20 thoughts on “The Seventies Ice-Age Scare”

  1. I was there. I remember the headlines vividly. That, and the assurance that we were going to run out of oil sometime in the 1980’s, kept us kids in dread of the future. It would have had an even more pronounced effect if we hadn’t simultaneously been even more worried about the threat of instant nuclear annihilation by an implacable foe who seemed to be advancing on every front.

    Then, a fellow came along who said we didn’t have to take it, that we could be proactive and make the world a better place. He was ridiculed and scorned, belittled as an intellectual lightweight (the standard MO), and we were warned he would bring on the very apocalypse we most feared.

    Only, he didn’t. Quite the opposite. And, for a good two and a half decades after his ascension, he begat to us unprecedented prosperity and security. Now, we find ourselves embroiled in the same funk which reigned before he rode in on that dusty trail. Our well-being and livelihoods circle ’round the drain, while adversaries make inroads across the globe. All while the Beautiful People heap scorn and derision on anyone who suggests things could be otherwise.

    I’ve seen this show before, and the rerun sickens me. Where is the hero in the white hat we need so desperately to ride into town and clean out the wastrels, scoundrels, and hacks who have taken over the town?

    1. “Where is the hero in the white hat we need so desperately to ride into town and clean out the wastrels, scoundrels, and hacks who have taken over the town?”

      What Reagan did was very simple. It’s very easy and it doesn’t take great political or communication skills to do it.

      Reagan’s secret was that he could take the simple concepts and state them simply so that they are clear to even the most casual of listeners.

      And he did so..over and over and over in a multitude of venues. And the people knew he was right. That’s how he got Regan Democrats.

      So far we don’t have anyone who understands this concept. Or maybe they understand it but don’t believe it will work.

      But it will.

    2. You did not live in Europe. Every other week someone in TV would state how many tanks NATO had, how many tanks the Warsaw Pact had. Airplanes. Nuclear warheads. I even remember a guy stating what was the predicted time for each NATO country to be invaded by the Warsaw Pact. Some were supposed to last days, others hours. IIRC the prediction was for the European continental NATO partners to last a whole *two weeks* in a major confrontation with the Warsaw Pact forces. It was *that* bad.

      That was for a mostly conventional war with limited use of nuclear weapons. When it went into a total nuclear warfare scenario things were even more bleak.

      Despite all that, or because of all that, people at least seemed to be more connected to reality back then.

      As for the seventies I’m too young to remember them.

  2. Is there any crisis mankind will ever face that won’t be “solved” by impoverishing anyone and ideally establishing as much Socialism – and control – as possible?

    Preliminary results say “no”.

    1. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
      – H. L. Mencken

  3. The romantic movement of the 19th century was largely a response to industrialization, “capitalism”, the rise of individualism, and rationalism (the enlightenment). Out of that movement came a variety of ideologies, many of them similar at their core, most of them rejecting individualism. Romantic ideologies are very emotion driven and also have a great deal of similarity with religion except that sinfulness and good in the eyes of a god are replaced by sinfulness and good as relates to the collective, or to “nature”. From this movement you get communism/socialism, you get cultural relativism, you get a particular sort of “environmentalism” which came to dominate the environmental movement sometime around the ’80s or so (focused on sins against nature, smug “more environmental than thou” self-satisfaction, and so forth rather than merely appreciating and trying to preserve natural environments).

    A common factor of all of these things is the basic model of “sin” as an ideological foundation. Sin against the collective, sin against nature, or the double sin of “needless” consumption and wanton pollution. So we come to climate, and we see that regardless of what change is happening to the Earth’s climate, or even if no change is happening, the “fault” lies in man’s sins, and the solution is always to sin less.

  4. So in the seventies the knowledge that the Holocene, like other interglacial periods, will end after a few thousand years, got some press coverage, and in the US this information alarmed Bart and other children.

    1. I was a child 40 years ago, Andrew. I grew up. Time you did, too.

      The fact is, you have no reference point at all to gauge how serious the movement was. You just retain a child-like faith that those responsible for the Climategate e-mails are playing it straight with you on this topic.

      1. I was a child 40 years ago,

        Yes Bart, and you were obviously deeply traumatized by those events. can I suggest counseling?

        1. You can suggest anything you like – it’s still a free country. For now. May I suggest you have run out of points to make, and conceded the argument?

          1. I don’t dispute that you were traumatized Bart, so if you need to feel that means I’ve conceded that point you may.

            As far as my comment: So in the seventies the knowledge that the Holocene, like other interglacial periods, will end after a few thousand years, got some press coverage, and that we are well past the Holocene Optimum, the earlier and warmer period of this interglacial, You can concede.

          2. Your comment is delusional, and disconnected to actual events. You are making up a history to suit your prejudices.

  5. Slightly off topic, I see there’s an interesting post up at WUWT, in which Anthony pans Dr. Scafetta and Tallbloke for their pal reviewing at the now closed journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) these two join Steven Goddard (pseudonym) of “Realscience” as former members of Anthony’s entourage who have fallen into disrepute, I’ve gotta say, if Anthony keeps up this house cleaning for much longer WUWT might start to make sense. Then of course all the flakes that hang out there will probably follow their flake idols to other blogs.

    2. Of course, truly felonious behavior, such as that of Peter Gleick in service of The Cause , doesn’t even register on your scandal-meter. Nor, I expect, does casual and pervasive dishonesty, such as this, cause a pause in your stride.

      Wake up and smell the coffee, Andrew. The AGW conjecture is sinking fast. The projections are nowhere close to reality, and it is only a matter of time before the savvier hucksters start jumping ship, leaving their more dedicated and slow-witted brethren behind to face the music. Grab your spot on a lifeboat while you can.

          1. It doesn’t matter how slowly you write Bart, a picture of oil wells doesn’t have a lot to do with the topic being discussed.

            Maybe next time you could write up some jokes about priests, camels or something, no less relevant than your oil wells, but possibly more interesting.

Comments are closed.