Before Extreme Weather Was Caused By Global Warming, It Was Caused By Global Cooling

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

― Mark Twain

This week in 1974, the worst tornado outbreak in US history occurred.  Climate experts blamed it on global cooling, which was causing an expansion of the polar vortex and expanding Arctic ice.

TIME Magazine Archive Article — Another Ice Age? — Jun. 24, 1974

Climate experts now know that the polar vortex and extreme weather is caused by global warming and shrinking Arctic ice.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Before Extreme Weather Was Caused By Global Warming, It Was Caused By Global Cooling

  1. Griff says:

    Even in 1974 the majority of climate scientists were finding that global warming was taking place and the likely cause of the of what they were seeing.

    Global cooling was a premise examined, then discarded as the evidence came in.

    It certianly isn’t cooling now, is it?

    • tonyheller says:

      Your statement is completely false and baseless.

      • William DeMott says:

        By 1972 key papers were published in Science and Nature pointing to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. Why read stuff from Time and not from scientific journals.

        • steve ridge says:

          Bill asks, “Why read stuff from Time and not from scientific journals?”

          And Tony responds with an unrelated clip from pop journalism.

          The lesson never changes: never rely on pop anything to properly understand science, whether it’s a fringe conspiracy blog, Time Magazine, a newspaper, or a YouTube video.

        • spike55 says:

          Shows that the anti-CO2 propaganda in the MSM has NEVER stopped.

          If you say it was in scientific journals, WHY were they saying the opposite to the press.

          Could it be that is just a perpetual LIE ! ;-)

        • spike55 says:

          Are you saying the MSM was LYING then..

          Just like they are LYING NOW !!!

    • Gator says:

      Ms Griff, I lived through the ice age scare, it was part of what drove me to study geology and climatology at the university level. My climatology courses came in between the ice age scare and the great global warming swindle.

      I lived in Hampton Virginia when the ice age scare began, moved to Germany where the scare continued, and then back to the states shortly before the current anti science claims of the current crop of grantologists. And the only crime against humanity in all of this, was taking the focus off of the starving masses. As has been pointed out before, alarmists are causing life saving resources to be misallocated, leading to the death of hundreds of millions.

      Why do you hate poor brown people?

      • steve ridge says:

        You must have noticed during the 1970s that the notion of a pending ice age or continued cooling was a product of the pop media rather than science journals or academy reports.

        This means scientists were correct then as well as now.

        • spike55 says:

          AGW is just a load of pop culture and propaganda.

          There is not one paper giving empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

          Its all based on NON-SCIENCE and SPECULATION.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Steve Ridge,

          Spend a few minutes here:

          You have an unusual definition of who belongs to pop media but I agree that less TV helps. No TV is best, of course.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Do you DENY that the 1970s was the COLDEST period in the Arctic in 80 or more years.

      DENIAL of CLIMATE CHANGE really is your only prop, isn’;t it griff.

    • Disillusioned says:

      It’s the Sun, stupid.

    • arn says:

      Yes Griff-that’s why at the end of the 70ies a scientific mainstream documentary “The global cooling” was even released-narrated by Mr. Spock Leonard Nemoy.
      And Obamas climate tzar John Holdren at that time never got tired of warning us about the ice age catastrophy before he became a warmunist.
      Holdren co-wrote also the book ‘eco science’
      in which he proposer to reduce earth population to 2 billions and introduce forced castrations and mass sterilisations in that book((sound so communist china and so globalist,doesn’t it.)
      And imagine Trump writing or proposing such things:the hell would break loose-but obamas first buttkisser doing so and the msm won’t write a word about it.

      btw Griff-As Tony has posted here several hundreds of mainstream articles from the 60ies and 70ies about global cooling i’m pretty sure you ‘ll have absolutely no problem
      to show us a few thousand articles from the 60ies and 70ies
      about global warming
      as “MOST” scientists already believed in global warming at that time
      there should be many many articles about that-
      and please also show
      proove about the massive arguements that happened in the 70ies between the ice age prophets and the warmunists((which would be a logical thing in science when two opposite groups claim to be right))
      you cant,because it never happened.

