Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Merc14

Earth Day 1970 Predictions

86 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Here are some of my favorite fun and fact filled predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Ken was a real superstar back then, sort of like Al Gore today. He was also an idiot.

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

Denis is an eternal pessimist and is still peddling his BS to fellow travelers.

We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”

• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

Martin is another Luddite that peddled BS and still does to this day. Martin ever said no to a dollar.

So when the tenured professors start piling BS upon BS, peer review it and then predict the end of the world is nigh during Earth month, please remember that they have been peddling this claptrap for 4 decades and never got a thing right. They were absurdly wrong in 1970 yet, no matter how wrong they are or have been, the media still worships at their altar.

See alll 15 here http://www.ihatethem...ictions-of-2009

Edited by Merc14
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy was he wrong about the ice age.

People are starving in some countries but its more because of their government or war.

I would say we are using up more of our natural resources faster than we can find new deposits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Boy was he wrong about the ice age.

If we have a few more years of stagnant temperatures or, even worse (for them) decreasing temperatures, they will be screaming new Ice Age and never bat an eye. I was in middle school back then and was bashed over the head with global cooling ( I lived in Buffalo during thee Blizzard of '77) and new ice age just as forcibly as the kids are bashed over the head with global warming today. Oops sorry, that name is verboten now, I mean climate change.

Edited by Merc14
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true, we were either going to freeze to death or if not that, then it was totaly inevitable that the UUSR and USA would cause a nuclear winter when both sides launched enough nukes to kill all life on earth 100 times over.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like everyone who predicts about the future. Normally wrong. Why? Because the world is far more random and chaotic then people can accept.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like everyone who predicts about the future. Normally wrong. Why? Because the world is far more random and chaotic then people can accept.

"They" were just as sure man was creating a new ice age as they are sure that man is creating a warming catastrophe. They scared the living crap out of kids that are now grown and should know better than to take these corrupt charlatans at their word. Back then if you questioned them you were ostracized and attacked for defying the lords of climate science, just as you are ostracized and attacked today for defying the AGW quacks. Believe it or not, the climate quacks proposed we pump carbon into the atmosphere to create a little warming! In 40 years they have learned only two things, climate catastrophe pays and the public is easily manipulated when the mainstream media is your marketeer. Oh yes, the public has a short memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They" were just as sure man was creating a new ice age as they are sure that man is creating a warming catastrophe. They scared the living crap out of kids that are now grown and should know better than to take these corrupt charlatans at their word. Back then if you questioned them you were ostracized and attacked for defying the lords of climate science, just as you are ostracized and attacked today for defying the AGW quacks. Believe it or not, the climate quacks proposed we pump carbon into the atmosphere to create a little warming! In 40 years they have learned only two things, climate catastrophe pays and the public is easily manipulated when the mainstream media is your marketeer. Oh yes, the public has a short memory.

My dad was talking about that today. Basically said how they preached to everyone that we were all going to be dead by todays time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These prognosticators did not forsee the Green Revolution. That agricultural change fed all those people who would have otherwise starved. But now we have three times the global population and we still have famines.

You can laugh all you want about these doomsayers, but without changes in environmental laws we would be frying from the ozone hole and wallowing in open industrial sewers. Do you think Rachel Carlson was an alarmist quack too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These prognosticators did not forsee the Green Revolution. That agricultural change fed all those people who would have otherwise starved. But now we have three times the global population and we still have famines.

You can laugh all you want about these doomsayers, but without changes in environmental laws we would be frying from the ozone hole and wallowing in open industrial sewers. Do you think Rachel Carlson was an alarmist quack too?

Rachel Carson was a fraud and her delusional book, Silent Spring, which was based on very flawed science, is responsible for the deaths of millions of people due to the runaway malarial infections that occurred when DDT was outlawed.. Take a peek at what The American Council on Science has to say re. Carson's scientific studies http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I see a lot of agreement in the scientific community, the public and Kennedy. Now the chemical companies; from wiki

"According to White-Stevens, "If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth."[56] Others went further, attacking Carson's scientific credentials (because her training was in marine biology rather than biochemistry) and her personal character. White-Stevens labeled her "a fanatic defender of the cult of the balance of nature",[57] while former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson—in a letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower—reportedly concluded that because she was unmarried despite being physically attractive, she was "probably a Communist".[58"

The last ad hominen made me laugh. Anyways, she wasn't against a total ban,i.e. Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I dunno, I see a lot of agreement in the scientific community, the public and Kennedy. Now the chemical companies; from wiki

"According to White-Stevens, "If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth."[56] Others went further, attacking Carson's scientific credentials (because her training was in marine biology rather than biochemistry) and her personal character. White-Stevens labeled her "a fanatic defender of the cult of the balance of nature",[57] while former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson—in a letter to Dwight D. Eisenhower—reportedly concluded that because she was unmarried despite being physically attractive, she was "probably a Communist".[58"

The last ad hominen made me laugh. Anyways, she wasn't against a total ban,i.e. Africa.

She was for a total ban because human life meant little or nothing to her. I personally think she was a zealot with sociopath tendencies but that is just my personal opinion FWIW. She isn't totally to blame because the congress went along with her quackery, egged on by the compromised press. Still, millions upon millions of Africans died from malaria, which was getting under control at the time, because of the ban on DDT. This will be looked on as genocide in the future.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was for a total ban because human life meant little or nothing to her.

riggght, like most biologists.

I personally think she was a zealot with sociopath tendencies but that is just my personal opinion FWIW.

noted

She isn't totally to blame because the congress went along with her quackery, egged on by the compromised press. Still, millions upon millions of Africans died from malaria, which was getting under control at the time, because of the ban on DDT. This will be looked on as genocide in the future.

from wiki; "WHO's anti-malaria campaign of the 1950s and 1960s relied heavily on DDT and the results were promising, though temporary. Experts tie the resurgence of malaria to multiple factors, including poor leadership, management and funding of malaria control programs; poverty; civil unrest; and increased irrigation. The evolution of resistance to first-generation drugs (e.g. chloroquine) and to insecticides exacerbated the situation."

yup, sounds like Africa I'm afraid. sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

riggght, like most biologists.

noted

from wiki; "WHO's anti-malaria campaign of the 1950s and 1960s relied heavily on DDT and the results were promising, though temporary. Experts tie the resurgence of malaria to multiple factors, including poor leadership, management and funding of malaria control programs; poverty; civil unrest; and increased irrigation. The evolution of resistance to first-generation drugs (e.g. chloroquine) and to insecticides exacerbated the situation."

yup, sounds like Africa I'm afraid. sad.

and the banning of DDT which had been working miracles until it wasn't there any longer. Stop apologizing for a truly screwed up woman. Her science wasn't flawed, it was faked. Do some research, some real research on what was discovered and then get back to me. Defending the indefensible because it shatters a belief you have is cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of my favorite fun and fact filled predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

There was a temporary dip in global temps in the 1960s (That's the last time Lake Erie froze over, BTW.). This created a downward trend line. Most people don't understand that a trend is a point-estimate. It is the direction something is headed in THIS INSTANT. A trend doesn't tell you anything about what will happen three seconds later - just that at this one point, temps were headed down. That trend lasted less than a decade, which in climatology is no time at all - not even enough to produce an estimate of mean temps.

The popular press, unable to understand what a trend line is, mistook it for a prediction. If you will check the climatology journals of the time, you will find that the predictions of a new ice age didn't come from their pages - it was the invention of people writing in newspapers and such that didn't know anything about climate.

What Mr. Watt's qualifications are and whether this quotation actually came from him, I have not had the time to investigate, but it would be very helpful if you could cite something written by Watt to support your claim.

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

I take it that you have never heard of the Sahel.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that with a rising population, you are eventually going to reach carrying capacity. Did Denis happen to say WHEN this would happen?

We have already had food shortages due to drought. So far, we have been able to import food from other areas, or shift to other types of crops. But with all resources stretched progressively thinner, this option will not be available forever. Drought is usually the trigger for starvation. It looks like we are pulling out of the current drought cycle without serious damage. Droughts recur at intervals of 20 to 50 years, so we can pretty much predict when the next one will be: 2040s to 2050s. That's when Mr. Hayes' forecast might actually happen.

(I suspect that Mr. Hayes has no expertise in this area. Just because a person is a good organizer, doesn't mean he actually knows what he's talking about.)

It will probably be disease, rather than starvation that has the greatest impact. Starvation weakens, but doesn't usually kill. The weakened individual is then picked off by disease. Thus, Merc can continue to say that the mass starvation prediction didn't happen.

We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”

• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

Martin is another Luddite that peddled BS and still does to this day. Martin ever said no to a dollar.

The Sierra Club peddles a lot of BS. Sometimes what they're saying is sound and sometimes it isn't. Personally, I don't take their word for anything unless I have already checked it out.

But how would one actually know if we're running out of something? After all, the mines are still producing it, or the farmers are still growing it, so we aren't out yet. Right?

Watch the prices and the supplies. If the price goes up and new resources suddenly come online, that's just market economics at work. But if the prices go up, stay up and no new resources appear, that's a shortage. Five years ago, gas prices around here were $1.70 a gallon. Since then, we have been madly drilling oil wells right here IN TOWN and the Baaken is turning out to be the largest strike this country's ever had. The US is talking about being energy-independent in ten years. But the price of gas is at $3.40 a gallon. Somebody's not telling us the truth.

So when the tenured professors start piling BS upon BS, peer review it and then predict the end of the world is nigh during Earth month, please remember that they have been peddling this claptrap for 4 decades and never got a thing right. They were absurdly wrong in 1970 yet, no matter how wrong they are or have been, the media still worships at their altar.

It's called critical thinking. You have to apply it to everything. Not just climate change, but also to the ravings of denier-lunatics.

And it's the popular media that can't seem to get anything right.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop apologizing for a truly screwed up woman. Her science wasn't flawed, it was faked. Do some research, some real research on what was discovered and then get back to me. Defending the indefensible because it shatters a belief you have is cowardice.

Screwed up? Faked? Beliefs? Cowardice? Them's fightin' words. Why are hard core conservatives so blind to the obvious. This is not my simple opinion, I assent to the conclusions of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which consists of some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences.

"The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits."

Look, I'm about as conservative as they come, but even I can see the deleterious effects of untrammeled development and exponential human population growth. It should be a no brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rachel Carson was a fraud and her delusional book, Silent Spring, which was based on very flawed science, is responsible for the deaths of millions of people due to the runaway malarial infections that occurred when DDT was outlawed.. Take a peek at what The American Council on Science has to say re. Carson's scientific studies http://dwb.unl.edu/T...micals/ddt.html

DDT was not universally outlawed and, even today, if there is a significant risk to public health, or a natural resource, it can be used (as it often is in Africa).

I was a photo-interpreter for the spruce budworm control project in Oregon in 1973. We sprayed DDT on tens of thousands of acres of budworms in central Oregon a year AFTER the law went into effect. It was done under an exception granted by the EPA.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DDT makes it impossible for many animals at the top of the food chain to breed successfully. This especially effects Raptors (Eagles etc) which had a significant population dip as a consequence of DDT use. This is all recorded fact and not open to political interpretation.

DDT is resistent to biodegradation because of its chlorinated compounds which accumulates in fatty tissues over time and they will poison any top predator. It was banned to protect biodiversity (wildlife) but it was also banned because it would have found its way into the human foodchain and started to cause massive unanticipated human health effects.

DDT is persistent in the environment, ie it doesn't naturally break down, and it is water soluable. This has two effects - it builds up in soils increasing in concentration and potency over time till it reaches toxic levels for more and more organisms. it also flushes into aquifers where it pollutes groundwater and surface water and most importantly - drinking water supplies.

Silent spring is a description of what has happened. Naturalists and ecologists report population contracts of at least 40% of all Insect genus, this has impacted song bird numbers and has caused many places to have all but lost their dawn chorus - which was the main theme and prediction of Silent Spring.

The arguments levelled in favour of the continued use of DDT are just the worst form of corportate shill science. It may well have played a part in controlling Malaria for a short time - but the eventual costs to the who environment would have dwarfed the costs that malaria places on humanity. As a consequence there are almost no persistent chlorinated insecticides licensed for sale in the world - all insecticides currently available are designed to degrade rapidly once in contact with the soil. This was the one good thing that the legacy of DDT has given us, we are wise enough not to intentionally release persistent poisons into the environment.

Here is a real scientific paper which formed the basis of Silent Spring;

http://www.raptors-international.org/book/raptors_in_the_modern_world/Davies_Randall_1989_501-514.pdf

My advice is read the science and not politically motivated bought tame scientists distortions of the science.

The conservative right has attacked these correctly predictive pieces of science and reportage as a plank in their attack on the regulatory powers of the EPA which has impacts on the profitability of their companies. Frankly the complaints are barking and deeply dangerous because if they succeed it will be back to the bad old days when companies like monsanto pumped their chemical waste's into the aquifers and polluted whole communities (go watch Erin Brockovich ), this is what lightly regulated chemicals companies are prepared to do to their neigbours in pursuit of the last fraction of margin.

