Skip to content

How Global Cooling Led To Widespread Droughts In The 1970s

May 13, 2020

By Paul Homewood




In October 1974, the NOAA Magazine published this piece by Patrick Hughes about the detrimental effects of 30 years of global cooling (yes, the cooling that warmists insist never happened!)










PDF Link:


  1. peter permalink
    May 13, 2020 1:36 pm

    Many thanks. Another to add to the famous Newsweek “Cooling World” page

  2. Broadlands permalink
    May 13, 2020 1:55 pm

    Climatologist, Dr. REID BRYSON (quoted in that article), was interviewed in 1976:

    “How soon will we find ourselves in the next ice age?” One hundred years from now, or 9,000 years from now?” BRYSON replied: “The odds are very small for 100 years and approach a certainty for 9,000 years. There is, to put it another way, just the barest hint of a possibility that we could start a transition into a glacial epoch during the next century. The difference between the climate we have now and the climate we’ll have as we enter a new ice age will be so small here in North America that, for the most part, you won’t even notice the change.”

  3. NeverReady permalink
    May 13, 2020 3:53 pm

    Back when a Science Journal had some science in it! Just skipped through the whole publication…a different world. Hope, hard work, endeavour and experimentation…now we have The Blob.

  4. bluecat57 permalink
    May 13, 2020 4:54 pm

    Wow, you mean when weather changes it causes all sorts of consequences? Who would have guessed? Anyone over 20 with awareness of life.

  5. May 13, 2020 10:54 pm

    “Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from 1890 through 1940, but have fallen ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade”.

    The cooling trend that prompted that article in 1974 and many others, of course, has vanished into the CC™ black hole:

    • May 13, 2020 11:11 pm

      I should say it hasn’t disappeared entirely but is now merely a remnant and they are still at it:

  6. ThinkingScientist permalink
    May 14, 2020 11:31 am

    So the early 1970s cooling scare was “fake news” and no one really took it seriously.

    Except Henry Kissinger of course, addressing the UN General Assembly about it in 1974. What was he thinking?

    • May 14, 2020 12:09 pm

      You made the assumption that Henry Kissinger WAS thinking. We are now seeing what a globalist he was/is.

  7. May 15, 2020 9:46 am

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    NOAA confirmed in 1974 that global temperatures had been falling since 1940. But during that period so-called greenhouse gases were rising, leaving climate theorists with an awkward problem. Solution: ‘adjust’ the data.

  8. May 15, 2020 11:29 am

    Also the largest the most intense the most horrific and the deadliest tropical cyclone in modern times was in 1970.

  9. tom0mason permalink
    May 15, 2020 1:24 pm

    But soon all was to change …
    Some History …
    The site called is most informative about the Eugenics movement. From it’s early days of Darwin and his grand cousin Galton along with the many famous and enthusiastic Fabians.
    Particularly interesting are the links to people, organizations and literature at . There are many Fabian in the UN and in the national politics in just about every country today.
    “Cleaning the gene pool” is their banner, however bad politics ensures that all-too-often this becomes some form of genocide or mass murder.
    As the famous Fabian Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain’s Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, “even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
    So when you are beyond useful, you too will be terminated, or be led to an ‘easy’, painless death with managed pain medications (more suicide inducing antidepressants, or opiate type drugs anyone?).

    Mid-1970s …
    As the climate of Europe and North America seem to be coming out of it’s 20+years cool period the Malthusians held some conferences …
    The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.

    Mead’s push was to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development. Mead is famous for saying, “Instead of needing lots of children, we need high-quality children.” , never realizing that only with many children can the few with exceptional talent can come.
    Mead’s recruited a few prominent people to her malthusian cause — Stephen Schneider, George Woodwell, and the once AAAS president John Holdren — all three of them disciples of Paul Ehrlich, author of ‘The Population Bomb’. The 1975 conference they were all at, discussion focussed on the banal binary choice of either feeding people or “saving the environment.”
    This North Carolina conference, took place on Oct. 26-29, 1975. It was co-sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (Mead had been a Scholar in Residence at the Fogarty Center in 1973.)
    Mead stated:

    Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices—to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse throughout the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea—the whole planet may become endangered….