      The reason is simple:
      ice age scare=goverment grants
      ozon layer(which turned out to be 100% BS)=goverment grants
      acid rain=goverment grants
      tree dying(germany=100% hoax=government grants
      global warming=government grants

      ===the eternal academic parasite creating reasons to get money for nothing as noone else would create jobs for such useless persons
      and the globalists need a world wide tax for their global plans.

      • Disillusioned says:

        arn, I applaud your efforts. But you’re appealing to reason. The religious idiot you’re trying to convince will never allow reason to get in the way of their religious beliefs. All government grant-sponsored fearmongering, all adjustments to the record, everything that doesn’t make sense, it all is rationalized and will always be rationalized, in order to keep the religion going. No amount of empirical facts will convince a terminally religious believer.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      ***It certianly isn’t cooling now, is it?***
      Is that before or after NASA adjustments?

      • AndyG55 says:

        According to UAH and RSS, only the now decayed 2015-2017 El Nino this century.

        Its certainly isn’t WARMING , is it. !

        Even the much agenda adjusted RSSv4 still has no warming from 2001 – 2015

  2. Robert B says:

    October edition of NOAA quarterly in 1974 clearly states that most climate scientists thought the planet had cooled half a degree since the early 40s.

  3. Dan Foss says:

    I’d love to see a video where you show and go through all of the headline hype back to the 1800’s about cooling/warming/cooling/warming/cooling/warming/change.

  4. Richard Greene says:

    In the 1970s a large majority of scientists
    did not predict a coming global cooling disaster
    or a coming global warming disaster.

    Most scientists didn’t make any wild guess predictions
    of the future climate back then.

    But as the coming global cooling articles
    got more and more national; attention, other scientists
    wanted their share of the attention, and grants, too.

    Global cooling morphed into global warming
    over a few years, and the global warming fairy tale
    worked even better to scare people … and make them
    believe only a bigger government could save them.

    DDT, global cooling , acid rain, hole in the ozone layer,
    were tried, and didn’t scare enough people — the false
    boogeyman of a coming global warming disaster
    seemed to work best — so it will continue until all the
    believers are dead. I was never a believer.

    • tonyheller says:

      There was no question in 1974 among scientists that (at least) the Northern Hemisphere had cooled since the 1940’s.

      • Gord says:

        Environment Canada and CMOS (Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society) sponsored a 16mm film “The Coming Ice Age” which was shown around the country in the mid 1970’s.

      • richard verney says:

        This cooling is noted in Phil Jones 1980 paper and Hansen’s 1981 paper.

        It is also noted in the IPCC report AR1.

        It is only later revisions that have sought to do away with the Northern Hemisphere cooling.

        And there is no worthwhile Southern Hemisphere data, so we cannot possibly know what the global position is. Phil Jones notes this fact in his 1980 paper, and was even more forthright in the Climategate emails where he says that most of it is made up. This is so, if for no other reason that the Pacific Ocean is so large and prior to ARGO it was not well measured, and not much of Antarctica is measured.

    • Griff says:

      not the majority, no…

      Yes, I know: skeptical science. I know you all won’t read it, to avoid having to deal with the facts.

      • Gator says:

        Good God Ms Griff! Do you ever tire of being wrong, or if dancing on the graves of millions of poor brown people?

        As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

        Skeptical Science is a site full of lies, but it does help kill millions.

      • Latitude says:

        …the best past is in 1975 the NAS said no one knew enough about the climate machine so they didn’t think it was possible to predict the climate….

        …but every argument about global warming …the science predates that..and the science has not changed one bit

        Truth is, of course there were a lot less papers… 1975 there were no climate scientists…just glorified weather men

  5. Gator fan says:

    The next bs scare is happening now. Generation by generation we are living longer and healthier lives. But wait. 40000 people a year are dying prematurely because of diesel fumes? Huh!!!!!! And that’s just in the UK.

    • Gator says:

      Nice to know I have a following!

