Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s

Nice try, StephenB. You have managed to eek out the whole three sentences out of context! Let's begin with the first sentence. The qualifier "sooner or later" should be a hint. The inevitable cooling is a reference to the Milankovitch cycles, which happen on the time scale of tens of thousands years. Yes, eventually the climate expected to return to an ice age, but that is in the long term. The article refers explicitly to long time scales: "A major problem in seeking to assess the trend is to distinguish year-to-year fluctuations from those spread over decades, centuries, and thousands of years." And if you care to read the description of the three mechanisms discussed in the paper, one of them—adding man-made CO2 to the atmosphere—leads to warming, not cooling. Did you miss the scenario of the polar caps going away entirely? I quoted it above. And what do you make of this passage at the end of the article?

The Academy of Sciences report notes that any assessment is crippled by a lack of knowledge: "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Ice age mongering? Hardly. The article concludes:

In his preface Dr. Suomi notes that, by the end of this decade, space vehicles will be available on a global scale to observe the sun's output, energy reflected from the earth, distributions of clouds, snow and ice, as well as ocean temperatures. With these and other inputs a better understanding of how and why the climate is changing should become possible.

Where is the complete certainty that an ice age is imminent? Nowhere. You are making it up.skram

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

04:49 AM

4

04

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Piotr

May I re-post a link to the Charney Report (1979)?

Feel free to submit a report that doesn't emphasize cooling written after the cooling craze had ended.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

04:48 AM

4

04

48

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

skram

Onlookers, are you waiting with bated breath for StephenB to back up his assertions? Will he provide direct quotes proving that the 1975 NYTimes article declared global cooling inevitable? Well, don’t. For he can’t. Go ahead and read the paper while it’s available on the internet.

I am beginning to think that I am dealing with a cult. The entire article is about global cooling and three of its causes. Here are three quotes that come early, setting up the theme. For those who don't read much, a theme is a short description of what an article is about: “Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is considered inevitable. Hints that it may have already begun are evident.” “The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the northern hemisphere have been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain’s growing season for crops for two weeks.” “That the climate in the Northern Hemisphere has been cooler since 1950 is well established if you ignore the last two winters.” I don't know what it is about that theme that skram cannot understand. The remainder of the article speculates about the causes of past "Ice ages.". Why do you suppose they are discussing ice ages and its causes? Because they want to know the causes of the cooling phase they are writing about. Do I really have to cite all the quotes about ice ages as well. Do I have to explain the meaning of every paragraph. It's a long article. Remedial education in this context is simply too burdensome. Please onlookers. Read the article and explain to skram what it says. So far, my attempts to break it down have not helped him.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

04:23 AM

4

04

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Andre,

Seriously? Who gives a crap about us dying out? You? For whatever reason? Please justify your caring attitude in the absence of any god. Why can’t you do as you please?

Since you are now in ad hominem mode, I'll ask you a personal question too. Are you the kind of guy who doesn't go about harming others only because he is afraid of a supernatural being who might punish him for antisocial behaviour? If so, I'm sorry for you. If not, let's leave gods out of it. For your information. I generally care for fellow human beings, and have a well-developed sense of empathy and cooperation. It's a common inclination in a highly social species, such as Homo sapiens. It's innate and visceral, not philosophical (though of course reinforced by conscious reflection and all the socialisation I have undergone).Piotr

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

04:15 AM

4

04

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mark Frank, Thanks for confirming my theme. All your reports were late 1970's, which was the time for the next flip flop. You could find nothing about global warming between 1970 and 1977. Andre

What a coincidence! Global cooling shifted to global warming right after this report!

They catch on quick, don't they Andre? Well, not really.StephenB

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

03:49 AM

3

03

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Piotr

Quite the opposite. We are realists, and we know there’s no invisible friend to save our backsides if we get into serious trouble by recklessly doing “as we please”.

Seriously? Who gives a crap about us dying out? You? For whatever reason? Please justify your caring attitude in the absence of any god. Why can't you do as you please? You are a realist? The same person that by faith believes that mud not only magically made itself but also conspired to come alive is a realist? You're funny Piotr......Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

03:22 AM

3

03

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AS but rapid environmental change (sea temperature and pH, for instance) means organisms die rather than cope./ Whatever happened to power of Natural Selection? Lame Duck?Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

03:19 AM

3

03

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If you look at a global temperature record graph https://betternature.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/hadley.jpg you can see how they could have been concerned. That was in a period of relatively static temperatures like the one we are in now. How will we break out of the current pause? Increasing or decreasing global temperature. I think it will be increasing.aarceng

