Dear God, we’re headed for another ice age!?!

by keith

At least that’s what ‘science’ was saying back in 1977 in this issue of TIME magazine along with 51 things you could do about it. Really? 51 things you can do to help stop the coming ice age?  Or at least ‘survive’ it? Wait a minute… I thought the globe was warming, not cooling?

Bottom line is this – alarmism and hysteria is always wrong. The killer bees lost their sting. The Population Bomb never went off. And we haven’t run out of oil like we were supposed to.

So when there is this collective wave of hysteria regarding an impending doomsday scenario calling us to act now or else (!!!), it’s probably wrong.

Science, doctors and the media can be wrong you know. Just ask the smoking doctor of yesteryear about those ‘healthy cigarettes‘.

Of course there is usually some element of truth involved which can make the issue appear to have a certain degree of validity. People did die from killer bees. There are parts of the world suffering from overpopulation. And there are areas where oil wells have dried up. But whenever there is a collective movement calling everyone to act! save! conserve! do something damn it, just do something! There probably is something else going on. Or, there is not really much going on at all.

Here’s an amusing video that sums up much of the nonsense behind the global warming hysteria. Or…is it ‘climate change’ now? After all, there was recently snow in forty-nine of the fifty U.S. states

Be Sociable, Share!

{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }

GJS January 25, 2011 at 10:13 am

I presume you mean the Peak Oil theory, No-one ever said we would run out of oil by now, it was always about reaching the halfway point, when most the easily accessible & cheap recovery of oil would come. Well it has & apart from spasmodic short lived falls in price the price of crude oil & gas will be on an upward trend as the inevitable price to produce oil, higher demands & lower supply works it’s magic to an almost J curve.
The one biggest obstacle to people understanding this is the sheer volumes concerned not just as fuel but usage as an ingredient for other fields such as chemicals, plastics, fertilizers just to name a few.
Just think of a Daily need of 90 odd million barrells before the GFC came (which the world just managed to keep up with) with each barrel containg 159 litres adds up to astronomical volumes when you start multiplying by 365 days for a year & that doesn’t allow for the growth of China & India. We, in the west (a world minority)were blessed & privileged to have access to all the cheap & easy hydrocarbons to build our societies, now you have the majority of the world wanting what we wasted & just took for granted.
When something is not being replenished everything will run out but it won’t happen in a day a week a month a year but there is NO doubt that the days of cheap & easy hydrocarbons are going going gone just as sure as the sun will set.
Unless there is some miracle new technology discovered NO one substance will ever replace the role that hydrocarbons have & are playing,far as electricity generation is concerned they could build all the turbine & solar cells that they can , it still won’t even come close to replacing existing fossil fuel production.
Peoples lifestyles will have to change, that’s a fact, it’s just a shame that things weren’t kicked off in the 70s when the people that knew warned the people who didn’t know nor did they want to.
I wish you all well & good luck

keith January 27, 2011 at 12:58 am

OK, but the question is, do we need to panic about that? Does there need to be hysteria and government policies trying to stave off some catastrophic event? The answer is no. Even if oil truly did dwindle i would submit that it would be a gradual enough dwindling that markets/nations/people would adjust to the shift. It’s happened with other commodities; no reason to think it wouldn’t happen with oil. Like when gas first got ‘expensive’ in the 70′s, lo and behold- smaller cars! ‘The sky may fall!!’ is never a valid reason to make huge and rash decisions. I know people that up and moved to Arkansas in 1999 because of (gasp!) Y2K. Same thing, different hysteria.