    At this conference we are proposing that, before there is a corresponding attempt to develop a “law of the air,” the scientific community advise the United Nations (and individual, powerful nation states or aggregations of weaker states) and attempt to arrive at some overview of what is presently known about hazards to the atmosphere from manmade interventions, and how scientific knowledge coupled with intelligent social action can protect the peoples of the world from dangerous and preventable interference with the atmosphere upon which all life depends …

    What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats [sic].

    Referring to the uncertainty of potential effects, she stated,

    The time interval required before we begin to see clear evidence of a particular manmade effect on the enviromment may be long compared to the time in which society has to act … A decision by policy-makers not to act in the absence of scientific information or expertise is itself a policy decision, and for scientists there is no possibility for inaction, except to stop being scientists.

    This statement by Margaret Mead was in effect a call to politicize science with her Malthusian views as the justification!
    Mead’s co-editor of the proceedings, climatologist William Kellogg, notes that “the main purpose of this conference is to anticipate the call that will be made on scientists and leaders of government regarding the need to protect the atmospheric environment before these calls are made.”
    He also stated (made an argument from ignorance),
    “The important point to bear in mind is that mankind surely has already affected the climate of vast regions, and quite possibly of the entire earth, and that its ever escalating population and demand for energy and food will produce larger changes in the years ahead.”
    He himself had put forward arguments that the release of the energy necessary to support a “large, affluent world population could possibly warm up the earth excessively.” another argument from ignorance for apparently he thinks this planet has no mechanism to cool itself.

    The issues Kellogg laid out are all too familiar today: warming that will melt “the Arctic Ocean ice pack and the ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic.” and “What will happen to the mean sea level and the coastal cities around the world?” Kellogg asks.

    All of this was called as the ‘crisis’ of the cooling planet was beginning to wane but but starvation was still high on the agenda, it definitely falls into that category of ‘never let a crisis go to waste’!

    Increased carbon dioxide was high on the list of man-related climate change disasters. It was admitted that there might be other factors involved, however,

    It is concluded that, in cases where the societal risk is great, one should therefore act as if the unaccounted-for effects had been included, since we have no way of dismissing the very possibility that the calculated effect will prevail.

    In the Conference summary of recommendations, Kellogg’s thrust is repeated: Scientists and policy-makers must act now on man-caused climate change. “To ignore the possibility of such changes is, in effect, a decision not to act.” Yet another call to politicize science!

    Woodwell’s presentation, “The Impact of Enviromental Change on Human Ecology,” is even more alarmist. He writes:

    A careful analysis of the extent to which the earth’s net primary production is being used directly in support of man leads to the conclusion that, at present, as much as 50 percent of the net production is being used in support of human food supplies…. The fact that the toxic effects of human activities are spreading worldwide and reducing the structure of the biota is an indication that human activities at present exceed the capacity of the biosphere for repairing itself.”

    A truly Malthusian idea, very anti-human! It has been shown often these imaginings are wrong, just by observations of nature’s methods of avoidance of those calamities.
    John Holdren was there and often repeated these ideas while in office. Obama reprised them often while President.

    There is so much more to download (1.3MB pdf) HERE

    And so from these small beginnings a mighty ‘Climate Change™’ industry was spawned, giving you unreliable, unsustainable, and nonrenewable electricity from solar panels and windmills (you CAN NOT manufacture either from so called ‘sustainable energy’!). And now through the UN and their IPCC these elitist DEMANDS more £$€MBillions/year of your hard earned money through taxes!

    No we are not going to cook the planet into a ‘climate catastrophe’ from too much atmospheric CO2. Ultimately the sun controls our climate, and currently we are going towards — image from with comment —
    [During the last ice age the entire earth was NOT covered in ice, but this is a fun image anyway. If the continents had been totally covered in ice, then sea levels would have been far, far lower and the continents larger, rendering this image totally wrong.]

    Stay healthy and enjoy yourselves.


  1. Joe Biden Has Chosen AOC As His Climate Adviser | American Elephants

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: