If only we had a Ministry of Truth, sigh the junk "scientists" and the commissars that transform junk into public policy.
Winston Smith, the protagonist in George Orwell’s 1984, worked in the Ministry of Truth, one of four ministries that ran the fictional country of Oceania. Smith spent his days literally rewriting history so that all past events fit the current narrative of the totalitarian state. When the story opens, Oceania, one of the three super-states in which the world was divided, was at war with Eurasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia and always aligned with Eastasia. Midway through the book alliances shift and Oceania joins with Eurasia to wage war against Eastasia. Smith and his comrades work overtime to alter past documents to show that Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia and always aligned with Eurasia.
Such is the dilemma faced by the anthropogenic climate change propagandists when confronted with the historical record that a few decades ago global cooling was the supposed threat facing the planet rather than the global warming that, we are now told, will bring disaster to the earth. Fortunately for us there is no Ministry of Truth controlling the historical record nor is there yet a Ministry of Love enforcing obedience to an arbitrarily chosen orthodoxy.
In an audacious but utlimately futile attempt to rewrite history the global warming confidence racketeers have launched a missile designed to shatter our recollection that the hysteria in vogue a few decades ago was over an Earth that faced a new ice age rather than the current panic attack that the planet is growing too hot. Doubters of human induced global warming have for a long time pointed out that in the 1970s there was a concentrated effort to convince the population that the earth was growing colder and mankind was responsible. The steps needed to avert such a catastrophe are identical to the steps being advocated now to halt global warming. The goal, then as now, was a drastic reduction of energy use that would radically alter the lifestyles of those living in North America and Western Europe.
How, the layman asks, can we believe the so-called scientific consensus that the earth is warming when a very short time ago the scientific consensus was telling us that the earth is cooling? To answer that legitimate question the con men are countering that there was no consensus back in the 1970’s. The article from USA Today, to which we link (stored), describes the feeble attempt to rewrite history. It is the template for similar articles, high, middle and lowbrow, that are erupting. The "nation’s newspaper" tells us:
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
Global cooling hysteria never happened. Deny your memories, those who were sentient during that time. Ignore the abundant record to the contrary, forget what you remember Barabara Walters and Walter Cronkite said, and purge images such as the cover of Science News from 1975 that graces this commentary. The consensus that is sacred to the grifters was not in operation back then. Forget! Remember today’s defining truth is global warming caused by YOU. That’s that and all that matters.
Let’s take the USA Today article as gospel. There was no consensus among climatologists in the 1970s that the earth was cooling. Why then did Time, Newsweek, and all major magazines and newspapers across the US and the globe devote such an ocean of ink trying to convince the country that cooling was a fact? Were they lying then? If so, why should we trust these publications now, as they proclaim that energy use is causing the world to grow warmer? There were plenty of "experts" back then advocating draconian action to slow down or halt global cooling. Why should we believe these same "experts" now that they’ve reversed course on the symptom caused by man’s malfeasance towards the earth?
USA Today falls further into a quicksand of doublethink with its explanation of why the 1970s decade was the heyday of global cooling prognostication. The 1970’s were "unusually cold," with the winter of 1978-1979 the coldest on record. An expert notes that from the 1940’s through the 1970’s there was a "very sharp cooling trend." It was so damn cold in the 70’s, so goes the template, that people couldn’t wrap themselves around the "real" problem of the globe heating up to a disasteous apocalypse of fire. The dumb idiots! The worry over global cooling was the fault of the people whose pedestrian senses told them it was cold during those frigid winters. USA Today doesn’t bother with the paradox of decades of cooling, capped by the coldest decade on record, occurring simultaneously with the global warming that we are now told started with widespread industrialism and consumer abundance. In other words it is both hotter and colder than it should be. Such is the doublethink that also was a part of Orwell’s chilling 1984.
It is important to note that USA Today doesn’t bother with scientific proof. Its attempt to prop up the global warming hoax concerns itself only with consensus among scientists, both now and three decades ago. Consensus is irrelevant to science. Either something has been proven or it hasn’t. A million scientists may agree that A=B but without proof their consensus is worth absolutely nothing. If one scientist has proven that A=C that fact needs no consensus to be true. Anthropogenic climate change has not been proven. No "consensus" can make man-made global warming or cooling "true." Just as social engineering based on antitobacco fanaticism is horribly disruptive, so too, drastic restructuring of society to regulate climate change must be junked.
The entrenched nonsense thinking of our times is an ongoing travesty which many do observe and shall not forget. How many of our readers remember the book The Cooling, a best-seller of the 1970s, by science writer Lowell Ponte? Ponte informed us in his 1976 publication that: "This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."
Ponte accurately described widespread consensus in the scientific community with which his readers were already aware through news reports. Contrary to what we are being told today, both professional and popular journals regularly covered this hysterical consensus, and amongst varied theories of global cooling, man-made pollution was indeed the favored villain. A computer model fashioned by none other than Doctor James Hansen — one of today’s premier warming scare-mongers — was employed in the cooling scare and the indictment of human activity in 1971 (in which analysis, amusingly, today’s bogeyman of carbon dioxide was specifically exonerated from complicity in environmental villainy.)
Concern grew for years, viz Newsweek of 28 April 1975: "The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Further, consensus on global cooling of potentially disastrous effect was "almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." Calls for draconian intervention were vehement then as now: "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. … The longer planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality."
If hysteria is rampant in recent decades let us recall that aspects of such are present in all times and places. We focus here on the crazy climate scare vicissitudes since the 1970s but of course every era has its hysterics, individual, and collective. Regarding global warming we offer a mere sampling of evidence via links below. Note that organized collection of national temperature readings began in the USA in the late nineteenth century. Note also that prognostications of hot or cold doom date not just back to the 1970s but have occurred interchangeably ever since temperature statistics have been readily available. Note furthermore that global cooling warnings never died out and continue to compete with the fiery doom scenario through to the present day. As we say, these links represent a mere sampling of evidence, but perhaps as much as your stomach can take for one day!
Recent FORCES report on global cooling: (link)
Recent FORCES report on consensus: (link)
From today’s FORCES page: (link)