Are there still any global warmest believers out there? Why?

Henson and his settled scientists

The Wall Street Journal dredges up  2001 interview with global warming “expert” and NASA puppeteer, Jim Henson, predicting the state of the world by 2009.

As it turns out, Salon was way ahead of the curve in covering how “climate change” is “already affecting our daily lives.” This is from a 2001 interview with Bob Reiss, author of a book called “The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future”:

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

That conversation would have taken place in 1988 or 1989, which means Hansen was making predictions about what would happen by 2009.

And the paradigm keeps crumbling

Higher temperatures in Pacific attributable to natural wind shifts, not global warming.

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.

The study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.

“What we found was the somewhat surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve,” said lead author Jim Johnstone, who did the work while a climatologist at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.

“So clearly, there are other factors stronger than the greenhouse forcing that is affecting those temperatures,” he added.

The study released by the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does not question global warming, but argues there is evidence that in at least one place, local winds are a more important factor explaining ocean warming than greenhouse gases.

It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change.

Johnstone and co-author Nathan Mantua, a research scientist with the NOAA Fisheries Service in Santa Cruz, California, pointed to the fact that one steep ocean warming period from 1920 to 1940 predates the big increases in greenhouse gases, and an ocean cooling period from 1998 to 2013 came while global average temperatures were at or near all-time highs.

They also noted that the wind changes consistently preceded the ocean surface temperature variations by about four months, showing the wind was causing the changes to temperature, not the other way around.

James Overland, a research oceanographer at the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, said the study reinforced findings that the North Pacific has a lot of natural variability in 5- to 20-year time scales, and he reached the same conclusions on changes in the Bering Sea.

“Natural variability cannot be ruled out as an important mechanism,” he said in an email.

During the entire period from 1900 to 2012, there has been an increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit in ocean surface temperatures in the area from Hawaii to Alaska, and down the coast to British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California, according to the study.

The wind acts to change temperature through speed and direction. When the wind blows faster across the water, evaporation increases, and like sweat drying on the skin, cools the water surface. Winds from the south drive warmer air and water to the region. Winds from the north drive in colder air and water.

“It just seems to us it’s a pretty simple story,” Mantua said. “Yet it’s going to take people by surprise, because it is ingrained in our minds that if the climate warms up in the course of the century, it’s probably because of global warming, the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases and other things humans have done that have pushed it in a warming direction.”

All of which explains the global warmists’ increasing hysteria. They sense the consensus the concocted is falling apart, and they are afraid.

UPDATE: Today the LA Times reports on this story, straight up. When global skepticism breaks through the media’s wall of silence, you know something is seriously afoot.

Psst! Wanna buy a magazine?

As the “settled science” crumbles

Remember this?

WSJ: Whatever happened to global warming?

On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built.

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

And so on. None of this is news to the skeptics and atheists, but to fully-committed members of the Church of Mother Gaia, the loss of their bedrock will be as shattering as sunrise the day after the predicted end of the world. Those with the most to lose from the collapse of the paradigm: “green” businesses, and social progressives, will become the new deniers, but eventually the sheeple will grow immune to their heat mongering and when that happens, the media will also lose interest and return to covering the Kardashians. Less media hype, less fear, less interest, less media hype: it will be a downward spiral into indifference.

Of course, since the goal of the two groups behind this bullshit was never saving the earth but control of the people on it and profiting from that control, the progressives will drum up a new scare story and their business partners will move swiftly to refocus their products (I’m guessing snowblowers to fight the coming ice age, but it could be anything). It would nice if the sheeple remembered this entire trumped-up scam before deciding to go along with the next one, but why should human nature and gullibility change now?

We can at least hope for a brief hiatus between the final end of this hoax and the world-wide acceptance of the next one.

 

Greens rejoice: electricity rationing returns to England

“The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time”,

Four-hour daily blackouts.

Emergency measures will be introduced to prevent the lights going out this winter.

Offices and factories will be offered compensation to undergo 1970s-style energy rationing and shut down for up to four hours a day to prevent households being plunged into darkness.

In addition, owners of old power stations will be asked to switch them back on to meet the country’s demands.

National Grid had not planned to use this option until next winter. But yesterday it revealed a series of fires and setbacks had knocked some of the UK’s biggest generators out of service. Two nuclear power plants are also offline, and are unlikely to be running in time for the start of the colder weather.

‘The Government has been crossing its fingers and hoping that it’s all fine. It’s blindingly obvious that if you have a tight market then you will be more vulnerable to shocks.’