GJS January 27, 2011 at 6:44 am

Maybe I am expecting a lot for people to actually comprehend the very real problem we are facing but nowhere did I state we should all be panicing that was totally your statement Keith & to throw in Y2K etc makes no sense at all, I am speaking on ONE topic. You should however prepare yourself & realise that things have to change, to just dismiss this as just hysteria & pretend that all is well is just as irresponsible as the radicals are.
I could think of nothing greater than us all living happily ever after however the facts remain this is not possible. I sincerely hope you don’t think nations won’t go to war or worse for resources & energy in particular. As I said previously if we had listened & acted on the Peak Oil theory back in the 70s we may at least MIGHT” have a couple of prospects now but the very thought of trying to dismiss it again now is ignorant & dangerous.
Unless you are in a related field I think it’s crucial for everyone who has NOT done so, research the subject themselves because there is unfortunately many Professional people on both sides out there that will state anything if the reward is high enough, no matter how dire the consequences could be.
It is crucial to read the facts stated back in the 70s regarding the Peak Oil Theory itself & not the crap that has been added to it or interpreted in a way to suit someones needs. It is a substantiated fact & as the general populace realise this the price will spiral rapidly as the speculators buy like never before so don’t think that things couldn’t change dramatically virtually overnight.
Anyway no-one can change the mind of anyone who has their thoughts set in concrete, all one can do is point out the facts & hope that common sense & a little research opens peoples minds so they are NOT caught unawares.
I do wish everyone well & even if I’ve persuaded just one person to give this some thought & do a bit of research, I’ll be happy. Cheers

keith January 30, 2011 at 10:19 pm

GJS – It’s a theory. And with any theory there are opposing and differing theories. My contention is it is extremely rare that policies and regulations and massive changes should be made based on ‘theory’. To do so is to venture painfully close to the realm of panic. Sorry but the idea that ‘one day it’s all going to run out and we’re going to be kind of screwed if we don’t do something about it NOW (or as you say -in the 70′s)’ wreaks of doomsday-speak. Just like ‘Y2K’. My point makes perfect sense.

Should we explore other fuel sources? OF COURSE. Should we seek to use and develop cleaner energy? OF COURSE. But to wring our hands about the fated day when ‘it’s all gonna run out’ is nonsense. Even leading proponents of peak oil theory shift their views as new facts arise and variables change. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-oil-peak-idUSTRE63539420100406?pageNumber=1

Moreover, to enact changes/policies/regulations based on theory is even more nonsensical when we know of areas where vast oil supplies lay yet untouched. (ANWR)

GJS February 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm

If not for theory there would be very little in life that led to actual practicality, it’s just so much easier for people to poo hoo an idea than it is to put their own effort into thought & research. Remember a bloke called Einstein, many thought he was certifiable, he’s just one of millions that were scoffed at for their ideas.
All the resources of the Earth WILL eventually run out unless a lid is put in place to prolong them, unfortunately some people think only of the here & now never seeming to consider the needs of future generations, whom of which could be their own bloodlines.
Science has come to the rescue many times & hopefully it will again but to bet the planet & our kids future on it surely isn’t worth it, science cannot solve everything, sometimes god forbid people have got to take responsibility for their own decisions & actions suffering the inevitable consequences however it’s not always the people responsible for the dilemmas that have to suffer the worst of it.
As I said before no-one can open anothers totally closed mind unless they so wish it, thankfully some do.
One thing no-one with a sane mind could dispute is that our actions & inactions of today will impact the future, they’ve already saddled them with unimaginable debt before they’re even born, the least we should try to do is ensure there is something worth living for, I certainly don’t envy them but hey I’m sure there are many that couldn’t give a damn. All I can do is pass on unsolicited unbiased facts that may help someone, as I did with the sub prime theft of money, some ridiculed me for that (before the event) & I’m certain I will be for this too, I don’t really give a rats arse, at least I tried to help.
Good luck all

Dave S February 4, 2011 at 10:44 pm

Theories are all fine and dandy. The problem arises when we start treating theory as fact and start to enact laws and change major things in response to these new obvious facts.