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

03:18 AM

3

03

18

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AS, points of agreement and difference, but substantial engagement -- which is important to recognise and work with. Pebble Bed technology, LIFTR and other Thorium possibilities etc as well as fusion should be explored. The point on the feedbacks is, we collectively don't have a good handle on them hence debates on clouds etc. I am uncomfortable with coarseness, with structure of projections vs observations etc. Too much of the framing of discussion at media and popular levels does not adequately reckon with such. KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

03:00 AM

3

03

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

P, I suggest that instead of the rhetoric of dismissal, you would be well advised to assess worldview options from the ground up. And, kindly explain to me how something like this is a case of irresponsibly hoping for invisible friends to turn up. KF PS: This, by a colleague (whom for cause I often call "Deacon" . . . ) should also give pause. The two policies were developed in co-operation at about the same time.kairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

02:54 AM

2

02

54

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AS, you have substituted an ad hominem for a substantial engagement. Sadly, typical on your evolving track record. I note to you, that environmental issues and linked policy challenges are cases of broadly interacting problematiques that make issues across several domains highly relevant -- e.g. the biophysical, socio-cultural and economic-policy. Which, is what I engaged at 34, in the context of a major socio-cultural and policy issue, media influence and problems of manipulation. As last weekend is now lost in the stream of discussion, I clip 34:

WD et al, What I pointed to at 1 seems to be happening. The clear evidence is that there WAS a widely publicised perception of global cooling and a call for major actions to address it in the ’60?s and ’70?s; appearing in leading publications of widespread influence. [U/D: BartM in 28, thanks: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/66785/#comment-543874 ] Influence that was much higher than now because of concentration of media power. Which, corresponds with my recall of the times; indeed, speculation on oncoming ice ages was even in the comics and on various TV shows as a given or almost as a given. But, there was no big global this is problem no 1 push. That was reserved for population and pollution bomb stories and/or nuke war fears; then, nuke winter fears early in the ’80?s along with panics over that madman right-wing cowboy fundy ignoramus in the White House, Reagan. [--> FYI, I speak as a witness, that was what was the big push shaping the thought of the generally educated classes far and wide.] At points in the 80?s HIV-AIDS came up for serious mention and projections that simply have not panned out. With 7 bn here, the pop bomb/ Club of Rome etc projections did not come to pass either. [--> I speak of a major thinktank of those days and its early heavy calibre computer models that deeply influenced policy thought. I remember Jerry Pournelle in BYTE threatening to rake them over the coals on their modelling if their claims were brought up again seriously] Sometime between the 80?s and ’90?s the crisis of the day that demands response shifted to global warming; much of the energy on it coming once the cold war was off the table. [--> Again, I speak as a witness] As in, Reagan’s determination to stand did much to win the cold war (The trend in the later ’70?s was much the other way . . . ), in cooperation with a few other key figures. And, the cold war didn’t just peter out, it was won. [--> a reply to a lot of revisionism, in light of cases of much wider patterns of media pushes] After that, climate became the big push. Then, since ’98, it seems the trend line has been on average flat; with hints of slightly down. For years that was sidelined or pooh poohed, but it looks solid now. And as fair comment, there is no solid understanding of why. [--> a key, under-discussed issue that brings the whole under question] And from the late 00?s we have had whistle blowing, which probably has had more impact than is acknowledged. [--> again, a media pattern. The impact on COPs since 2009 is palpable but suspiciously under-reported] There have been recent rewrites on the ’70?s that now try to suggest the publicised view was unrepresentative of that of scientists. That does not change the fact of what was pushed at the time, even if it could be shown so. [--> again, a media push themed point] Likewise, the Medieval and Roman warm periods seem to have been occasionally dismissed. On the whole, the earth is in a warming trend since the last ice age with a fair amount of ice sheets still in evidence. As for causal analyses and heavy reliance on computer sims, the latter is not the same as empirical observation. I won’t say much on the very bad practices of too many stations and the gaps between actual values as measured and as calibrated to feed models. Just, I am not too comfortable with such. Then, there are many issues on proxies. A little humility about limitations would go a long way. And, a little less of speaking with disregard to duties of care to truth and prudence in light of uncertainties would help also.* There is a physical atmosphere warming effect, and it has water vapour (very variable component) as a big contributor with CO2 as a much smaller part, net effect ratio is what, 100:1 or so maybe, IIRC. The real issue is on feedback trends between components, circumstances and drivers, which are not well understood. I also have long taken note that the PATTERN of warming in the models does not fit well with the observed atmosphere structure patterns. A bit of a caution that we don’t understand as deeply as we — especially the somewhat educated, media and classroom conventional wisdom influenced public — too often imagine. In the ’70?s, in the ’90?s and now. [--> where my concerns on prude3nce in analysis come out] After 9/11 there was a hiatus as we went back to WW 0 since the 700?s, but there has been an attempt to backburner that. Looks like the Iranians and Israelis will have something to say about that within a few years. So, we don’t know enough about things more than we are willing to face, too often. And so, caution would help on a lot of topics. [--> again, a call to caution] Including, of course imagining we know ever so much about the unobserved deep past of origins and about the creative powers of forces and factors never shown on actual observation to create FSCO/I. (But then when things calm down a bit I have to get around to getting some folks to be willing to actually face the simple reality that it exists; not to mention its routine cause.) [--> back on UD's main themes, tied in on the issue of the priority of observation in science] There is enough evidence that there was a cooling perception in the ’70?s, which was definitely widely reported and taken for granted. Since then the big push has been warming and the argument we dunit. And remedies have been proposed that put a lot of concentrated power in hands we would be well advised to take second thoughts about. Likewise, on impacts on economies due to energy-economy links painfully evident from the ’70?s oil price hikes to the ’08/09 surge on. And, it’s the oil, stupid . . . [--> fair comment on a compressed survey of 40 years of media debates and underlying technical and epistemological concerns] I won’t say much on nuke power panics, save that I think we need to take a serious 2nd look. Including on Thorium and pebble bed reactors. These make reasonable sense from multiple angles. As does continued investigation into fusion. If algae oil or the like biofuel can be made to work, that too would have significant positive impact. (I don’t particularly like the geopolitics of oil.) From my angle, whoever it was said that measures taken to address climate concerns should be separately valid has a point. If we get energy right, a lot can be done and we can move towards Sol system colonisation. [--> my tech conclusions and suggestions] But, the point the there was a widespread perception of cooling in the 70?s and some familiar sounding remedies and power concentrations put forth as ways forward, is clearly valid. [--> conclusion] Let’s face it. KF * PS: A key definition of lying is to speak with disregard to truth, in hope that one will profit from what is said or suggested being taken as true. In cases where there is a significant uncertainty, the duty of truth and prudence is to acknowledge that uncertainty. Something, that has been all too often missing on too many topics.

