Catastrophic Global Warming By The 1990s

12 Responses to Catastrophic Global Warming By The 1990s

1. RealUniverse says:

   October 29, 2019 at 6:11 am

   I remember first reading about the CO2 effect (alarm) in New Scientist around the late 80s. I didnt take allot of notice then. This is very old (1983) almost right after the global cooling scare. looks like the usual suspects were just starting to change tack with the warming scare instead as the cold one went flat.

   Reply
2. JPinBalt says:

   October 29, 2019 at 9:51 am

   Ha ha. I was there in mid-80s when this old theory came back and working on CO2 emmisions. What had happened was that oil prices had massively fallen. The Reagan administration was sucessfull in cutting funds for energy conservation which was heavily funded from 70 energy crisis a decade earlier. Lots of gov employees just switched over to new problem to do similar work. Large federal agencies starting with DOE and NASA found climate change was a good excuse to increase budgets. They wanted to sell something to Congress to get revenue to replace old revenue lost or cut. Then we had an army of beaurocrats dependent on it. To say or write AGW did not exist was like cutting off you leg or asking to eliminate your job. So we have a bunch of people studying or promoting how to get people to switch to high efficiency furnaces or lable energy use of appliances get jobs cut and move over and start working on the new energy problem. If oil prices did not collapse in 80s, this whole charade of AGW would not of happened or been delayed.

   Reply
   • Robertv says:

     October 29, 2019 at 5:51 pm

     To sustain BIG (Brother) government you need a permanent ‘the sky is falling’ psicosis.

     Reply
     • Disillusioned says:

       October 29, 2019 at 10:55 pm

       Yes. It is justification for the ever-increasing need for other peoples’ money (a greater tax burden on the citizens). When the citizenry can pay no more and the national debt piles up beyond a nation’s GDP (gross domestic product), there will be a breaking point; a day of reckoning is inevitable.

       “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
       – Margaret Thatcher

       Reply
     • Robertv says:

       October 30, 2019 at 2:47 pm

       https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/10/biomass-fired-electricity-plants-are-more-polluting-than-coal-report/

       “The Netherlands has agreed to close its remaining coal-fired power stations by 2030 in an effort to meet the Paris agreements on climate change. The government has also pledged to end the production of gas from under the province of Groningen in 2020. The government is pumping billions of euros in subsidies into building biomass plants and wood which is seen by the EU as a climate-neutral source of energy because the carbon dioxide is absorbed by newly-planted trees. According to research by the AD, 628 biomass installations in the Netherlands will get some €11.4bn in subsidies in the coming years, of which €2.6bn is going to the RWE power plants in Geertruidenberg and Eemshaven.

       Power stations which burn wood, food waste and other plant-based products emit more carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide than coal-fired power stations, according to an as-yet unpublished report drawn up for the infrastructure ministry. Generating the same amount of power in a biomass power station creates more pollutants than traditional coal because the process is less efficient and needs more fuel, the AD reported. And compared with gas, biomass emits twice as much nitrogen-based pollution.

       Earlier this month, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) said that governments should stop wasting billions of euros on subsidising biomass power plants because it is unsustainable. EASAC also said burning wood does not produce very much energy and the net amount of CO2 which is released is greater than when burning coal or gas. A number of regional health boards (GGDs) have also written to economic affairs minister Erik Wiebes warning him to be aware of the impact climate change policies can have on health. Plans to build more biomass-fired power stations plus wind and solar farms will all have an effect on humans but the health ministry has not been involved in the talks, the boards say.”

       Reply
   • MGJ says:

     October 30, 2019 at 12:37 pm

     Trying to downsize – or limit the growth of – government is like trying to cut the head off the hydra. It just seems to grow two more heads to replace the one that was lost. Once Prohibition ended, there was lots of idle bureaucrats needing some make-work tasks to perform. Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you…the War On Drugs!

     Reply
3. Gummans Gubbe says:

   October 29, 2019 at 10:58 am

   And again I noticed the now one year old comments regarding the “wikipedia banner” about climate change.

   I have never seen one, but recently I got myself a vpn. And by switching my location the the USA I too can get the warnings. Is it state mandated?

   I got the vpn to check out Steven Crowders claim the google would suppress search results from unwanted USA democratic president candidates if you ran the search from the USA.

   Reply
   • connie frist says:

     October 29, 2019 at 12:05 pm

     Why would you use evil-google in the first place, when you could be doing real work with duck-duck-go?

     Reply
4. connie frist says:

   October 29, 2019 at 12:02 pm

   50 years of climate hysteria… with only one goal… total government control.
   It was never about the environment, it is always about control. Government control.
   If you don’t see the pattern, you are willfully ignorant.

   Reply
   • Jason Calley says:

     October 30, 2019 at 7:19 pm

     Sad but true. That is why facts never end the fraudulent claims of CAGW.

     Reply
5. Fake News in 1983 says:

   October 29, 2019 at 1:30 pm

   Dont believe this reportette had to experience the horrors of catastrophic Global Warming in the 1990s!

   Reply
6. Russell Cook says:

   October 30, 2019 at 3:55 pm

   “… catastrophic global warming … with a strong climate change.”

   As opposed to a weak change, or no change at all?

   Reply