PS- The American Council on Science and Health is a right wing front group who propegandize for Chemicals and food manufacturers - not a trustworthy source in any reality which I share;

http://www.sourcewat...ence_and_Health

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The conservative right has attacked these correctly predictive pieces of science and reportage as a plank in their attack on the regulatory powers of the EPA which has impacts on the profitability of their companies. Frankly the complaints are barking and deeply dangerous because if they succeed it will be back to the bad old days when companies like monsanto pumped their chemical waste's into the aquifers and polluted whole communities (go watch Erin Brockovich ), this is what lightly regulated chemicals companies are prepared to do to their neigbours in pursuit of the last fraction of margin.

I grew up in an industrial town - now part of the Rust Belt. In the 1960s when I was in high school, the chemical companies were crying that if they were regulated, they'd have to go out of business and all these jobs would be lost, etc. etc. In 1972 EPA was passed over their objections. Well: they're still there. And the jobs weren't lost until 2005, just as the Bush economic policies were starting to take effect. For 33 years they lived with regulation without ill effect.

I don't think you can count on the industry boys for an accurate assessment of economic impacts.

If you want to see what a lack of regulation does, look at what just happened in West, Texas.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/i]

There was a temporary dip in global temps in the 1960s (That's the last time Lake Erie froze over, BTW.). This created a downward trend line. Most people don't understand that a trend is a point-estimate. It is the direction something is headed in THIS INSTANT. A trend doesn't tell you anything about what will happen three seconds later - just that at this one point, temps were headed down. That trend lasted less than a decade, which in climatology is no time at all - not even enough to produce an estimate of mean temps.

The popular press, unable to understand what a trend line is, mistook it for a prediction. If you will check the climatology journals of the time, you will find that the predictions of a new ice age didn't come from their pages - it was the invention of people writing in newspapers and such that didn't know anything about climate.

What Mr. Watt's qualifications are and whether this quotation actually came from him, I have not had the time to investigate, but it would be very helpful if you could cite something written by Watt to support your claim.

There is a link to the article which lists some of the more humorous things predicted at the first Earth Day but you can easily look up Ken's illustrious career via google. He is currently at UC Berkley http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Kenneth-Watt/72754046

I take it that you have never heard of the Sahel.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that with a rising population, you are eventually going to reach carrying capacity. Did Denis happen to say WHEN this would happen?

Denis said it was already too late, thus no future date was given as we were already done for. Makes it even more humorous huh, unless you are a ten year old being told this crap in schoool. Denis started Earth Day, BTW, along witgh Democrat senator Gaylord Nelson and is easily researched as well. Most of these charlatans are still peddling their wares.

We have already had food shortages due to drought. So far, we have been able to import food from other areas, or shift to other types of crops. But with all resources stretched progressively thinner, this option will not be available forever. Drought is usually the trigger for starvation. It looks like we are pulling out of the current drought cycle without serious damage. Droughts recur at intervals of 20 to 50 years, so we can pretty much predict when the next one will be: 2040s to 2050s. That's when Mr. Hayes' forecast might actually happen.

(I suspect that Mr. Hayes has no expertise in this area. Just because a person is a good organizer, doesn't mean he actually knows what he's talking about.)

It will probably be disease, rather than starvation that has the greatest impact. Starvation weakens, but doesn't usually kill. The weakened individual is then picked off by disease. Thus, Merc can continue to say that the mass starvation prediction didn't happen.

The mass starvation didn't happen so of course I can say it. LOL. 50 years from now is another story but if you are making excuses for Denis' egregiously wrong prediction, then go ahead, I need a laugh.

The Sierra Club peddles a lot of BS. Sometimes what they're saying is sound and sometimes it isn't. Personally, I don't take their word for anything unless I have already checked it out.

But how would one actually know if we're running out of something? After all, the mines are still producing it, or the farmers are still growing it, so we aren't out yet. Right?

Watch the prices and the supplies. If the price goes up and new resources suddenly come online, that's just market economics at work. But if the prices go up, stay up and no new resources appear, that's a shortage. Five years ago, gas prices around here were $1.70 a gallon. Since then, we have been madly drilling oil wells right here IN TOWN and the Baaken is turning out to be the largest strike this country's ever had. The US is talking about being energy-independent in ten years. But the price of gas is at $3.40 a gallon. Somebody's not telling us the truth.

It's called critical thinking. You have to apply it to everything. Not just climate change, but also to the ravings of denier-lunatics.

And it's the popular media that can't seem to get anything right.

Doug

Maybe someone is lying and maybe we just aren't quite as smart as we think we are and really don't understand our planet as much as we think we do. Labeling anyone who doesn't agree with the "critical thinkers" a denier-lunatic" doesn't say much for your vaunted peer review, especially when your perfect models seem tio have some rather glaring flaws.

Regardless, the point of this was to show people that were born decades after the first Earth Day that the usual suspects were peddling the usual doomsday scenarios in the usual way just they do today and they were spectacularly wrong so take what you hear from the "critcial thinkers" with a grain of salt and wait for the new ice age hysteria to start by the end of this decade, that is my prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Merc you've shown yourself to be grossly ignorant of even the basics of climate science so I hardly think you are qualified to comment in any meaningful way about climate science.

Here is a summary of what the scientists really believed about the climate back in the 1970's;

http://www.skeptical...al-cooling.html

And a scientific paper (prepublication published) performing a complete literary review of the myth of global cooling concensus;

A review of the literature suggests that, to the

contrary, greenhouse warming even then

dominated scientists’ thinking about the most

important forces shaping Earth’s climate on

human time scales. More importantly than

showing the falsehood of the myth, this review

shows the important way scientists of the time built

the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of

modern climate science now rests.

http://ams.confex.co...pers/131047.pdf

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Double post

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1970 I was a junior-level forestry student. In 1970 I worked my first forestry job on a continuous inventory crew. I thought it sort of strange that site index tables for ponderosa pine prepared in the 1840s no longer applied, but assumed it was just the data methods employed that made the difference. Then people started saying it was because of CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere.

Since then, I have completed a forestry career and gone on to environmental science (a generic term for a lot of disciplines involving natural resources, climate, agriculture, oil, etc.). I decided to specialize in dendrochronology.

Back in 1970, I had never even heard of climate change. When it came to the forefront in the 1980s, the people who were yelling the loudest all seemed to belong to the lunatic fringe (the left side). Then I met Gilbert White, a real-life climate scientist. Maybe you remember the idea that floods are not a natural disaster. They are man-made disasters in that we know where they will happen, about when they will happen and we know what to do to get out of the way. If we get hurt by them, it is our own doing. That idea was his.

As recently as 2003, after I was already working on environmental science stuff, I doubted whether global warming was real. I even wrote a paper questioning the evidence. It was full of mistakes and never saw print, but it got me to look seriously at the evidence. What convinced me was a strong correlation between temperatures at Fort Smith, Arkansas and Hansen's list of global temperature anomalies. There is no way that Hansen could have anticipated that I would take his dataset, pull a city in the middle of nowhere out of the hat and check the correlation. A few weeks ago I did the same thing with Mena, Arkansas, using the "updated" dataset that Little Fish doesn't like. IT correlated. Again, in order to create that correlation, the people who came up with those datasets would have to know in advance which city I would pick out to check their work. Either that, or the world really is getting warmer.

I have learned a lot in the last 40 years. And, most likely, so has every person you mentioned in your list. Forty years ago I didn't know there was such a thing as global warming. Are you trying to say that nobody you mentioned has learned anything in 40 years? How about you? What have you learned in the last 40 years, especially about climate?

My tree rings correlate with changes in atmospheric CO2.

I am using those same datasets to look at a history of winter storms in Arkansas. So far, everything I've looked at is consistent with one hypothesis: Atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures are rising. I know that from my own work. I don't have to read about it. All I have to do is look at that heap of cores on the shelf behind my desk.

The reason I don't believe the stuff you are saying is simple: it doesn't agree with what I observe with my own eyes.

Doug

P.S.: You can forget about that new ice age idea. That will never happen as long as we are in charge of the climate. We know how to make the world warmer - we are doing it without even trying. The output of one CFC plant is enough to offset any natural climate forcings. It's cooling the planet down that we don't know how to do.

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1970 I was already a teeny greeny at less than ten years old. I'd pick up trash, turn off lights, adjust the temperature of the house and bring home injured or lost animals. I didn't even think about how accurate the global cooling scare was, but I jumped on that bandwagon too. We were taught about it in school in both science and current affairs classes and I never questioned it. Most of my science projects for quite a few years revolved around what was being reported as the truth. Whether the current predictions are true or not I don't know, ya know fool me once... but my habits won't change.

I do get terribly offended when people say if you don't fall for this new trend hook, line and sinker that you care nothing for the environment. First, you know nothing about how those people live and second, if you think insults are the way to influence people you are sadly mistaken.

Not talking to anyone in particular...it was just a general statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I similarly grew up in the 1970's and only remember one report from the TV about Global Cooling. It was a spoof news program for April fools day which also had a slot about Life on Mars (moles, grass, trees, etc). I remember it vividly because it really convinced me until I realized it was an April Fools joke. I don't remember any other report of Global Cooling from my years living through the seventies.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.