage, their way of life and livelihood. No more low tech housing, no more outhouses, no more labor based irrigation or processing. Got to have all those modern conveniences ya know. Trucks (no more oxen), Cars (no more horses or camels), Tractors, planters, the whole mega agra business (don't forget the GMO plants, and seeds that only produce 1 generation). All this is part of the hidden cost that no one talks about and is only evident after the 'people' are hooked.

Ways of life that have existed for thousands of years corrupted and destroyed in a meer decades. I keep asking myself for what ? Do average people really benefit ?

So it is about money and control. Yes we've 'invested' trillions there and of course that money has corrupted individuals and governments. Nothing new there.

I don't blame developing nations for wanting 'developed' nations to cut back on their/our emissions. I believe it's a reasonable and responsible expectation. What I find intriguing is that China and India (both high populace nations) are supporting it.

We 'already developed nations' have become gluttonous (addictive) energy consumers and now that all the inexpensive solutions have been exploited we claim we're too poor to actually do anything more than break our promises and withdraw from our 'landmark' decisions of the past.

I'm not claiming I have any solutions, just observations. It's really a personal decision as to whether or not we subscribe to their model. I do believe a balance between high tech and low tech is achievable but it's not an easy existance, nor is it cheap.

Solar, Wind and Methane are viable alternatives, and I support their use in a decentralize fashion. (we don't need megawatt generators for cities, we need cities that generate megawatts).

Most residential customers are actually subsidizing big businesses and their power use. Don't forget, more power is lost on the transmission lines that whole towns consume.

Well enough of this soapbox, I've got to go muck stalls and snuggle up to the horses. There's snow on the ground here, just a dusting but it makes everything seem so much 'cleaner'.

Riiiight...it's the evil United States fault. PUH-LEEEEZE.

Steve

[OffGridGuy]

Do average people really benefit from having power, wealth and comfort? Medicine, agriculture, industry and modern conveniences? Yes, I believe they absolutely do.

This horrible 'fate' we have so horribly doomed them to, if it turns out to be life anywhere near as good as we have it here? Is not so horrible at all. I'd argue this is the best time in all of history to be a child, in the Western world, with life in front of you.

I'm not saying our 'modern' life is horrible, but then again, neither is the desert life of a Sahara nomad or Inuits of the north. I just do not believe modernization for it's own sake increase anyone's quality of life. Are kids today any 'happier' than those of 100 years ago ? Sure it's great to be a child in the western world, especially in a caring family. I've got to ask though, what do you think your children will say about our generation in another 50 years? How about your grandchildren ?

Long term thinking just is not profitable enough for today's capitalistic mentality. Not that there is anything wrong with capitalism, but like everything when taken to extremes it's corrupting (greed).

Imagine 200 years ago, when everyone knew the stars, their stories, the whole natural order of things was a much clearer picture then. Only the rich moved into a house, most people built their own. You got your meat from the field, or a butcher who could tell you who raised the food you eat. (Don't get me stated on labeling)

I'm not suggesting we abandon science or knowledge, indeed the opposite. We need to show developing nations that WE CAN find our OWN BALANCE and reduce our foot print.
We need to remind them that their not an underclass society because they've non-modernized. We need to encourage them to live within their means and culture. Something we've long forgotten how to do. Something that will likely cause a major (and self correcting) climate event. Need a better understanding of what happens when Sea level rises say 10' or 20' ? http://flood.firetree.net/ Will we welcome the homeless nations? Will we be able to feed them ? Flooded and hungry nations will get angry, anger turns to war, war to destruction.. (Sorry, didn't mean to go doom and gloom on anyone)


Now, I'll grant you that you have a unique perspective on the grid. One that I think is really interesting to explore, not just for them, I'd like to hear more about that part. 'Unique Perspective' is true praise from you. Interested in off grid living, check out http://www.homepower.com . Specific questions belong in their own thread.

But as for whether there's something intrinsically valuable about living in a mud hut with no plumbing or electricity and the constant threat of malaria... I do think it's a bit arrogant to say that we should try to save them from wanting a bit of what we have, instead. See, there's that religious mercenary mentality of 'we need to save them' getting in the way again. Modernized medicine saves millions (Great) ! The spread of aids, smallpox and the like kills millions (Bad) ! In modernizing one, we've spread the other. And we keep thinking we're so smart...

I'm not suggesting that we leave any populace in the dark ages, but destroying their way of life and addicting them to ours is not a solution. ESPECIALLY in regard to the original post of 'developing countries end boycott' (no segways please).

This is not about the bad USA, Canada or Russia. It's about modernization at the expense of the carbon footprint it generates and whether or not the planet we live on can survive developing nations modernization in an equivalent manor to what 'your or I' have been apart of.

WBB, Thanks for the morning mental exercise.. Cheers

[WashingtonBay]

I am just spoiled enough to find the idea of life of 100 or 200 years ago romantic. It looks romantic from a distance. The reality was much harder. And to go back to that in the US, we'd have to kill about a hundred million people. Any ideas which ones we should kill first?

It's not that simple now, but it's not worse either, to not have children dying of small pox, polio, scarlett fever, and tooth decay. Really. All this mental exercise and this very conversation is possible because we have the luxury of time and technology.

You're right, it didn't use to be viewed as evil to teach poor civilizations to garden and develop clean water sources and cures for disease. Now it is... and now we are trying to tell these people they should not develop the industries we have because we think they should like this natural life they have. We put restrictions on them we would never and will never put on ourselves. And that's not just wrong, it's evil, IMHO.

No I don't think we are going to cause some cataclysmic climate event that raises sea level by 10 or 20 or 2 feet. It's a myth. A myth with little actual scientific evidence. Oh there's plenty of evidence climate has changed drastically in the past, but not because of people.... rather because the natural state of climate IS change.

[WashingtonBay]

'Unique Perspective' is true praise from you. Interested in off grid living, check out http://www.homepower.com . Specific questions belong in their own thread.


Oh - I'm definitely going to be interested when we design and build our own place. I may try to woo you down here to consult on it with us and share your expertise!

I'm sold on the idea of going off grid, if not as a lifestyle all the time for everything (not sure yet we can be that hard core, but we'll see!), as a good emergency tool for weather events or other kinds of outages. I want to have water, light and heat when the power's out. Whatever else you can help us get off grid, we'll consider bonus! :)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]
The modernized world is doing to Africa what the N. Americans did to Native Indians.
[...]


Ah, yes... the great myth of the "Noble Savage". It's all very romantic from the outside and the comfort of watching it on an HD TV.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'll take some time a little later to expand on it.

[natisha]

Maybe I'll believe in man made global warming when I see actual proof that it exists & someone can prove without a doubt that 'carbon footprints' are real & can be measured. Until then I will have to go with proved science, the Earth's rotation around the Sun & the fact that there is proof there were once glaciers where there are none now, deserts where there are now glaciers & climates throughout history have always changed, even before man was around. The Earth survived then.
What is the ideal temperature anyway?
The last few years have been colder, sooner- where exactly is this global warming?
I personally like flush toilets, furnaces, lights etc.

There is no more small pox in the world.

In Iraq the American/Army run hospitals have waiting lines of locals waiting to be dewormed, primitive lifestyles don't seem too great to me.

[OffGridGuy]

Ah, yes... the great myth of the "Noble Savage". It's all very romantic from the outside and the comfort of watching it on an HD TV.

I seem to be taken out of context, my comments were directed at the boycott of 'developing nations' (192 of them) because the 'developed nations' (37 of them) are not reducing their emissions proportionally. They feel that we (sitting in the comfort of our homes watching HD TV) should do more to reduce our carbon output if we expect them to do manage theirs and do the same. My thoughts were on encouraging appropriate technologies without destroying cultures. So it's not about 'Noble Savage' native Indians, anymore than 'benevolent' religious leaders.

It's about maintaining and not destroying culture while still modernizing without excessive carbon (and other pollution) being created and dumped on a planet we share.

The title of this thread is 'global warming, so I guess we are ok talking further on climate change here, though I'm sure this thread will heat things up ;o)

It's all about climate change. Regardless of cause, our planet is changing. Ice masses stable for 100's of years and the size of Jamaica are are breaking free. As these masses drift, they will melt. Melting ice will raise sea water levels, raised levels will pollute fresh water sources, and flood low lying plains. I know there's lots of debate on cause, and honestly I'm not really interested in the argument.

Temperatures are warming throughout Antarctica (5 degrees in 50 years). Stable Ice masses are breaking up and moving. Vast cleansing and oxygen generating rain forests are being clear cut, Wildlife and Ocean life are being affected at an alarming rate and we're still arguing about what's causing it, not about solving it.

As individuals, we can only do what we can. That's my take. Near zero polluting automobile, self reliance, Low impact lifestyle and clean living. Not much more I can do, and I encourage you all to consider the same.