GJS February 5, 2011 at 7:22 am

There would definitely be many more times where theories failed compared to the ones that were successful but I cannot for the life of me understand how any thinking person could possibly come to the conclusion that the way in which mankind has abused the planet has no affect on weather. As we should all know weather is inheritantly cyclic but even if mans contribution is as low as 20 or even 10% we owe it to future generations to reduce or eliminate our contribution to it.
All I originally commented on was we should have given the Peak Oil theory back in the 70s the attention it deserved, even ex Petroleum Company Execs agreed with it but did Pollies listen NO it was much easier to appease the oil barons & pretend it didn’t exist. I’m NOT saying nor have I said that every theory should be implemented that would be ridiculous but even to a layman it must have hit home that if you have a finite supply of anything that does NOT replenish itself WILL eventually run out & all the Peak Oil lobby wanted to do was inform people & the decision makers when the half way pinnacle would likely come, after that it would be harder , more expensive to extract with lower output from each well, if you are familiar with a bell curve you will see what it means.
Politicians often do stupid things about about stupid things however Peak Oil always deserved more attention & action instead it was ignored by idiots.
That’s where I leave this post, I have NO hidden agendas or axes to grind with either side but unless somethings are taken more seriously & acted upon accordingly things that were often scoffed at & regarded as fear mongering WILL happen. The depletion of fossil fuels is happening now, is proven & the vast majority of people don’t realise or just don’t want to know otherwise there would be overwhelmingly more people hassling Governments into action, instead they do what the Multi National Oil Companies tell them to.
This does & will affect everyone in the world whether it be the industrialised nations or nations that depend on them for aid, unless some miraculous alternative is found which is looking less & less likely every passing year we must voluntarily reduce our dependence on fossil fuels & get used to a more manual world otherwise people won’t know what hit them when we’re forced to.
It’s pointless panicing, action is the only answer, I wish you all the very best & please think about what you really want to pass on to your kids & their kids, it could mean the world to them.

marty coleman February 6, 2011 at 7:24 am

Having been there for the first earth day and first realizing that the earth only has so much stuff in it, removing it all would would certainly lead to a major implosion. If you have more than one TV,car, RV and you leave your lights on after you leave the room or you have the AC set to meat locker temperatures in the summer, the same for winter than you are the ones responsible for global coolig and warming. The truth is that weather changes. Sometimes the hqbitat is codusive to supporting human life and sometimes it’s not.
Now let’s talk about theories, Practical need are met by invention not blabber (necessity is the mother of invention) ideas, solutions and resourcefulness are not thought up by a bunch of teachers they come about from a real need. In todays world we are sold toys gadjets and gimmicks,these are the main culprits in Global Depreciation. When there ain’t no more you won’t have it so stop wasting the planets resources now. Think Zen……….

KTEch March 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm

BTW, this cover is a fake. There never was such a cover. Check out the archives at time.com. This is photoshopped from the April 9 2007 issue, which was about global warming. In the 1970′s there no consensus about whether the earth would warm or cool, only a consensus that a drastic change in our climate would be a hardship.

keith May 12, 2011 at 12:33 am

Could be. But I’ll leave it up anyway to make the point because this-

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html

definitely isn’t fake. And neither is this-

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Jim February 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm

None of you seem to understand the beauty of this country; when a problem rears it’s head the collective, in a complete and un-hindered state of FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, attacks the problem not from a centralized(Washington) location but from everywhere(Melting Pot) and the answers appear. We have not reached peak oil yet and have not found oil’s replacement yet. It is GOVERMENT CONSPIRACY that is killing our progress not the oil companies or Bush/Cheney or the Koch brothers or any of those. It is the liberal movement lead by Obama/Pelosi/Reid who believe they are the smartest people in the room. They are pushing us into failed areas such as solar, wind, etc. that have been around for over fifty years and have never caught fire for one simple reason: THEY DON’T WORK!!!! Get over it and let the great American experiment continue. It will save us again if you let it.

drew April 1, 2012 at 2:06 am

I’m seeing a tragic misunderstanding about what a theory is here. Saying something is “just a theory”, or saying “there are other theories too”, demonstrates a profound ignorance about the scientific method.

Yes, I can put forward just about anything falsifiable as a theory. But then it can be falsified, and after that it’s no longer a theory. A theory that stays around and grows and gets challenged and still thrives is quite powerful and is about as close to the truth as scientists can come.

Sometimes theories are falsified. This is a good thing for science and it gives us an opportunity to develop new theories. It’s not a sign of failure or weakness that scientists used to believe something, and now they believe something else.

If you doubt current theories that are widely accepted by the scientific community, there is a simple solution. One, get a book on the scientific method. Learn about it. Now dive into the literature on the subject and if you still have legitimate doubts or alternative theories then publish them in a peer reviewed journal.

drew April 1, 2012 at 2:11 am

By the way, Time and Newsweek are not respected scientific journals. According to wikipedia, the global cooling conjecture “had little support in the scientific community”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Dave April 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm

At the very least, Keith, you need to put a disclaimer next to that cover, or you’re misleading people on purpose. In science, that’s known as falsifying one’s data, which leads to humiliation not only for the person who does it but also for the institution for whom he or she works.

Regarding the prediction of a coming ice age in the early 70′s, that’s what the ice cores and tree rings say we should be expecting. At that same time we began to launch probes to explore other planets, and someone had the bright idea to use the same kinds of probes to observe our own planet. Lo and behold, little by little, we discovered that our planet was warming, not cooling as we should expect. It’s not fair or wise to get angry about what scientists discover, especially when these people have children that will be sharing the planet with everyone else’s. They have the same vested interest in making sure we’re all safe that you do. And I’ll just point out that, contrary to the myth that seems to be going around about people who study the atmosphere, scientists don’t get paid more to discover that the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are going haywire.

keith September 3, 2012 at 9:40 pm

Consider it creative license to make a point – a valid point at that – that hysteria always proves to be wrong and a collective call to take action! support Kyoto! stop drilling! etc! is ideologically and politically motivated long before it is a FACT of science. And it is NOT settled science on par with, say, dumping boatloads of chemicals in a lake will kill the fish. It is NOT the same-

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

eric October 1, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Hysteria is most often caused by the media, not scientists. They profit from it. How boring the news would be if they just said, “Its all good!”. The list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is very, very small. Also, few on the list have an education in fields related to climate research. I realize this alone doesn’t prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but its something to consider.

keith October 2, 2012 at 9:35 am

Yes but just because 9 scientists say the sky is green and 1 says it’s blue doesn’t mean it’s more likely the sky is green. Comparing argument to argument is what matters and I think the anti-global warming arguments are just as strong as the pro-global warming arguments. Really though the issue is does/did man cause it and is it a problem? That is where it becomes a speculative endeavor. The ‘skeptics’ don’t say it is not warming they just argue that it is not FACT man causes it and it is tossing our planet into peril. My beef is with this ‘the argument is over’ mentality and the collectivist mentality that it fosters calling us all to take action! Do something! Sign Kyoto! Stop driving! and all that nonsense. That is hysteria. The patterns are the same we saw with overpopulation, second hand smoke and so forth.

weneedrubio October 2, 2012 at 11:19 am

The global cooling scare was also manufactured and aided by a few years where we had very cold weather just as the last 30 years have seen some global warming has aided the alarmists this time. My point is not the weather or “climate change” which, by the way, the Earth constantly does, it is the notion that private investment is trying to keep secrets to make money and only the gov’t can fix something. The opposite is acyually the truth, the gov’t is well known to hide things and the private sector is built to expose the secrets alarmists are worried about. The biggest example has been the accusation that the car and oil companies have had technology, that they are keeping secret, that would kill their business if exposed. The idiocy of this claim is obvious so I will not insult your intelligence by explaining why. Suffice it to say that it it always the gov’t that gets involved with cover-ups and it is done usually through manipulative laws or regs that cause unbalanced economics. Get the gov’t out of the business of thinking it can fix these things and back to what it is supposed to do, ENFORCE THE LAW!!

Eric October 2, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Yes, which is why I said it doesn’t prove anything with a shadow of a doubt, but its much more likely that the 9 scientist are right than the one. Just like its likely that the unprecedented release of CO2 by burning fossils has to be doing something to the atmosphere. Second-hand smoke? Were the dangers of that proven over-blown? If so, I would like to see where you got that info. Not that I’m disputing it.

keith October 7, 2012 at 10:37 am

Eric – I read a book a number of years ago that pulled apart the myth of second hand smoke dangers. I have it somewhere but I recently moved and have no idea which box it is in. I did a quick search and came up with this. Seems to have some good points – http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

keith February 26, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Leave a Comment