    • Griff says:

      They are dying of diesel fumes rather than cholera, typhoid, starvation and war, like in the good old days…

      • Gator says:

        Ms Griff loves the days of mass human suffering and death. She works tirelessly to support the alarmist genocide that targets the poor, especially in third world countries. She pretends to forget what it is that she is doing, maybe because she doesn’t like to brag about the enormous success she and the other alarmist ghouls have had killing off hundreds of millions of poor brown people. So let’s have a refresher…

        These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

        The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

        And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

      • AndyG55 says:

        make it up as you go along, griff.

        How’s the fossil fuel heating going, griff. ;-)

        • Gator says:

          Over 37,000 died from motor vehicle accidents in 2016 alone.

          It is high time we ban automobiles.

          and don’t even get me started about Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)…

          Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

          Dihydrogen Monoxide Facts

          Dihydrogen monoxide:
          • is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
          • contributes to the Greenhouse Effect.
          • may cause severe burns.
          • contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
          • accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
          • may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
          • has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

          Dihydrogen Monoxide Alerts

          Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!
          Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In the midwest alone DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage.

          Dihydrogen Monoxide Uses

          Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used: • as an industrial solvent and coolant.
          • in nuclear power plants.
          • in the production of styrofoam.
          • as a fire retardant.
          • in many forms of cruel animal research.
          • in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
          • as an additive in certain junk-foods and other food products.

          Stop the horror – Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide

          Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!


          The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its importance to the economic health of this nation. In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

          IT’S NOT TOO LATE!

          Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous chemical. What you don’t know CAN hurt you and others throughout the world.

  6. Gator fan says:

    We visit all the same sites Gator. You always beat me to the punch and say what I want to say. Griff is a brain washed buffoon and should be blocked!

    • Griff says:

      go ahead and block me…

      that would reveal the truth about so called skeptic sites – not interested in other opinions, politically motivated and not based on science…

      • Gator says:

        Me Griff, nobody wants to block you. You do more damage to the CAGW death cult than we could ever hope to. The way you casually dismiss the hundred of millions of needless deaths that your agenda has caused is the best take down of any movement I have ever seen.

        Nobody wants to be like you.

      • AndyG55 says:

        We laugh at your baseless, politically motivated, zero-science opinions/rantings. That are tediously hilarious IDIOCY.

        Do you STILL deny that the LIA was an extreme cold ANOMALY, which the world has just crept out of?

        Have you got any empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhanced plant growth?

        Still waiting for your blatant ignorance to kick in, yet again, griff.

      • Latitude says:

        I thought Anthony was going to block you…..didn’t he do that?

      • Latitude says:

        that would reveal the truth about so called skeptic sites…

        Griff don’t claim ignorance with this group….you know what the warmest sites do

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Ms Griff,

        Your contributions are ignorant but they bring smile to my face. You don’t understand how much damage you do to everything you advocate and defend.

        It is quite entertaining to see you reflexively defend every Leftist bullshit out there while you swear you are not a Leftist.

    • Gator says:

      Me Griff is a necessary reminder of why we fight this fraud, she is one toothbrush moustache away from being an icon.

  7. Mark Fife says:

    Here is an excerpt from a report on Greenland published by theKungl.Veteskaps-Akademien along with relevant data from the GHCN. Notice they are reporting on the 1996 – 2014 time frame and discussing how this particular station among others is experiencing unprecedented warming of 0.05° per year. My data only goes to 2011, but I got .06° per year from 1996 – 2011.

    Somehow, it doesn’t look nearly as scary when you look at the total record.

    • Mark Fife says:

      Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Sure does look like some interesting cooling going on around the 70’s.

      But notice the difference between the daily highs and daily lows. Why do you suppose that would be? Could be the daily lows in such a location would be heavily impacted by ocean temperatures and ocean temperatures, due to the heat capacity of see water being very high, have a larger inertia in terms of response to radiant forcing than does the land. Slower to warm and slower to cool off.

      I don’t know. Just food for thought.

Leave a Reply

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