[WashingtonBay]

It's all about climate change. Regardless of cause, our planet is changing.

Our planet has always changed. It has never remained the same. Ice breaks loose all the time, always has, always will. Polar ice is not shrinking at all. It's changing and moving, much like it always has...
Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Allison said.

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html)
As individuals, we can only do what we can. That's my take. Near zero polluting automobile, self reliance, Low impact lifestyle and clean living. Not much more I can do, and I encourage you all to consider the same.There are all kinds of good, sound arguments for lowering pollution. Don't tie it to junk science about man-made global warming, and I'm all for good ideas on how to do that, for it's own sake. :)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]It's all about climate change. Regardless of cause, our planet is changing. Ice masses stable for 100's of years and the size of Jamaica are are breaking free. As these masses drift, they will melt. Melting ice will raise sea water levels, raised levels will pollute fresh water sources, and flood low lying plains. I know there's lots of debate on cause, and honestly I'm not really interested in the argument.

[...]


Perhaps you can point to a period of time in the last few million years when climate did not change? Earth's climate has simply never been static. If it was... that would probably be a bigger crisis yet. Moreover: What combination of "climate" measurements has ever been defined as "ideal"? Is cooler better? Or is warmer better? Should we be wetter or dryer? In other words... is climate getting worse or better? Maybe that's an important thing to figure out before we ruin the world economy and trap hundreds of millions of people in permanent poverty trying to "fix" it.

Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker, not thinner. The ice mass there is growing. Ice floes are breaking off because they are being pushed into the sea from behind. Floating ice (like that off shore in Antarctica, or the entire northern ice sheet) can melt in it's entirety and not change sea levels whatsoever. Plain physics there.

The more reputable scientists (e.g. NOT Al Gore) have forecast a sea level rise of perhaps a foot to two feet over the next hundred years. Over the last hundred years or so, average sea levels have risen about a foot already. You'd think this would have been the most catastrophic problem we've had over the last hundred years, then, right? Right? Or did it even make for one headline? Or maybe we just adapted to it.

Total aside, just interesting: Curiously enough, sea levels don't rise or fall by the same amount all over the world. Lots of reasons for this and probably better for another thread, but interesting nonetheless. For example: At the Panama canal, you'd think that the Atlantic and the Pacific are at the same level at each end of the canal, right? Not so. The Pacific side is about 8 inches higher than the Atlantic.

Anyway... back on topic: The Medieval warm period was several degrees warmer than today, at around AD 1100 +/- 200 yrs. This was a period of unprecedented growth and success in civilizations from the whole greater mediterranean across northern Africa and the entire continent of Asia, from Scandinavia to Mongolia and from India back to Northern Europe. In North America this was quite possibly also the peak of native civilizations on this continent as well. Too bad they never developed a written language or we'd have a better record. Civilizations throughout central America did... and we know they blossomed as well. The Scandinavians spread out and settled Iceland and Greenland and had successful colonies there for hundreds of years. Let me say that again: hundreds of years. They grew crops in "Greenland" and visited the eastern shore of North America over and over. All this rise in civilization led directly to the Renaissance and the greatest explosion of human knowledge and standard of living that the world had ever yet seen.

All that and it was warmer than it is now. In many ways, we're still recovering from the "little ice age" of the post-renaissance period... that lasted until the early to mid eighteenth century.

Before we take the most successful civilizations with the highest standard of living and richest science and powerful knowledge that humankind has ever known, and force it all back into the Iron Age so we can satisfy communist code-words like "sustainable development" and "green living"... maybe we should first find out a.) whether what we have is even a problem or not, and b.) whether we can do anything about it if we tried and even more c.) that whatever we do to "fix" it ends up doing more harm than good.

That's what I'd like to know.

[WashingtonBay]

:cheers:

[Tiz]

Ah, I love the smell of common sense in the morning.

[Arrow]

You won't find much of that around here, Tiz.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

You won't find much of that around here, Tiz.

Oh really? Do tell? Please take apart my last post and tell me what the problems are.

[natisha]

Oh really? Do tell? Please take apart my last post and tell me what the problems are. LOL, Good luck, you'll not get an answer from Ms. Snip N Run, I've tried many times.

[Tiz]

Arrow? Just taking a pot shot, or are you going to answer RD? You know, put your money where your mouth is?

[natisha]

Arrow? Just taking a pot shot, or are you going to answer RD? You know, put your money where your mouth is?
:funnypost:Tiz, save your fingers. She won't answer, she never does.

[Tiz]

This is what fingers are for, Natisha! I know Arrow has no answers, but it doesn't bother me to keep asking.

[JackieB]

Ah, yes... the great myth of the "Noble Savage". It's all very romantic from the outside and the comfort of watching it on an HD TV.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'll take some time a little later to expand on it.

It's interesting that you jump immediately to the "Noble Savage" myth. I had that done to me in a similar argument as well.

I'm fairly appalled with how the U.S. treated the Native Americans, but I have no notion whatsoever of the Native Americans being "Noble Savages".

Start a thread. I think I have some compelling arguments that avoid romanticizing the Native Americans.

[natisha]

It's interesting that you jump immediately to the "Noble Savage" myth. I had that done to me in a similar argument as well.

I'm fairly appalled with how the U.S. treated the Native Americans, but I have no notion whatsoever of the Native Americans being "Noble Savages".

Start a thread. I think I have some compelling arguments that avoid romanticizing the Native Americans. I would welcome a thread about that as I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Sounds interesting.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I would welcome a thread about that as I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Sounds interesting.

I'm game. It does sound interesting. Stay tuned... :)

[Ol Man River]

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 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/02/20060402-112828-5298r/) is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf) 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 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481) 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: g
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 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F02E1D8163CE433A25757C2A9649C94 649ED7CF) 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 (http://www.harpers.org/archive/1958/09/0008810) called “The Coming Ice Age”.
On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/157892192.html?dids=157892192:157892192&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=JAN+11%2C+1970&author=Washington+Post+Staff+WriterBy+David+R.+Bol dt&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Colder+Winters+Held+Dawn+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=google) 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 (http://www.roubini.com/us-monitor/257861/an_important_letter_sent_to_the_president_about_th e_danger_of_climate_change) 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 pacelobal cooling…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 (http://www.meteohistory.org/2004polling_preprints/docs/abstracts/reeves&etal_abstract.pdf) looking into the threat of an ice age.
On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter (http://www.meteohistory.org/2004polling_preprints/docs/abstracts/reeves&etal_abstract.pdf) 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 (http://www.meteohistory.org/2004polling_preprints/docs/abstracts/reeves&etal_abstract.pdf):

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 Nino 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 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html) 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



http://www.infowars.com/scientists-considered-pouring-soot-over-the-arctic-in-the-1970s-to-help-melt-the-ice-%e2%80%93-in-order-to-prevent-another-ice-age/

[natisha]

I guess every generation needs its own reason to panick.
I would rather have warming than cooling but I think it's all BS.
Let me explain weather changes to those who believe we have anything to do with it:
It gets hot in summer, cold in winter

[WashingtonBay]

And no summer, and no winter, is exactly like the one before it.

Thanks for the post "old man river"! I do remember the talk of ice ages in the 70s.

[Tiz]

And it all has to do with the SUN. Fancy that.


Do you think God is speaking to the country when our government's participants have to leave the climate change party in Copenhagen quickly, to beat the blizzard back home? So very funny.

[HoustonFarrier]

We sent 21 Congressional idiots (All Democrats) to Copenhagen, at taxpayer expense.......for what ?????

So, Obama and Hillary go....and the Chinese basically thumb their nose at them, and don't even invite them to meetings...he has to crash the meeting (guess he learned from the WH crashers).


Steve

[natisha]

And it all has to do with the SUN. Fancy that.


Do you think God is speaking to the country when our government's participants have to leave the climate change party in Copenhagen quickly, to beat the blizzard back home? So very funny. I say we should TAX the Sun or send the climate committee there to talk to it!

[Tiz]

So, it's you and Orphan Annie, Steve?



You know, Natisha, the tax the sun idea isn't so far fetched. I live in Oregon, and as you know, it rains here. Lots. A few years ago our city government added a tax to our water and sewer bill, based on our roof surface, for rainwater runoff. That's no joke.

[natisha]

So, it's you and Orphan Annie, Steve?



You know, Natisha, the tax the sun idea isn't so far fetched. I live in Oregon, and as you know, it rains here. Lots. A few years ago our city government added a tax to our water and sewer bill, based on our roof surface, for rainwater runoff. That's no joke. That's crazy! What do they expect the roof to do with water? Was there any community protest?

[Tiz]

Our little local government is a microcosm of our current federal government. A few socialists were OK with it, the majority were opposed. Passed council with flying colors!

[Ol Man River]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/