Global Cooling Alarmism in the 70s

_{Barry Arrington

January 24, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Those who doubt global warming alarmism sometimes point to the global cooling alarmism of the 70s. The idea is that alarmists will latch onto whatever happens to be at hand to clang their bell, cooling then, warming in the 90s; explaining away the plateau now.

Mark Frank has made the risible assertion that “the global cooling thing was a non-event” in the 70s. StephenB has offered Mark a service by setting him straight:*

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)

1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 – Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 – Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 – Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 – Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 – Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 – Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 – Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 – Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 – British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ?September 11, 1972?)
1972 – New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 – Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 – Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ?September 12, 1972?)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 – Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 – Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ?December 4, 1974?)
1974 – Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ?December 5, 1974?)
1974 – More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel – ?December 5, 1974?)
1974 – Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 5, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator – ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 – New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – There’s Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ?March 2, 1975?)
1975 – Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ?March 3, 1975?)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1975 – Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal, December 11, 1975)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1977 – Blizzard – What Happens if it Doesn’t Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 – Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Winters Will Get Colder, ‘we’re Entering Little Ice Age’ (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 – Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ?January 17, 1978?)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14,

Mark Frank

<blockquote> I was very much around and aware in the 70s and can verify that the global cooling thing was a non-event.</blockquote>

Perhaps you were in a frozen chamber. I was also around at that time, and I can verify that it was quite the event. Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, and CIA.

*From http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Comments

#29 Mark Frank, Yep, one can estimate how long it takes to trace such revelations to their source and verify them: half an hour max. What prevented StephenB from doing likewise?Piotr_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. There is no honor among scientists. They lie about the climate. They lie about the origin of the species. They lie about the brain and consciousness. They lie about health care. They lie about multiple universes, time travel, black holes, wormholes, Big Bang, universal accelerated expansion, etc. They even lie about infinity. It's all politics, lies and propaganda. The public at large is beginning to sense this. It will get ugly. Scientists brought this on themselves.Mapou_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

#27 Piotr Looks like we found the same thing at the same time.Mark Frank_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

The First Global Revolution (1990 Club Of Rome) "New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised. The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself. The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” CoR members include Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Anne Ehrlich, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, & Henry Kissinger.humanati_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

"Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA." NCAR 1974: Global Cooling And Extreme Weather Is The New Normal http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/02/24/ncar-1974-global-cooling-and-extreme-weather-is-the-new-normal-national-center-for-atmospheric-research/ CRU 1972: Director Says A New Ice Age Is Coming http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lzI_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=PlEMAAAAIBAJ&dq=climate%20expert%20new%20ice%20age%20coming%20hubert%20lamb&pg=4365%2C2786655 NAS 1974: Climate experts at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) wanted to evacuate six million people, to save them from global cooling https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/climate-experts-to-the-rescue-in-1974/ NASA: Washington Post, July 9, 1971 - A NASA scientist using a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen" predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years. According to Hansen's computer model, "they found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere." http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/flashback-hansens-climate-model-says.html CIA 1974: Shock Report: The western world’s leading climatologists Warn Of A Return To The Little Ice Age http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf CIA 1976 : Warned That Global Cooling Will Bring Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110818238 CIA NY Times 1977: CIA warned us that global cooling was going to kill us all https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5SxmJNCQAAejjH.pngBartM_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB, OK, so you mean this paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Here's the breakdown of Cook et al.'s data from Legates et al.'s own publication Look at the table itself, not at what your fellow denialists make of it. Almost every abstract of those that do express a position endorses man-made global warming, at least implicitly. About 2% reject it at least implicitly. Why, then, have some commenters called it a "rebuttal"? Legates et al. are only playing a language game ("What is the strict definition of consensus?"), not raising fair criticism. Their own numbers show that climatic denial is extremely rare among specialists.Piotr_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

SB I tracked down the Legates paper. Read it. In no way does it come remotely close to supporting your claim that "less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming". It quite rightly questions Cook's methodology and points out that only 1.59% (more than 1% as it happens) of the abstracts that express an opinion explicitly endorse in a quantified way the "standard" definition of global warming. 97% either explicitly endorse or implicitly endorse some version of global warming. Legates, who is clearly a sceptic, points out that there are errors in Cook's assessment and the limited meaning of an implicit endorsement. This is a very different thing from your claim. Retraction please.Mark Frank_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Interestingly, the only support I can find for this claim
Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, and CIA.
Is an astonishing similar sentence on Steve Goddard's blog:
Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
wd400_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

So, to recap. Barry, seeing a headline that didn't fit with his world view so waited for that bastion of journalistic integrity the Daily Mail to report on it. Taking the Mail's reporting at face value he decided here was only a 38% chance of 2014 being the hottest (true in one dataset, not the other which the Mail ignored), and claimed NASA has lied about this fact when in fact it was included in the press briefing that is the basis of those stories. Bizarrely, he also claimed that a probability 62% was equivalent to "almost certain". Rather than simple correct this mistake, he twisted himself in knots talking about p-values and making the even more bizarre claim that terms like "almost certain" and "overwhelming probable" are "relative". In the mean time, Barry repeatedly claimed there has been so statistically significant warming for the last 18 ( or sometimes 17) years. He has acknowledged this error. Now her has presented a list of popular press articles discussing (the once perfectly plausible) idea of global cooling during the 1970s. The idea, I guess, being that the mere existance of these articles was evidence for global cooling being the predominant scientific hypothesis of the time. In fact, to test that idea you have to do more than compile a list of articles that support your view, you have to look at all the evidence including that which goes against what you'd like to be true. As others have shown, global cooling was not the dominant hypothesis in the 1970s, and it was certainly never as well supported as global warming is in the 21st century. Noone of these misteps appear to have chastened Barry in the least. In fact, between making and compounding these errors he's become increasingly more fervent in dismissing anyone who disgarees with him (and thus agrees with the Royal Society, NAS, AGU ....) as a liar or someone blinded to evidence by their political views. It's hard to imagine a more perfect example of confirmation bias in action.wd400_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Piotr
Scientific problems are not resolved by signing a petition, especially if less than 1% of the signataries specialise in climatology or atmospheric science, and their credentials are hard to verify.
The question about how many scientists believe in man-made global warming is a sociological question, not a climatology problem.StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Even skeptics are included as part of the "97%" in cartoonist John Cook's paper: "97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them" http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html "...Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."BartM_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Piotr
You offered some unverifiable second-hand info (no references, no details) on David R. Legates allegedly refuting a claim by a blogger named John Cook (of whom I know nothing). It’s hearsay, not evidence. Did Legates publish his observations? Where?
It was reported in many places. Check the Wall Street Journal. May 26, 2014, (Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer). Or, check out objectivescience.net, or the Tampa Tribune August 28. It's all over the place.StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

