John Stossel Says The Climate Apocalypse Is Bunk. I Agree.

As I have noted on numerous occasions, the public would be better served if they listened to more contrarians. One of my favorites is John Stossel. This week I watched his latest video You Don’t Understand the Environment: Lies about Greenhouse Gases, Polar Bears, Recycling, and More and wish everyone would watch or listen to it. You have my permission to quibble with a few details, but check out the facts first. Stop listening to the nonsense designed to keep you in a state of fear.

Stossel's guest in this half hour program is Research Fellow Linnea Lueken of The Heartland Institute. She is a Senior Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.

Global Warming and Climate Change Myths

Stossel opens by challenging popular alarmist claims, moving from "global warming" to "global boiling." He asserts that many scientists do not agree with the apocalyptic predictions made by activists and the media.

1. Melting Ice Caps

The arctic will be ice-free, oh no! Stossel disputes claims that Arctic ice is melting at a catastrophic rate and that the Arctic could be ice-free in summers by 2030 and sea levels will rise more than 20 feet. 

Stossel points out that while some melting has occurred, the trend has stabilized over the past 20 years and that predictions made in past decades have not come to fruition. Sea level rise is acknowledged but is described as occurring too slowly to prevent adaptation, debunking predictions that it will imminently flood cities. For over thirty years the Greens have been warning that coast cities will be underwater in ten years. Millions will be displaced. Malaria will kill even more. 

I'm reminded here of Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which argues that the threat of global warming is heavily exaggerated, driven by alarmist media, political agendas, and vested financial interests. The novel’s central message is a warning against "politicized science"—the dangerous intermixing of scientific data with politics, propaganda, and fear-mongering.

In 2009 Al Gore stated, "There is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years." How do these people still have any credibility?

2. Polar Bears and Mass Extinction:

The next myth Stossel challenges is the polar bear crisis. Contrary to claims of polar bear extinction, Lueken points out the reality is that polar bear numbers have increased by more than 50%. I know it's old-fashioned and unfair to use facts in such a controversial issue, but what the hey. When environmental groups use misleading information to solicit donations, someone has to point out the truth.

3. Massive Global Food Shortage

He next refutes the idea that climate change has led to a global food shortage. Lueken smiles and says, "There is o claim less true." In point of fact, there has been an increase in agricultural outputs, attributed in part to higher CO2 levels aiding plant growth and technological advances.

4. Droughts 

We have had a lot of wildfires this year, but claims that droughts and wildfires are increasing are easily disputed by pointing to historical data showing that drought conditions were worse in the 1930s, and that current wildfire incidences are more linked to land management and urban sprawl rather than climate change.  The EPA has itself acknowledged that the last 50 years has been wetter than average.

5. Wildfires

Yes there has been a modest uptick in wildfires since the early 1980s, but that was the lowest period of wildfires in U.S. history Lueken points out. The data from 50 years earlier shows that more than twice as much land area burned. And we should know. Here in the Northland we should know. The 1918 fires wiped out 35 towns and communities. Was that the same year as the Hinckley fire? 

6. Rising Seas

Oh please. Climate alarmists predicted in the 1990s that major European cities would be underwater by 202o. I'm rolling my eyes.

6. Coral Reefs

How many times have you heard that the Great Barrier Reef is dying and will become extinct? I have heard this assertion numerous times over the years. It's convenient that none of us live there. Repetition of this lament is endless. Stossel challengesn this nonsense with data indicating recent expansions of the Great Barrier Reef, countering the image of them as dying ecosystems.

7. Plastic and Recycling

This one may cause pushback by some. Stossel criticizes the recycling industry, particularly the inefficiency in recycling plastics. He points out that very little plastic is actually recycled and much ends up in landfills or is shipped to developing countries. 

8. Honeybees

We've heard plenty about the ominous decline in the honeybee population. Lueken and Stossel say it just isn't so. There is no Bee Apocalypse.