An Ofgem spokesman said: ‘We are confident that National Grid has the right levers to keep the lights on.

‘However, no electricity system anywhere in the world can give a 100 per cent guarantee that the lights will stay on.’

That didn’t used to be an impossible task for industrialized countries.

But “oh joy”,says British-based “Frack off”.

Despite the conceit that mankind is somehow separate (and above) the natural world, our existence is inextricably linked to a network of systems that is buckling under an onslaught of destruction caused by resource extraction and pollution. This destruction is being driven by man-made social systems that demand never-ending growth on a finite planet.

Unless we dismantle these social systems and replace them with ones that can work with natural systems, not against them, we cannot hope to change the course we are on. Dreams of fancy technofixes and new energy sources are simply self-justifications for continuing down this path of self-destruction. We are exploiting pretty much the whole world and there are no significant new frontiers left to exploit. Trapped inside this closed system we will be forced to confront the consequences of our actions one way or another.

If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit

Global warming models don’t jibe with actual historical temperature recordings, so scientists blame errors in collecting the data.

When you have trillions of dollars at stake, all being funneled to your friends and into your own pockets, you can’t exactly admit that the models supporting all that spending (and, far more important to some, the centralized control it gives governments) are fucked up, can you?

Then act like it

Leonardo Dicaprio “demands action on climate change”

Today, environmental activist Leonardo Dicaprio urged people to sign a new petition encouraging leaders to take action on climate change through a post on the actor’s Facebook page: “The science is in: climate change is real and man-made. The debate is over. Spread the word and demand action.” The petition reads: “We call on you to respond to the unequivocal findings of the IPCC report with ambitious action to stop catastrophic climate change. It is up to you to lead a ‘BIG fix’: B — Big oil and polluters out of politics, I — Invest in cleaner and smarter energy, G — Global, ambitious and binding deal to cut emissions. Global warming is the most significant planetary crisis of our time and it demands courageous leadership. We call on you to meet this historic responsibility.”

Tuesday, June 17, 2014: Leonardo Dicaprio jets to Washington D.C. to speak at a State Department sponsored “Save Our Seas” conference.

And why did Leonardo have to take a jet to Washington – couldn’t he have ridden his wind powered bicycle there? No, silly, because he and 21 of his closest friends are down watching the World Cup in Brazil on a $1 billion yacht owned by a homophobic, anti-Semitic, dictatorial billionaire Saudi friend of his.

So they all fly down to Brazil to entertain themselves on a yacht that’s been driven half-way around the globe to meet them, then Leo flies back to the US to testify on the critical importance of saving the planet and, finished, will fly back to rejoin his friends. I hope he doesn’t miss too many games, poor guy.

All aboard HMS Leo – party time!

Government: fuel from corn waste worse than gasoline

 

Better living for Dupont

In a government-funded study, researchers concluded that using corn waste for ethanol produced more greenhouse gas emissions than regular gasoline.

WASHINGTON — Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.

The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.

“The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense,” said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.

Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.

“I knew this research would be contentious,” said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “I’m amazed it has not come out more solidly until now.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline.

Cellulosic biofuels that don’t meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn’t earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn’t meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement that the study “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.”

But an AP investigation last year found that the EPA’s analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.

From the “science” to the so-called “remedies”, it’s all a fraud, and all about enriching large corporations, political insiders and professional alarmists.

I blame Bush

Maunder Minimum along the Thames, 1658

EU backing off CO2 reductions and opening continent to fracking. Reality will do that, sometimes.

Russia’s getting into fracking too. 

None of this is good news for the US, however, because our greens will just redouble their efforts to shut down our own fuel projects to make up for the increase in the rest of the world. Funny how they’ll sacrifice their fellow citizens so the Chinese can live fat.

Global warming propaganda and hysteria, circa 2000

Sheep shelter from a blizzard behind a stone wall in the Peak District, England. Snow, sleet and rain have disrupted transport and power supplies as wintry weather continues in much of the UK

As the latest blizzard blasts the UK, I remembered the story in Britain’s “Independent” [sic] from 14 years ago: “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Monday 20 March 2000 

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. [this article was written in 2000 – just three years after 1997 ] – “As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between,” he said.

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.

Not any more, it seems.

Did that come about? Er, no. Flash forward 13 years:

“Winter of 2013 to be longest in history Heavy snow to continue past May. The entire UK has been told to brace for a record-breaking period of bitter Arctic winds, crippling snowfall and plunging temperatures.

Long-range forecasts now point to winter 2013 now being the worst for more than 60 years with Polar conditions stretching right into the beginning of next spring.

The shock warning comes with the UK already shivering in an unseasonably early big freeze with temperatures plummeting to -5C and heavy snow sparking chaos in parts of the UK.

Given this endless campaign of misinformation and whipped-up fear mongering, it’s not surprising that many otherwise sane individuals used to believe that the world was doomed. Eventually however, a lie cannot sustain itself and panic subsides. The switch from “no snow” to “extreme weather” will prolong the life of this bullshit for a while longer – there’s too much money at stake for the global warmists to give up without a fight, but die it will.

Missed the anniversary, darn it

But Al said if I went north, I’d keep warm!

Five years ago Friday (the 13th) Al Gore promised that the north pole would be entirely ice-free in five years. He did add the caveat, “we will find out” whether the science-is-settled model is accurate, and I guess we have: the ice cap grew 29% this summer alone.

Bummer summer, Al.

Tell us something new

Prehistoric Swiss villagers display their catch

Study concludes that things were warmer in Roman, medieval times.

If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.

A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in [the Roman era] and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.

The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.

…

All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.

At least as far back as 2005 (and actually, far earlier) scientists were discovering entire prehistoric villages in the Swiss Alps as glaciers retreated: The Alps had far less ice from 5,000 – 850 BC., then froze up again until Roman Times and stayed open through the medieval period. 

None of this is news to the scientific community; all of it is ignored and suppressed, however. The science is settled, alright: the earth’s temperature fluctuates over time, independent of human activity.

 

”

Are sea levels really rising?

Dennis Savageau’s vision for 521 Round Hill Road

Not around here; not much. Mike Finkbeiner recently was hired by NYC to compare the 1811 sea level to now. His conclusion? High tide then was 4′ over mean low, 4.73 feet higher now.

In 1811 the Commissioner’s of the City of New York laid out the street grid system, and established an extensive series of elevation monuments at corner intersections, based on high tide of the era at zero.   EarthImage was asked to calibrate that system in relation to the modern determination of tidal level and land elevations.   Our conclusion was that the City Elevation Zero of 1811, now known as Manhattan Borough Datum, is 4.03 ft over modern mean lower low tide (the average daily low from 1978 to 2001.)  As the daily high today is 4.73 ft higher than that, one can speculate that tides have risen 0.70 feet (8.4 inches) since 1811.

What’s going on (I say, not Finkbeiner) is that the gummint is changing the methodology to achieve its political goals. Here in Greenwich, Diane Fox, Katie Blankley Deluca (whose father is now on our BET) and Denise Savageu, the triad responsible for forcing residents from their homes, are only too willing to go along with that process.

But…but…but, Dollar Bill told us the science was settled!

There’s got to be a pony in here somewhere!

Warmists admit what has been known all along: the globe hasn’t warmed in the past twenty years

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

And so on.  Deniers like Hansen and Dollar Bill may squawk, but their hopes to destroy modern civilization are dimming. More here, if you wish. And if you’d like to read of yet another debunking of “the hockey stick” graph, perhaps the most grievous fraud foisted on a gullible public by the warmists, read here.

Could the settled science of the 1970s have been right?

 

Don’t blame Bush

Swedish scientists say that only CO2 emissions are preventing an ice age. “Baloney!” Cry the school children of America, “our teachers have told us we’re doomed to drown!” Maybe so, but these Swedes aren’t the first to predict an ice age and perhaps: just a suggestion here, we might want to take a deep breath before implementing Obama’s stated intention to shut down our economy. Perhaps.

Scientists:
Global Cooling is Here (Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology)
Global warming freeze? (David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics)
Read the sunspots: Prepare now for dangerous global cooling (R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science)
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh (Philip K. Chapman, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S., Ph.D. Instrumentation, MIT)
The Coming Ice Age (David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics)
There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998 (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
While the sun sleeps (Henrik Svensmark, Ph.D. Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center)
World is getting colder (David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Ph.D. C.Biol. FIBiol. Professor of Botany)
Year of Global Cooling (David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics)

Historic:
1895 – Prospects of another Glacial Period (PDF) (The New York Times)
1912 – Sees Glacia Era Coming; Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age (The New York Times)

1969 – New Ice Age Threat Seen (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969)
1969 – Worrying About a New Ice Age (The New York Times, February 23, 1969)
1969 – Ice Age Biggest Threat According to Archeologist (The Hartford Courant, November 21, 1969)
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 Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
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)
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 – 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 (PDF) (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 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1977 – We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 – The New Ice Age (Book, 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 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)