And worth pondering when we consider the state of affairs today with our modern corporate media.
So a visitor here linked to this old weather broadcast from 1973:
The key takeaway? The forecast calls for high temps at 97 degrees for the next day. And apparently that's just hunky-dory. In fact, he says it will be a great day to get out and go on a picnic or enjoy outdoors because there won't be any rain if the forecast goes according to plan.
I've written how, over the previous weeks, we've had ginned up hysterics about heat waves and heat advisories when the temps have at times stalled in the high 70s. Or at best, they've made it to the high 80s. Yet not only do they issue advisories and warn of extreme heat, they get the reaction from the people accordingly.
On the day it only topped off at 77 I didn't see any interviews of the 'man on the street.' When it hit high 80s here (and 91 in Columbus), I saw them interview some folks who bemoaned the heat, the misery, and struggles with such debilitatingly hot temps. They needed the guy from the clip above to cheer them up, since to him at least, in 1973, a 97 degree day was just awesome for being outdoors.
Of course, as I mentioned to the individual who posted the link, it might have been because in the 1970s - when I was in elementary school - the buzz was about the impending ice age just around the corner. I've heard some Global Warming activists insist there was no such thing back then, that nobody was talking about an forthcoming ice age. That, like so many things that advance modern progressive agendas, is false. I remember sitting in Mrs. Griffith's 5th Grade homeroom class and being told we were heading into a new ice age at the rate we were going. With all of the attached upheaval and horrors that such a development would incur.
So obviously what we're seeing isn't new. I don't think most sane people think it is. But unlike then, when the narrative changed pretty quickly by the time I was in high school, this narrative isn't going away. And a generation of young radicals and fanatics, convinced the world will soon explode and anyone who doesn't think so is an enemy of their survival to be dispatched accordingly, is on the rise.
(Tom New Poster)
ReplyDeleteI am a retired science teacher and we were certainly talking about fears of an impending Ice Age at that time, although it was as disputed as global warming should be now because climate is complicated. We have the same configuration of continents we've had throughout the Pleistocene (especially after the Americas linked up 3 mya, dramatically changing ocean circulation). The triggers are changes in the earth's tilt and orbit and various still-to-be-understood solar cycles. Volcanic influence is usually very short-term (although it may have been unusually important during earlier ice ages). We oscillated between glacial and interglacial in a matter of a few millennia long before man even discovered fire or cooked his first hunk of mastodon over a bit a driftwood.
I forget which newspaper, but a year or two ago it ran with a story debunking the urban myth of an impending ice age. Apparently in the 1970s, science was well aware of the threat of global warming. But, per the article, a few fringe basement dwellers ran with this idea of an ice age, and years later people used it to suggest it was some dominant theory. Which, my recollections of fifth grade, suggest was either wrong, or my teacher was one of those basement dwelling conspiracy theorists. I'm inclined to think the former, and go with your recollections.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
DeleteDave, Nigel Calder managed to address both in his 1980s book on the question. He recognized that global warming could extend the current interglacial, prolonging it perhaps a 1000 years or so, but doubted it could completely cancel the other effects I mentioned. So if longterm planetary conditions are pushing us toward new glacial era, we might want to be careful just how much of global warming we end (assuming it's real). Otherwise you could end up with Ohio resembling East Antarctica.
Of course at that point the descendants of our chattering classes will demand the burning of fossil fuels.
Today I saw an article talking about how recent fears of a new round of COVID lockdowns are completely unfounded right wing conspiracy theories.
DeleteI fully expect them to try a new round of lockdowns. It will work in some places (some people miss the lockdowns, since they made them feel important without having to do anything.) In other places it will fizzle.
But here's the relevant point: when they do start pushing for them openly, they will pretend that they had never denied that they would occur. All the "experts" and "scientists" agree that a new lockdown is necessary, though it will be limited in scope this time doncha'know. The only people who denied that it would happen were the uninformed who didn't understand the danger of the new strains!
And then when the lockdowns are over, they will claim that they never recommended that they take place. Some politicians took some "rogue actions" due to a few fringe voices who overestimated the risk, but no SERIOUS scientist or doctor ever advocated for them!
Lying is as natural to them as breathing.
Though when I say "they" I mean the "experts" and top media heads. Most of the population that goes along with it are simply ignorant. They have trained themselves to not know anything about the past, even the recent past.
DeleteIt's like how people can claim that movies before the 00's were all filled with people trying to kill homosexuals and books before the 80's were all filled with people trying to lynch blacks. If you actually examine old media this is obviously a lie, and the people at the top know it is a lie. But most people have been trained not to read books or watch old shows, so they just accept the lie as truth.
I attended the Earth Day celebrations in 1970 and we were most definitely concerned about global cooling because then, as now, the press pushed the narrative.
ReplyDeleteConsider these headlines:
• “The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969.• “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970.• “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.• “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975.• “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975.• “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975.• “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975.• “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975.• “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976. ~Washington Policy Center, April 22, 2009.
While the cooling theory may not have been the scientific consensus then, neither is global warming the consensus today, although the press still pushes the warming narrative, just as they pushed the cooling narrative.
I think you hit the bullseye there. It's not that we have new theories, it's that we've shut down any debate or discussion, even among those who might agree overall but have minor disagreements here or there. To see the news, Global Warming is a dogma, everyone agrees, there is only one solution, everyone agrees. There is only one political avenue to take. Everyone agrees.
DeleteHi Dave, I was kind of flattered to see my post pop up on Big Pulpit this morning :-) Yes, I also am old enough to remember when the next Ice Age was just around the corner. The fact that the Midwest, including northern and central Illinois (where I have lived all my life) had three really bad winters in a row (77, 78 and 79) added to the speculation. Global warming started becoming A Thing in the 80s after we had several successive hot and dry summers (83, 87, 88).
ReplyDeleteElaine S.
I loved the clip. Because it simply is. Nothing special except a time capsule from the past when high 90s was great news. When today you hear them say, in the high 80s, that our very lives are in danger. I guess shoving everyone through school and giving them diplomas didn't do the job. Or it did do the job exactly as they had hoped. I'm not sure which.
DeleteOne thing to consider is population density. There were terrible hurricanes in the Caribbean, deaths from heat in central India and Pakistan, and deadly tornados in the central part of North America in the 18th century but because of lower population density around the world, were little remarked upon. Today there is the expectation that we can build on river banks, in wooded areas, on the edge of scenic cliffs, etc.,and escape possible consequences of our actions.
ReplyDeleteThere is a blogger named Mike Flynn. Into math and stats and all. I don't think he writes on his blog the way he used to, which is a shame. He pointed the same thing out some years ago when, after one of the bad hurricanes, the press was running around saying the costliest and most destructive storm in US history. He went back and discovered that no way, it wasn't even close, if you adjust for economic and population inflation. But again, when they stick to the script and insist our lives are in danger even when it barely makes it to the mid-80s (not the predicted mid-90s even), you know it's time to stop trusting them.
Delete