Settled Science From The Space Age

NASA can’t put people in space any more, but back during the space age of 1969-1970 –  scientists were determined to blame something on your car. They just couldn’t make up their minds whether it was global warming or global cooling. In 1969, the New York Times predicted an ice-free Arctic by 1989, and three days later predicted a new ice age.

Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea – Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared

Science – Worrying About a New Ice Age – NYTimes.com

The Chicago Tribune summed up the settled science very succinctly.

06 Feb 1970, Page 12 – Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com

The extent of multi-year ice in the Arctic is not much different than it was in 1971, indicating that the planet has neither warmed nor cooled very much.

1971    2017

Climate scientists had no clue what they were talking about (just like now)  – but according to Democrats – Exxon knew!

Democrats also tell me I am part of a massively funded big oil/big tobacco conspiracy to destroy the climate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Settled Science From The Space Age

  1. gator69 says:

    Their target all along was the deindustrialization of the planet, and early on leftists bet on both horses. When the warming horse seemed to be taking the lead, they placed all of their money on it, and Tonya Hardinged the knees of the other horse who was clearly a threat to their winner’s garland.

    These same scumbags now claim that glyphosate is a carcinogen, when every study for four decades came to the exact opposite conclusion. Crooks and liars. Fascists. Leftists.

    • Steve Case says:


      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
      Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong

  2. Dorian says:

    Oh Brother!

    So 50 years have nearly passed, and here we all are, arguing about the same thing about climate, is the next ice age upon us, or is it getting hotter because of pollution. 50 years!

    You watch, another 50 years will go by, and it will be the same in 2070! My only question is, how is the world going to afford to pay for the new climate scientists that are going to be arriving! How many computer models will there be in 2070 for climate? 200? 500? 1,000!

    50 years have passed. Now think about those actors in these articles. We have a Col. Bernt Balchen, a yahoo adventurer, “those scientists” dedicating their lives to climate research, and of course there is that venerable pinnacle of corporate malfeasance, Exxon!

    First of all Bernt Balchen. Barnum and Bailey would have been proud of him. Balchen was an adventurer, and would go to extreme lengths for publicity. Although an aviator (he was actually more aircraft mechanic than a pilot), he was on the team to be the first to go under the North Pole with a submarine, it was a total publicity stunt, at the time, and even now, everybody thought it was pointless and stupid. And it was. This is a man who hammed it up at the cameras, and would do anything for a show. He is one of the early pioneers who claimed the North Pole was melting away, and that he could see this happening in his aircraft. The man would say and do anything to get attention. Many websites like wikipedia, claim he piloted many “firsts” voyages, which is untrue, most of the times he was just assisting (as in as a mechanic), and rare occasions, co-piloting. Balchen is highly over rated. But his pronouncements for Arctic melting live on; he never gave proof or took a measurement in his entire life.

    Then there are all those scientists. Think of it. 50 years of climate science, and what would do have, ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. There is absolutely not a single theory in entire climate science that has been settled. Talk about another group of clowns. The only difference between Balchen and these scientists are that at least these scientists took measurements, and measurements, and measurements. And what came of it? The same thing as Balchen, lots of show, and no results.

    And of course, we have Exxon! All show, no substance. A bluff company, a fake company, and defrauding company. Exxon, Balchen and climate scientists. What a group of crooks!

    50 years later, and what does Climate Science have to show for itself, failed models and billions wasted, the lying showman Balchen, and Exxon crooks!

    What will the next 50 years bring! Ha ha ha ha ha …

    • gator69 says:

      At least Exxon produces something of value.

    • Dorian says:

      I have to add, it was some 20 years after is his flight over the Pole, when he went under the North Pole in a submarine. It makes a mockery his comment when he said the North Pole would be iceless in 20 years, when he actually went under that same ice. But he continued to say the North Pole was melting away. I do believe that was the whole purpose of that submarine voyage, to actually determine if the North Pole was melting (I haven’t the foggiest idea how they were going to prove that with a submarine, that couldn’t even take a single temperature reading!)

      What nonsense. And people today still fall for this kind of stupidity. But it made headlines all around the world, and lots of money too, I bet. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that magazines like National Geographic fall for and end up miss leading the world, and we eventually end up having fake science like climate science being created.

      You should be very careful what you read in magazines like National Geographic, or on websites like Wikipedia. The BS that they write is absolutely astounding.

      • menicholas says:

        The real genius was in realizing that people would panic if you warned them that the frozen wasteland at the pole was in danger of becoming less of a wasteland.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Exxon is not Enron.

  3. Andy DC says:

    Last night, a general half inch to inch of rain fell in the DC area, when both the GFS and NAM models showed virtually nothing only 6 hours ahead of the event. So we are supposed to believe that models exist that can make forecasts out 50-100 years? It is totally farcical!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.