I think it is fair comment to say that you failed to read reasonably and chose to pick up a handy ad hominem cudgel to justify not engaging serious concerns and considerations that are wide ranging precisely because we are dealing with a broad based phenomenon in a context of cross-cutting issues and problematiques. Just FYI, I professionally suggested a look at pebble bed nuke reactor technology -- especially the then prospective modular forms -- as one of the policy options to be taken seriously something like 15 years ago. I am of the view that if one is concerned on fossil fuels, one has a duty to look at serious options. Objecting and undercutting then refusing to bear responsibility for economic and livelihood damage is not a responsible option. KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

02:45 AM

2

02

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Andre,

There is no such thing as man-made global warming! Seriously as if some human or 7 billion of them can somehow be more powerful that what the sun can do!

Who said anything remotely resembling this? Jeez, Andre, it's the Sun that's warming the Earth. We are only helping it a little with the products of our civilisation. Carbon dioxide and methane act as greenhouse gases even in small concentrations -- so small that the human contribution has a non-negligible effect. The excess CO2 is man-made; there's no doubt about it. Its isotopic signature, for example, shows it comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

And that is the problem with atheists, somehow they believe in their minds that men are more powerful than anything else, therefor man can do as he pleases.

Quite the opposite. We are realists, and we know there's no invisible friend to save our backsides if we get into serious trouble by recklessly doing "as we please".Piotr

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

02:26 AM

2

02

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AS, I consider the climate change debate largely a distraction at UD save for how it illustrates the problems of scientism and linked media manipulation. If you want an outline on my views on climate issues, cf 34 and 36 above as I just linked and as your implied view that I have not outlined a specific view suggests you have not seriously responded to. A very good first point to reflect on is the comparison of CO2 and H2O vapour and debates on feedback links and implied lags, multiplied by implications of using moving averages and cycles, with inherent challenges faced by models. KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

01:53 AM

1

01

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF

I find the non-response to 34 and 36 above ..... inadvertently illuminating.

I will not speak for others - but the reason people I do not respond to many of your comments is they are extremely hard to read. I happened to read 219 this morning but usually I skip them for that reason alone.Mark Frank

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

01:49 AM

1

01

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: I find the non-response to 34 and 36 above [the latter on just what is climate and just what does the tendency of means to be pulled by extreme values imply, consequently . . . ], joined to the lack of substantial engagement in response to SB's exasperated clipping of a whole article at 141 that had been otherwise largely ignored, inadvertently illuminating. And BTW, dismissive assertions about an author do not answer to the substantial point. As in, have there or have there not been waves of media pushes on climate fears over the past 100+ years? I can vouch for the one in the '70's and the one from the '80's. As, for a wider cluster of headlined crises that have largely not come to pass. And, there is indeed a legitimate concern on media manipulation to energise support for agendas of concentrated power going to states and international bodies not warranted by the track record of their performance. KF PS: Timaeus at 114 is spot on on the issue of focus on the substance not the man.kairosfocus

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

01:35 AM

1

01

35

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Aurelio, There is no such thing as man-made global warming! Seriously as if some human or 7 billion of them can somehow be more powerful that what the sun can do! And that is the problem with atheists, somehow they believe in their minds that men are more powerful than anything else, therefor man can do as he pleases. You are nothing to that nuclear reactor in the sky!Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

01:17 AM

1

01

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Aurelio

CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 400ppm (40%) in fifty years.

Erm you make it sound like there has been a 40% increase in CO2 when its actually just increased by 120 parts per million..... So? What's your point I've already shown articles that prove that the Oceans and forests are capable of soaking up much more CO2 than what we thought.... as a result plankton and plants are flourishing more than ever, why because CO2 is their fuel and oxygen is their waste! More CO2 more Oxygen! but beware at 24% oxygen we will spontaneously combust and since we are already on 21% we better raise the alarm and charge people tax for not using more oxygen!Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

01:16 AM

1

01

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

And nobody gives it any thought that the heating and cooling cycles that we have been documenting since the 12th century has anything to do with the Sun's solar activity.... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html#.VMimfnkcTIU Instead we create fear and panic and let the world know that those vermin called humans are to blame for all this! That Big nuclear reactor a 150 000 000 km's away surely has nothing to do with it! All the cause of these cursed humans! Well here goes do the research, all warming and cooling experienced in known recorded history has to do with solar activity.... Check for yourself!Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

01:11 AM

1

01

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

What a coincidence! Global cooling shifted to global warming right after this report! http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html The actual report is now mysteriously missing....... Your samples for global warming are all mid to late 70's but not really any before that. Bandwagon science brought to you by the media, and all we are saying is this, be cautious of the claims!Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:52 AM

12

12

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I thought I would see how quickly I could generate a similar set of headlines for global warming alarmism in the 1970s This lot took me about 20 minutes (following the same principle as the global cooling alarmism I have not read the articles). I imagine I could create a much longer list given a day or two.

Double Atmospheric Trouble The Washington Post November 24, 1979, Saturday, Final Edi-tion Is the World Getting Warmer? Newsweek November 19, 1979, UNITED STATES EDITION The Greenhouse Effect The Washington Post August 4, 1979, Saturday, Final Edition Synthetic Fuels Danger To Climate, Scientists Say The Washington Post July 11, 1979, Wednesday, Final Edition Warming Now, Colder by 2979 A.D. The Washington Post January 8, 1979, Monday, Final Edition Some think it's warming up The Globe and Mail (Canada) February 18, 1978 Saturday Climate Experts See a Warming Trend 'Greenhouse effect' gets quick reaction Chemical Week August 3, 1977 100-Year Trend: Warmer; Confirming What You Feel: Our Summers Are Getting Warmer The Washington Post July 21, 1977, Wednesday, Final Edition Coal Use Seen Heating Up Earth The Washington Post June 1, 1977, Wednesday, Final Edition

I did this by searching on "global warming" in the text between 1970 and 1979 using NEXIS as described in 11 above. This gave 32 hits (the same search gave 1 hit for global cooling). I then eliminated all the items that did not have headlines or the headlines were clearly about something else.Mark Frank

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:39 AM

12

12

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Piotr I'm saying, there is deep rooted problem of fraud being committed for prestige and money, that is why there are so many retractions, prove me wrong.... Had those guys not started Retractionwatch you would not even known about it......Andre

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:38 AM

12

12

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Andre, Are you here to discuss things, or to create diversion? Retraction Watch is run by well-known science writers in the best interest of science, not against it. Why do you think retractions are so common? Because scientists watch each other's hands, replicate or review each other's work, and it's difficult for fraudsters to avoid exposure, and for sloppy research to gain credibility. Look at these retractions, related to global warming: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/21/article-using-tin-foil-cling-wrap-to-debunk-ocean-warming-retracted-after-urgent-peer-review/ http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/21/gremlins-caused-errors-in-climate-change-paper-showing-gains-from-global-warming/ http://retractionwatch.com/2011/05/17/controversial-paper-critiquing-climate-change-science-set-to-be-retracted-because-of-plagiarism/Piotr

January 28, 2015

January

01

Jan

28

28

2015

12:24 AM

12

12

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jerad, If you disagree with SB may I introduce you to Retractionwatch? People are commiting fraud in science for a few things, money and prestige being two of them..... http://retractionwatch.com/Andre

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

11:21 PM

11

11

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

MF So do you concede that this mad-made global warming scare-mongering is simply not certain?Andre

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

11:19 PM

11

11

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephanB #199

I have to say that you have been very civil and polite throughout this entire discussion and I appreciate it. As I recall, you have not hurled even one ad-hominem argument in my direction, which sets you apart. Your questions have been thoughtful and your responses have been measured. Thinking back, I have been somewhat dismissive of some of your comments without giving them the full response that they deserved. For better or for worse, I have to make my points in as few words as possible in order to address a wide range of excuses (oops, objections).

I see no reason for not being civil although I'm sure I've not always stuck to that!! Anyway, I try.

It is true that I am not a specialist in any field of science, but I have studied science and math at the university level. I can read a scientific report and make sense of it. So while I am not really qualified to do science in any official capacity, I can talk science when I need to. However, the issue under discussion is less about the way science is done and more about the propensity of scientists to follow the herd. And, of course, there’s the money. I know that you discount both elements, but I think they count for a great deal.

I think I'll just leave it at that. We disagree on something that's not really tractable. But I do now know your view. Thank you for the generous response.Jerad

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

11:17 PM

11

11

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Thanks for correcting my faulty link. SB (and Barry if you are reading) remember the title of the thread. The question is whether the many links to press stories support the claim of global cooling alarmism in the 1970s. This is an example of one such link. As Skram points out, the first two paragraphs summarise the article rather well:

The world's climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are the subjects of deepening debate. There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way - the inevitable consequence of a natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution of the atmosphere. And there are those who say that such pollution may actually head off an ice age.

We get a section on different theories about the causes of ice ages (which is very tentative about timescales) followed by a section on possible man-made influences on climate which could go either way finishing with theories that predict "complete destruction of the polar ice covers" and "enough to head off an ice age". Then finally a section on the prospects for learning the truth. SB writes:

The whole point of the piece is to speculate about the possible causes of past ice ages (Solar energy variations, Pendulum swings, Man-made influences) and associate them with the cooling trend under discussion.

It is true that the main point of the article is to speculate about possible causes of past ice-ages (A small part of the article is to question whether recent cooling could be a sign of these causes). The conclusion is scientists don't know and it could even get warmer. This is not global cooling alarmism. It doesn't predict global cooling in any timescale that matters. It doesn't even say it is likely. It is actually rather a good piece about the uncertain state of climatology at the time.Mark Frank

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

11:16 PM

11

11

16

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers, are you waiting with bated breath for StephenB to back up his assertions? Will he provide direct quotes proving that the 1975 NYTimes article declared global cooling inevitable? Well, don't. For he can't. Go ahead and read the paper while it's available on the internet. Even if you read just the first two paragraphs, you will find the exact opposite:

The world's climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate. There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way—the inevitable consequence of natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution in the atmosphere. And there are those who say that such pollution may actually head off an ice age.

StephenB, have you actually read the article?skram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

07:37 PM

7

07

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB

And, of course, there’s the money.

Oh, yeah, just follow the money trail: Dear Nick...Piotr

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

03:30 PM

3

03

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB:

Barry, yes, and it get’s worse. The article, which I just read, does, indeed, say what the title says it will say, but our poor friends simply can’t deal with it.

Would you mind quoting from the article in support of this assertion? Thank you in advance!skram

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

03:27 PM

3

03

27

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

stepen b: The article, which I just read, does, indeed, say what the title says it will say, but our poor friends simply can’t deal with it. The whole point of the piece is to speculate about the possible causes of past ice ages (Solar energy variations, Pendulum swings, Man-made influences) and associate them with the cooling trend under discussion. Read it for yourself. Only a religious fanatic would misread it the way it is being misread. It seems you have finally found a point of agreementvelikovskys

January 27, 2015

January

01

Jan

27

27

2015

03:18 PM

3

03

18

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link