9. GMOs

Hmmm. All we've ever heard is how bad GMOs are. There's another side of that story, too. Why do we never hear it?

10. Environmental Activism and Financial Motives
Environmental groups are scrutinized for their fundraising strategies, which allegedly rely on perpetuating myths and fears about the planet's future. Stossel suggests these groups, despite their activist image, hold significant financial power and often obstruct development that could lead to greater prosperity.

This is my own personal beef with the environmentalists. There is a "no compromise" stance toward everything to a degree that it almost appears that their intentions are to deliberately damage the economy (which creates wealth that creates jobs and enriches all of us).  Instead, Greenpeace and other groups spend bazillions on lawyers to thwart projects that are in the best interests of all of us. 

11. The Role of Media

Stossel has special contempt for those in the media for amplifying alarmist climate narratives without adequately considering contrary scientific evidence, driven largely by the pursuit of sensational stories that attract attention and funding. When I used to have a radio in my car I regularly listened to NPR and thought it almost hilarious how many ways they could tie any event into a climate change reference. If one did a study, I'm willing to bet that there has never been a day in 20 years that did not mention climate change in a story. I'm not making this up. (Does anyone have access to the last 20 years of NPR transcripts? Maybe an AI could quickly answer that question for us?) "When was the last time NPR did not mention climate change?" As we know, NPR is not alone in tooting this horn.

12. Summing Up

Stossel concludes with these observations:

"I'm ashamed that I once fell for their scams. Years ago, my TV station ran ads promoting my alarmist environmental reporting. Now I realize that what today's big environmental groups mostly do is stop progress and make lawyers richer. We invited the groups to come here and explain to me why I'm wrong, defend your work. Not one would agree. I still want to ask them how they justify making it so hard for people to build anything. It's a shame because really, when I think about what America could be, what we could be building, we could be so prosperous, so much more prosperous than we are." 

I find it lamentable how any and every issue gets twisted once it has become political. Perhaps the real underlying issue is the fact that so much money is at stake. It seems like the doomsayers missed the point on the story of Chicken Little. Always screeching that "the sky is falling" should have consequences. The moral the story is that eventually no one takes you seriously. Children "got it." Why don't more adults get it?

Related Links
Climate Change Myths https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3vsyB84TcI
He Who Controls the Narrative Controls the People

Contrarian Observations, January 3, 2025

"The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony, which took place last October and was rebroadcast on ABC on New Year’s Day, is a reminder of why rock and roll doesn’t need a hall of fame."
--Tom Nichols, Staff Writer, The Atlantic

From the "Knocking Over Sacred Cows Dept." A humorous takedown of a Boomer institution: The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Should Not Exist.

* 

I have been recently introduced to a new source of climate-related common sense, a substack called Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein. Here is an insight.

"It’s an irrefutable but little-known fact that as the world has warmed 1° C, humans have become safer than ever from climate danger. The rate of climate-related disaster deaths—from storms, floods, temperature extremes, wildfires, and drought—has fallen 98% in the last century." 

Machines powered by abundant energy have allowed us to:

• master drought danger via irrigation and crop transport,
• master temperature danger via heating and A/C,
• master storm danger via building resilient infrastructure plus storm warning and evacuation systems

Read & Share: Three Undeniable Facts About Climate
https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/3-undeniable-facts-about-climate

*

That's all for today. Think about it.

The Mouse That Roared: Vanatua Vs. the World

"The best laid plans of mice and men do often go awry."
--To A Mouse
Robert Burns

"My idea was sound. Only an idiot could have won this war, and he did."
--Prime Minister Count Rupert of Mountjoy, The Mouse That Roared

Do you remember The Mouse That Roared? The 1959 film classic was a satirical comedy about an event that takes place during the cold war. In the film an impoverished backward nation declares war on the United States of America, hoping to lose so that the U.S will help stabilize its economy. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan.