BartM: “All ’97% Consensus’ Studies Refuted by Peer-Review” http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html Reading the abstracts, most of the citations do no such thing. The first citation is a rejected letter to Science, not a good start. Many of the rest don't directly address the claimed consensus. ETA, * Rejected by Science * Finds 6% reject the consensus. * The meaning of "significant". * The meaning of "major" vs "significant". * The meaning of "skeptic". * Argues relevance. * Argues over whether publication is a good measure of expertise. * Solipsism. * Questions data quality. * Doesn't like Cook's methodology, but agrees with the conclusion.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

"Scientific problems are not resolved by signing a petition, especially if less than 1% of the signataries specialise in climatology or atmospheric science, and their credentials are hard to verify" Piotr, the head of the UN IPCC is a railroad engineer, not a scientist. And the author of the "97% consensus" paper, John Cook, is a cartoonist: http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3 Here's another useful link: "All '97% Consensus' Studies Refuted by Peer-Review" http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.htmlBartM_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

I have provided evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No, you haven't provided any. You offered some unverifiable second-hand info (no references, no details) on David R. Legates allegedly refuting a claim by a blogger named John Cook (of whom I know nothing). It's hearsay, not evidence. Did Legates publish his observations? Where?Piotr_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

velikovskys 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring,” StephenB “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” I say, Are the two claims mutually exclusive? peacefifthmonarchyman_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

StephenB Scientific problems are not resolved by signing a petition, especially if less than 1% of the signataries specialise in climatology or atmospheric science, and their credentials are hard to verify.Piotr_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

I just explained what I know about climate change in this comment floating around in a long thread to wade through for it: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-credulity-of-the-champions-of-science/#comment-543834Gary S. Gaulin_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

SB: I have provided evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming. In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.velikovskys_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

SB
I have provided evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Do you have any evidence to the contrary
I missed that - where did you give it?Mark Frank_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Here's more: "Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

OK. I was wrong to phrase it as a non-event.I will restate it as "not-comparable to global warming". Jerad has already pointed out that the number of scientific papers about global warming in the period far outnumber the ones about global cooling. But what about the fuss being made in the press etc? Listing 100 items over 10 years, although it looks dramatic, proves nothing and provides no basis for comparison. Luckily I have access to the NEXIS database which is the recognised source for academic research into press coverage. It doesn't contain anything like all press items (especially that long ago) but it is a fair spread and an unbaised sample for comparing coverage of different things. I searched on "global cooling" and "global warming" in the period 1/1/70 to 1/1/80. I got 32 hits on global warming. I got one hit on global cooling.Mark Frank_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Piotr
Climate scientists haven’t changed their minds. The dominant opinion of experts was the same as now.
I have provided evidence that less than 1% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?StephenB_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Piotr, that graph indicates about 10 cumulative papers for cooling and 40 for warming were written in that 15 year period. Is that data really complete? Anyway, the dominant hype was definitely cooling hype.ppolish_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

@#6: Leonard Nimoy! Nice touch. In all fairness, he's at least as credible as nut-job Al Gorecantor_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: 1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978) Leonard Nimoy! Nice touch. Other episodes include "Haunted Castles", "In Search of Ancient Astronauts", and "The Loch Ness Monster".Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

See also this review of the climatological research published in the 1970s: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 Climate scientists haven't changed their minds. The dominant opinion of experts was the same as now.Piotr_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

There's an interesting graph in the Wikipedia article on the Cooling hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling wherein the number of peer-reviewed papers predicting cooling is compared with the number of papers predicting warming published during the 60s and 70s. Guess what? There were a lot more papers predicting warming. A 4-to-1 ratio. Looks like there were only about 10 peer-reviewed research papers that supported cooling.Jerad_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Here are some links to screenshots of NY Times global cooling articles: NY Times : In 1961, there was 100% consensus that the world was cooling. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/erasing-the-100-consensus/ NY Times 1974 : Climate experts at the National Academy of Sciences wanted to evacuate six million people, to save them from global cooling https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/climate-experts-to-the-rescue-in-1974/ NY Times 1976: Skeptics say that global cooling is nonsense https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/time-to-silence-the-skeptics/BartM_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

I don't think MF is deliberately lying about this, I think this is just an example of one's perceptions (including memory) being adjusted to fit ones current narrative. However, I do think that there are those who must know better that cannot be doing anything other than deliberately attempting to rewrite history to protect the current narrative's credibility.William J Murray_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply