HEAT OF THE MOMENT

Meteorologist predicts global cooling
Fears of imminent ice age to replace warming alarm?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 09, 2010 12:00 am Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi 2010 WorldNetDaily


Fears of a new ice age not seen since the 1970s are arising in the aftermath of the "Climategate" scandal that has cast doubt on the legitimacy of scientific research forming the basis for the theory that mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in temperatures worldwide.

Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi has produced a video suggesting the current frigid conditions in North America, Europe and Asia are very similar to the weather patterns in the 1970s that produced fears a new ice age was imminent.

In the video, Bastardi explains his theory that "weather goes in a lot of cycles, and we're going to see a lot more of the cold trending here over the next 20 or 30 years."

WND previously reported President Obama's science czar John Holdren was among the scientists who predicted 1 billion people would die in "carbon-dioxide induced" famines in a coming new ice age by 2020.


Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi

In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent "eco-disasters" such as the forecast ice age. Today, Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from "global warming."

Get "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming"

Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich in his 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature" announced Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster."

Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would lead to global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production causing widespread disaster.

On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.

Holdren and Ehrlich previously articulated the theory in their 1973 textbook "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions" in which they argued on page 198 that the main effect of carbon-dioxide-induced global warming "might be to speed up circulation patterns and to bring arctic cold farther south and Antarctic cold farther north."

CIA predicted new ice age in 1970s

A 1977 book, "The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age," featured a lead quote from a CIA report claiming, "The weather we call normal is in fact highly abnormal. … There is growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend … excellent historical evidence exists from areas on the European plains … [researchers hypothesize that] the change from an interglacial to glacial time period could take place in less than 200 years."

The book focused on colder winters in the 1970s as proof a new ice age was imminent.

"The winter of 1977 was something else again," the first chapter began. "For two-thirds of the United States it was the coldest winter on record."

The book then cited British science author Nigel Calder's belief "that the new snow age is upon us, that our ten-thousand-year warm period has run out, that the odds are only twenty to one against an ice age's beginning in the next hundred years."

After predicting ice would soon cover most countries in the world, including most of the U.S., the authors wrote: "If Calder's calculations are accurate, more than half the earth's inhabitants could die of hunger, and more than a dozen countries could be wiped off the face of the earth."

I was going to offer a BG sweatshirt for the first global cooling article that people produced. But, I think Bastardi has been on this side for some time. And I wanted it from a "climate scientist" not a meteorologist.

Nevertheless, I think Bastardi is right. We're poised to see a downturn in temps. It's not gonna be much fun.

The actual CIA report from 1974 can be found here:

Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems

The report, summarizing the prevailing views of the "western world's leading climatologists" of the time, was that the earth was slipping into another ice age. You may also notice that the general tone implied that 20th century warming had been a blessing for civilization:

p.21:
"...the climate we have enjoyed in recent decades was extremely favorable for agriculture. During this period, from 1930 to 1960, the world's population doubled, national boundaries were redrawn, the industrial revolution became a worldwide phenomenon, marginal lands began to be used to feed a vastly increased population, and special crop strains optimally suited to prevailing weather conditions were developed and became part of what was called 'the green revolution'.

"The climate of the 1800s was far less favorable for agriculture in most areas of the world. In the United States during that century, the mid-west grain producing areas were cooler and wetter, and snow lines of the Russian stepps lasted for longer periods of time. More extended periods of drought were noted in the areas of the Soviet Union now known as the new lands. Moreover, extensive monsoon failures were common around the world, effecting particularly China, the Philippines, and the Indian subcontinent."

And (this may sound familiar), changes in temperature were likely to result in world-wide calamity:

p.24:
"As an example, Europe presently, with an annual mean temperature of 12°C supports three persons per arable hectare. If however, temperature declines 1°C only a little over two persons per hectare could be supported and more than 20 percent of the population could not be fed from domestic sources. China now supports over seven persons per arable hectare; a shift of 1°C would mean it could only support four persons per hectare-a drop of over 43 percent."