The spoof features Peter Sellers playing three different roles: the Grand Duchess Gloriana XII, Prime Minister Count Rupert of Mountjoy and the inept Tully Bascombe who's been appointed to lead the armies of Grand Fenwick. 

The trigger event for this conflict between the most powerful and least significant nations in the world has  to do with the wine business. A U.S. winery is producing a knockoff of Grand Fenwick's primary export, and undercutting their price. As a result, Grand Fenwick is on the brink of bankruptcy.

The government of Grand Fenwick conceives a scheme--declare war, be defeated and have their economy subsidized by the U.S. Regrettably, the bumbling Tully Bascombe successfully brings the U.S. to it knees by acquiring the world's most powerful new weapon, the Q-Bomb. This unanticipated tactical disaster throws a monkey wrench into the mix. 

This film is what came to mind when I read that a group of students at Fiji’s University of the South Pacific rolled up their sleeves to dream up some bold new climate policies. Among them was a determined law student named Solomon Yeo, who rallied a core group to do more than just imagine—they set out to carve a legal path for every nation, big or small, to step up and face the global beast that is climate change.

What started as a class project quickly grew into a worldwide push, led by these young folks from the Pacific Islands. Their mission? To spell out, in no uncertain terms, what the world's biggest polluters owe to the countries bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.

* * * 

Is environmentalism the new Q-Bomb?

RELATED LINKS
Vanuatas Youth Go To Court 
Landmark Climate Change Case

* * * 

The Mouse That Roared isn't the only film in which Peter Sellers played multiple characters. In the film Dr Strangelove Sellers played three roles: Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley, and Dr. Strangelove himself.

Of Mice and Men
John Steinbeck takes the title of his little novel or novella from the poem "To a Mouse (on turning her up in her nest with the plough)." It was written by Scottish poet Robert Burns in 1785. The idea of the poem (and the book) is that despite all our crazy plans, men and all animals (yes mice included) are subject to the harsh realities of life, including death. Although we make plans, the universe is chaotic and things go awry.

WARNING: This blog post may reflect the author’s opinion.

Co-Founder of Greenpeace Asks "Is Climate Change Fake?"

"We’re not in an energy crisis, we’re in a stupidity crisis."

There will be people who hate this, but my take is that it ought to be good news to know that global warming is not going to wipe us all out. Here's a blurb describing the content of this podcast. I have added a few quotes from Eric Hoffer afterword.

To be honest, I generally dislike watching videos longer than five or ten minutes. This is much longer than that, but you'll be rewarded if you even listen to only part of it.

The title is a hotlink to the video.

Greenpeace's Ex-President - Is Climate Change Fake? - Patrick Moore

Modern Wisdom Podcast 373

Patrick Moore is the Co-Founder & Ex-President of Greenpeace and an author.

Climate change has been at the forefront of political, cultural and social battles for the last 40 years. Patrick had a front-row seat as he organized the environmental movement's first ever major demonstration, but now he has some real problems with the direction it's heading in.

Here are Moore's thoughts on humanity's impact on global warming temperatures, his opinion on Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg, what people mean when they say we've only got 50 harvests left, whether we should be worried about rising sea levels and much more... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5K5i5Wv7jQ&t=1158s

* * * 

QUOTES FROM ERIC HOFFER'S THE TRUE BELIEVER

"When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the the four horsemen of the Apocalypse." 

* * * 

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

* * * 

"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life."

* * * 

This last quote brings to mind Orwell's 1984 in which so the concept of Hate Week was created and promoted. Interesting that Hoffer book was published in the same period of time as Orwell's. Both authors had a finger on the pulse of cultural trends.

Today is Labor Day in the U.S.  What are you laboring for?

Photo by Ash from Modern Afflatus on Unsplash

Putting Nuclear Power In Perspective: An Interview with David Watson

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

"Beating climate change is hard enough without taking away one of the best low-carbon tools we have. It’s time to talk about nuclear."
--David Watson

For 25 years I have been involved in the automotive aftermarket with a keen eye on the evolution of diesel engine technology and electric vehicles (EVs). Meeting ever tightening emissions standards and improving fuel economy have been the big drivers of change over the past five decades. 

As we move toward an increasingly energy dependent future and away from carbon-based energy, there seems to be no way that solar, wind and hydro-power will be sufficient to meet demands. That is why I've taken such a keen interest in what is happening with nuclear energy. 

David Watson is editor-in-chief of The Kernel, a Medium publication that self-describes as "The Generation Atomic magazine. Our latest thoughts on the role of nuclear in a clean energy future."

* * * 

EN: What is your background and how long have you been involved in the nuclear movement?

David Watson: I'm what you might call a second generation nuclear engineer in that my father also works in the industry. I don't have one of those "Road to Damascus" conversion stories so common among nuclear advocates; nuclear was always normal to me. One of my fondest childhood memories was visiting the Wylfa A nuclear plant on the isle of Anglesey in Wales. I remember being fascinated by the walk-in radiation detectors. I also remember us driving past a coal plant one day and asking why there was smoke coming out of it. I remember saying something like "if I was Prime Minister I'd replace all the fossil fuels with nuclear." After a Physics degree, I joined the industry as a safety engineer in 2011. As an advocate though, I've only really become active in the last few years. I decided to speak out more when I realized how slowly we were moving as a society on climate change.

EN: Though nuclear energy has been around for more than half a century, it seems to be experiencing a resurgence in recent years. What are some of the triggers for this new interest in nuclear?

DW: In short, because of climate change. Around the year 2000, nuclear was almost written off as a future energy source by many politicians and economists. That would have been a mistake, as even without climate change there are many benefits to using nuclear over other forms of energy. As the world realized the scale of the climate problem, nuclear has come back onto the agenda. It's gone through various phases since 2000, but I think now in 2021 there is a growing realization that we can't just rely on intermittent solar and wind, and that too much gas and imports leaves us vulnerable to price spikes and even blackouts. I know you interviewed Meredith Angwin recently, and she can talk to this topic much better than I.

EN: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl dampened a lot of enthusiasm for nuclear power. Why is it different this time?

DW: Nuclear has always been treated as "different" to other forms of energy. People remember Three Mile Island, but they don't remember that no one died or even got ill from radiation from that accident. Chernobyl was a terrible event, both the accident and the Soviet Union's behavior in the weeks that followed, but only around 50 deaths have been attributed to it. In comparison, there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of gas explosions and coal mining accidents that have killed more than 50 people. Ironically, this means that most people couldn't name a single fossil fuel accident (maybe Deepwater Horizon?). Similarly, there have been many hydro dam collapses that have killed hundreds, and some even tens of thousands (the Banqiao dam collapse in 1975 may have caused up to a quarter of a million deaths). 

Saying that, the nuclear industry does everything it can to limit the likelihood and consequences of accidents from happening. Safety is the number one priority for anyone operating in the space. A Chernobyl-like accident is physically impossible in any of the reactors proposed or under construction in the world today. Many of the "advanced" (Generation IV) reactors claim improvements in safety over today's reactors.

EN: What is The Kernel and how did you get involved?

DW: The Kernel is Generation Atomic's magazine. Generation Atomic is a global grass-roots nuclear advocacy movement. We try to grow support for nuclear, particularly among the young. I joined Gen A (as well call it) a few years ago with the express idea of relaunching their blog on Medium. We recently re-launched the magazine under the banner of "The Kernel" as we wanted to give the publication its own identity.

EN: Are there any countries that are 100% nuclear powered now? How is that working and why haven’t we heard about it? 

Where is nuclear on the adoption curve? (Click to enlarge)

DW: No country is 100% nuclear, just like no country is 100% coal or wind; there is always an energy mix. There are, however, some countries where a large proportion of electricity comes from nuclear: France at 75% is the leader. Although the US has a larger total number of reactors, the larger size of the US means this equates to 20% of US electricity. Sweden, Finland, South Korea, the UK, Belgium and Japan also have 20-50% of their electricity coming from nuclear. Although some countries in the West (Germany, Belgium) are looking to phase out nuclear, many others (e.g. UK, France, Finland, Czechia, Poland, Estonia, China, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Russia, UAE, Ghana, Nigeria) are building (or planning to build) new reactors.

EN: Thank you for taking some time to increase our understanding of nuclear power. 

Related Links

Grid Fragility and a Book by Meredith Angwin

Five Minutes with Joe Heffernan on Nuclear Energy

Key Takeaways from Michael Shellenberger's Apocalypse Never

Photo: Gary Firstenberg

I've spent a lifetime listening to doomsayers tell us we will run out of oil in 10 years. It never happens. So why does anyone keep listening? Why do these spokespeople have any credibility left? 

And then there's the climate crisis.

The coming "end of the world" caused by global warming is an even more serious matter, they say, because it's claimed that the polar ice caps will melt and multiplied millions will die as a result. Is this a fact or another form of spin designed to manipulate the masses?

Ten years ago or so I read an article by a woman scientist who attempted to correct this latter narrative on Wikipedia. Her science-based information was deleted in order to maintain the narrative already established. She was not a climate change denier. She simply had facts to share that might help give balance to what was being said.

Now I'm not saying there are no climate issues. What I am saying is that I don't trust the people inundating us with dogmatic assertions about what is happening when these same people have already been proven unreliable a hundred times in the past. 

This is what I found so refreshing last year when I discovered Michael Shellenberger's Apocalypse Never. Shellenberger has been an environmental activist his whole life, becoming founder and president of Environmental Progress Research and policy organizations that have been advocating for clean power as a means to save nature without sacrificing economic prosperity. In other words, he has been immersed in these matters for over three decades.

Shellenberger wrote his book to counter the tsunami of claims that a climate Armageddon is just around the corner. He draws on the latest science to recommend practical solutions for our current issues. He is not a climate change denier. Rather, his message is that things aren't as bad as many environmental activists and the media paint them to be. His view is that there are more reasons to me optimistic than pessimistic.

Last year I borrowed Apocalypse Never from a friend and found it to be a refreshing message that I could identify with. This week I purchased Summary & Analysis of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. It's a book in the Snap Summaries series, in a similar vein as Sparknotes overviews of literary classics.

What follows here is the Table of Contents, essentially a list of the key takeaways from the book. It is not meant as a substitute for reading the original. Knowing that not everyone who reads my blog will read Shellenberger's book, I share this summary so that you're familiar with some of the important ideas it seeks to convey.

Key Takeaway #1: There is nothing catastrophic about current climate trends.

Key Takeaway #2: Climate change has not increased the frequency or intensity of natural disasters.

Key Takeaway #3: The earth is greener today than it was 35 years ago. (Examples abound. There has been wonderful restoration of our St. Louis River basin which was once a disaster. There are probably no rivers in America with fire departments dealing with river fires as it used to be when I was growing up in Cleveland.)

Key Takeaway #4: The media's fixation with plastic waste distracts us from bigger threats to marine life.

Key Takeaway #5: Bio plastics are not better for the environment than conventional plastics.

Key Takeaway #6: Supporting the economic development of lower income countries is the most important thing developed countries can do to save more natural habitats.

Key Takeaway #7: Rising economic growth, not activism, is what saved the whales. 

Key Takeaway #8: Historically the shift from energy dilute to energy dense fuels is what has halted severe environmental exploitation.

Key Takeaway #9: Renewables are not always better, cheaper or more sustainable.

Key Takeaway #10: Nuclear energy is one of the cheapest, cleanest and safest sources of electricity.

Key Takeaway #11: Many environmental nonprofits are anti-nuclear because they take money from fossil fuel investors.(As Woodward and Bernstein were exhorted by Deep Throat: "Follow the money.")

Key Takeaway #12: Most mainstream environmentalism is a thinly veiled form of Neo Malthusianism. 

Key Takeaway #13: Apocalyptic environmentalism is a religion that fills the modern atheist need for meaning and purpose.

* * * 

Read my other articles on Shellenberger and his work:

Global Warming Is Not the End of the World Says a Longtime Voice of the Green Movement

Michael Shellenberger: Fighting the Good Fight 

Climate Change Crises? What's Really Going On"

1970 – Kenneth Field “The world is cooling and global temperatures could drop by up to 11ºC  that would freeze the North Atlantic for 4- months of the year within 20-years …”

* * *

Photo: Gary Firstenberg

Someone shared with me The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog with me this past weekend. It was an eye-opening reminder of how topsy-turvy things are. In 1970 the climate watchers were not fearful of warming, but of freezing. Only later did the big buzzword change to Global Warming.  Since then it has switched to Climate Change. And when you roll your eyes and question things, you are evil for not "trusting the science." 

It's one thing when people speculate about what the future will be like. It's quite another when speculation is asserted as fact to such an extent that no one is even permitted to question it.

For example, ever since I was in college I heard them say, "We will be out of oil in 10 years." That is five decades and misinformed people still say it. 

The population problem was similarly written about. Starvation was imminent because the population growth was unsustainable. The truth is that technology and financial incentives for developing more efficient ways to produce food have all contributed to producing enough food to feed an expanding population. Plus, as peoples become educated, they produce fewer babies. Global growth has already begun to slow.

There was also a New Ice Age scare that got more ink than anyone remembers because later they changed their tune to Global Warming, which now has evolved to Climate Change, which is convenient because then no matter what happens we can be assured that they predicted it.

Check out these headlines from the early 70s. This is not a comprehensive list. You can find it at the Climate Change Dispatch.  Newsweek, Time, Washington Post... they were all beating the drum. One is titled, Are We Doomed? 

 

News articles:

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, February 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, 1979)

* * * 

The proof that Climate Change is less crisis--and more religion than science--is demonstrated in the stance its proponents themselves take toward their theories (convictions). You are expected to believe, not question. Kneel and kiss the ring.

By way of contrast, Bertrand Russell, in his Free Thought and Official Propaganda, states that real scientists are always ready to consider newer evidence regarding past theories. This is why scientists were open to Einstein's theory of relativity. In his lecture, published afterwards, he stated:

Every man of science whose outlook is truly scientific is ready to admit that what passes for scientific knowledge at the moment is sure to require correction with the progress of discovery; nevertheless, it is near enough to the truth to serve for most practical purposes, though not for all. In science, where alone something approximating to genuine knowledge is to be found, men’s attitude is tentative and full of doubt.

In religion and politics, on the contrary, though there is as yet nothing approaching scientific knowledge, everybody considers it de rigueur to have a dogmatic opinion, to be backed up by inflicting starvation, prison, and war, and to be carefully guarded from argumentative competition with any different opinion.

No doubt many of today's problems are the result of their having been co-opted by politicians. The Dems loved the Old New Deal so much that it seemed a wonderful add-on to strengthen it with the word Green and capture votes from all those young people raised to believe it's the end of the world if we don't hurry up and do something.

Never mind that we've been doing much since the 70s to address pollution and emissions.

In the right hand margin there are three quotes at The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog.

1. All Scientists are Sceptics
~Professor Bob Carter

2. Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled.
~Dr David Deming

3. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis.
~Professor Stewart Franks

* * *

Related Links

Michael Shellenberger: Fighting the Good Fight

Global Warming Is Not the End of the World Says Longtime Voice of the Green Movement

100 Years of Climate Scares -- 1970s Ice age scare

The Self-Destruction of an Energy Superpower: Texas