If your going to be concerned with global weather and climate, it's cooling to be worried about. Warming brings prosperity and is good for the world. It's cooling that is deadly. And it wont be surprising when Al Gore and all the others are talking about the consensus of global cooling, and the cure will be the same as they proposed for warming.

"Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would lead to global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production causing widespread disaster."

I have to say, I totally agree with this view. Makes just too much sense.

(01-09-2010 05:35 PM)Paul M Wrote:  If your going to be concerned with global weather and climate, it's cooling to be worried about. Warming brings prosperity and is good for the world. It's cooling that is deadly. And it wont be surprising when Al Gore and all the others are talking about the consensus of global cooling, and the cure will be the same as they proposed for warming.

Not necessarily. Warming can allow the spread of insects into formerly cool areas, playing havoc with crops, and possibly spreading disease. Also, if warming does in fact cause a large increase in sea levels, there are a lot of populated areas that will be flooded. I don't know a lot about the argument, but I'm not convinced that warming is all it's cracked up to be, at least when compared to current temperatures.

(01-11-2010 05:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not necessarily. Warming can allow the spread of insects into formerly cool areas, playing havoc with crops, and possibly spreading disease.

But then wouldn't formerly cold, frigid areas not suitable for farming turn into hospitable "cool" areas, such as central and northern Canada and Siberia? (I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there)

Quote:I don't know a lot about the argument, but I'm not convinced that warming is all it's cracked up to be, at least when compared to current temperatures.

This supposes that there's been a lot of media touting the benefits of global warming. On the contrary, I rarely (if ever) read anything that may be good about the rise in global temperatures by a few degrees. It's almost entirely gloom 'n doom stuff.

On a local level, milder winters will mean less traffic accidents/deaths, hypothermia, road repair, heating oil usage, gasoline usage (less sitting in a freeway standstill during snow, emitting exhaust), a longer growing season.

I'm not challenging the 'dark side' of warming, but a few degrees warmer is bound to provide some upside.

Quote:The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.

I know this is generally off topic... but if the world really wants to curb 'manmade climate change', quit having so many kids. Third world countries, already not having enough food and energy to sustain themselves, double their population every few years. With few exceptions - i.e. need kids to tend the fields, etc. - you don't need 6+ kids running around (and I'm talkin' to you, too, Octomom). Next time we send a billion dollars in foreign aid around the world, send it all as condoms.

[/mini-rant]

On further note... I feel I'm really open to all sorts of climate debate. I'm one who believes the globe has warmed during the past such-and-such decades, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's primarily cyclical. Though I wouldn't be surprised if man had a huge hand in all of it too.

But just like a defense contractor or anyone else who benefits from the sales of weapons might be internally disappointed if all wars ended tomorrow, same goes for the some of the real hard-core global warming types. There are a lot of federal grants, publicly-funded projects and (of course) new government control of industry that comes with the hot topic of climate change. If it all stops tomorrow and temps settle back to average - whatever that really is - there will be some privately bummed out individuals, mainly hard left politicians and academia.

(01-11-2010 05:23 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(01-11-2010 05:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not necessarily. Warming can allow the spread of insects into formerly cool areas, playing havoc with crops, and possibly spreading disease.

But then wouldn't formerly cold, frigid areas not suitable for farming turn into hospitable "cool" areas, such as central and northern Canada and Siberia? (I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there)

Quote:I don't know a lot about the argument, but I'm not convinced that warming is all it's cracked up to be, at least when compared to current temperatures.

This supposes that there's been a lot of media touting the benefits of global warming. On the contrary, I rarely (if ever) read anything that may be good about the rise in global temperatures by a few degrees. It's almost entirely gloom 'n doom stuff.

On a local level, milder winters will mean less traffic accidents/deaths, hypothermia, road repair, heating oil usage, gasoline usage (less sitting in a freeway standstill during snow, emitting exhaust), a longer growing season.

I'm not challenging the 'dark side' of warming, but a few degrees warmer is bound to provide some upside.

Okay, global warming is not all you're cracking it up to be. I'm sure there are lots of advantages and disadvantages to warming or cooling, including many that we wouldn't predict. Any time you mess with the current ecology/environment, results are hard to predict.