Snow Angels Program Gives Volunteers Flexibility: Fill & Download for Free

What does ‘climate change’ mean to you? Yes, if you mean the risk we are heading for another ice age from climate change. No. if you mean global warming from climate change. The climate has only two states over the past millions of years. A HOT BOX OR AN ICE BOX. The former made civilization possible while the latter caused mass extinctions.https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2839/Just 12,000 years ago all of Canada and much of the US was covered by glacier ice over 2 miles thick. Thankfully the climate warmed and the ice melted and we live without a climate crisis. We prosper from warming not cooling.HOW GLOBAL WARMING MADE CIVILIZATION POSSIBLEThe recent record of cold winters across the earth is very worrisome. It is not evidence of global warming. It may be evidence of another Little Ice Age.The Man Who Predicts Weather Better Than Anyone Astrophysicist Piers CorbynContrary to what the politicians are trying to foist on you, a new mini ice age – a new Maunder Minimum – has already started.Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn“We are plunging now into a deep mini ice age,” says astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. “And there is no way out.”For the next 20 years it’s going to get colder and colder on average, says Corbyn.“Carbon dioxide levels do not have any impact – I repeat, any impact – on climate,” says Piers. “The CO2 theory is wrong from the start.”“The fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature rules the climate.”“The basic message is that the sun is controlling the climate, primarily via the sea.”The new mini ice age began around 2013“What we have happening – NOW! – is the start of the mini ice age…it began around 2013. It’s a slow start, and now the rate of moving into the mini ice age is accelerating.”“The best thing to do now is to tell your politicians to stop believing nonsense, and to stop doing silly measures like the bird-killing machines of wind farms in order to save the planet (they say), but get rid of all those things, which cost money, and reduce electricity prices now.“Evidence shows that man-made climate change does not exist and the arguments for it are not based on science but on data fraud and a conspiracy theory of nature,” says Piers on his website.“The world is now cooling not warming and there is no observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data that changes in CO2 have any observable effect on weather or climate in the real world.”You err if you ignore the obvious bitter cold weather by dismissing it as weather not climate.Extreme winters across the US, Europe and Asia.We cannot be sure but the evidence is far stronger that the solar decline not Co2 is leading the cooling of the earth as it has in the past.The sun has gone blank and lost all sunspots now and this means a decline in solar energy reaching us.There is a proven correlation between solar energy and temperature unlike the lack of correlation with Co2.Graph Showing that Arctic Air Temperature (Blue Line) Parallels Natural Solar Activity (Red Line).This Graph Provides Evidence that Natural Sun Fluctuations Cause Global Warming and Cooling.Source: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007The graph above shows over the past 40 years Co2 has not correlated with temperatures.Europe's Little Ice Age: 'All things which grew above the ground died and starved'1575 Winter Landscape with Snowfall near Antwerp by Lucas van Valckenborch.Städel Museum/Wikimedia CommonsIn North America the same devastating experience of the record colder climate of the Little Ice Age.Valley Forge: George Washington’s Most Dismal Christmas EverWith a quarter of his troops freezing, starving and barely clothed, Washington, running out of options, schemed a bold—and highly risky—Christmas Eve attack.George Washington at Valley Forge Winter 1777/8: picture by Frederick Coffay YohnIf you doubt the history graphs of freezing temperatures at the end of Little Ice age then be reassured by this famous painting showing the death march in 1777 during the US revolution. Many soldiers froze to death.Our political leaders are pathetic on this issue of the cooling earth. They are in the group think grip of the fake global warming meme. Think about it - the purpose of the Paris Accord is vainly to reduce minuscule human emissions of Co2 to make the climate colder- YES colder -WHAT?Early November winter storms are worrisome.20 states under winter storm warnings or watchesNovember 30, 2018 by RobertIncluding CA, OR, MT, ND, SD, WY, ID, NV, UT, AZ, NM, CO, MN, NY, VT, IA, OK, KS, AK and NE.Ahhhh, but it will be politically correct warm snow, right?Montreal's Fête des neiges cancelled due to extreme cold weatherThe event at Parc Jean-Drapeau won't run today due to the snow and cold temperaturesCBC News · Posted: Jan 20, 2019 6:11 AM ET | Last Updated: January 20The event at Parc Jean-Drapeau won't run on Sunday Jan. 20 but will restart Saturday Jan. 26. (Radio-Canada)The annual Fête des neiges at Parc Jean-Drapeau is cancelled today due to the extreme cold and winter storm warning.This is the first time in 10 years that activities for the winter festival have been cancelled due to weather, according to a statement from François Cartier, director of marketing and communications for the Société du parc Jean-Drapeau.Cartier said that the decision was made in an effort to maintain the safety of the public as well as employees and volunteers who make the festival possible.This is what we should fear not the myth of global warming.Chicago January 25, 2019 wind chill of minus 70 F.The alarmist and media are very duplicitous on this issue by seeing a bit of warming as global and dangerous and ignoring the massive freezing winters around the world recently by claiming they are caused by warming???Good example was the drought in California in 2015–17 while record cold weather across the US.The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding the Earth's North and South poles. The term vortex refers to the counter-clockwise flow of air that helps keep the colder air close to the poles (left globe). Often during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, the polar vortex will become less stable and expand, sending cold Arctic air southward over the United States with the jet stream (right globe).NOAABIZARRE THEORY LINKING GLOBAL WARMING TO ‘POLAR VORTEXES’ RESURFACES. SCIENTISTS ARE PUSHING BACKIn what’s become an annual affair, the media is pushing articles suggesting bone-chilling temperatures about to hit the U.S. are the product of man-made global warming.However, many scientists disagree that global warming is having the bizarre effect of making it colder in winter, despite the media’s narrative.The two scientists published a study last year claiming cold snaps are more likely when the Arctic is abnormally warm, but their work suffered from serious flaws, namely, it did not test any hypothesis nor did it try to establish causality between global warming and cold snaps.The New York Times also pushed Cohen and Francis’s theory of global warming-induced cold. However, many scientists disagree with that theory and, in fact, there seems to be more evidence it’s just plain wrong.Niagara Fall freezing seen from the US side.Bizarre Theory Linking Global Warming To ‘Polar Vortexes’ Resurfaces. Scientists Are Pushing BackANY real-world evidence that contradicts the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is viciously refuted with eye-popping examples of reverse logic and shameless shifting of goal-posts. However implausible, a clear and consistent message will follow nonetheless, carefully coordinated and synced between ‘scientific’ bodies and compliant mainstream media to add plausibility, authenticity and believability.A priceless example was one by The Guardian’s resident climate catastrophist, George Monbiot, who claimed that the widespread and prolonged snowfalls of the 2017/18 Northern Hemisphere winter were caused by, yep, ‘global warming’!LIFE Inside The Global Warming Bubble | ClimatismTHE GREATEST MYTH IS WARMING CAUSES FREEZING TEMPERATURESCO2 CANNOT CAUSE BOTH ‘EXTREME’ HOT & COLD???If some gas is claimed to cause every kind of weather it means it causes nothing!NEW YORK Times Climate – making sure you believe that both extreme cold and extreme heat are a direct byproduct of your gasses and excesses.NOTE the goal-posts being shifted to accomodate any weather event :Welcome to the age of extremes: In preparing for how climate change affects the weather, “we have to be prepared for a wider range of possibilities.”NYT Climate‏ @nytclimateFollowFollow @nytclimateMoreMAKE NO MISTAKE: THE #ClimateChange cult now insists that colourless, odourless, tasteless, essential *trace gas* #CO2 causes both: • RECORD COLD • RECORD HEAT *SEE now why we changed name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”! We got EVERY base covered, SUCKERSJWSpry added,*FORTY years ago, the New York Times blamed the Polar Vortex on global cooling and increasing Arctic ice. Now they say the exact opposite – the Polar Vortex is caused by global warming and decreasing Arctic ice:International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – The New York Times“A gradual increase in area of the northern circumpolar vortex, the massive flow of frigid air around the Arctic, has been recorded by Drs. Angell and Korshover.”‘Polar Vortex’ NOT Proof Of Global WarmingPublished onJanuary 25, 2019Written by Michael BastaschThe New York Times is pushing the theory that cold snaps are becoming more frequent because of global warming. However, many scientists disagree that global warming is making U.S. winters colder.“Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science,” said one scientist.Large swaths of the U.S. are experiencing the first “polar vortex” event of 2019, and The New York Times is out with an article suggesting cold snaps are becoming more frequent because of global warming.The Times rolled out an article Saturday claiming “[i]f it seems as if these polar freezes are happening more often, you’re right.” Temperatures dipped across the snow-covered Midwest and Northeast where millions of Americans can expect below-zero wind chill.The Times’ “polar vortex” article, published Saturday, rests heavily on two scientists who “suspect that the more frequent polar vortex breakdowns can be tied to climate change.”“I’ve been making that argument that winter is shortening, but you’re getting these more intensive periods in that shorter winter,” Judah Cohen, a climate scientist with the firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research, told the Times.“When we lose a lot of ice in that particular area in the summer, it absorbs a lot of extra heat from the sun,” echoed Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. (RELATED: Trump Wishes For ‘Good Old Fashioned Global Warming’ As Deep Freeze Hits US East)According to Cohen and Francis, arctic ice melt is linked to the alleged more frequent breakdown of the polar vortex, the stratospheric bands of wind circling the pole, during the winter, sending frigid air and driving winter storms.REUTERS/Aaron Harris.“As the Arctic gets warmer and warmer, the severe weather picks up,” Dr. Cohen said.Media outlets usually turn to Cohen and Francis during the winter months when brutal cold and snowfall can make it hard to convince people the earth is warming. Both scientists regularly argue human greenhouse gas emissions are driving more frequent, bone-chilling arctic blasts.This is not a widely accepted theory. In fact, there’s lots of evidence to suggest it’s not correct, including a 2018 study that found “[c]old waves like this have decreased in intensity and frequency over the last century.”“Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science,” University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass told The Daily Caller News Foundation in 2018 when news outlets reported record cold temperatures were a product of warming.“The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless,” Mass said.The U.S. government’s 2017 National Climate Assessment special report said “it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the relationship between arctic warming and midlatitude circulation based on empirical correlation and covariance analyses alone.”REUTERS/Joshua Lott.The 2017 report added “confidence is low regarding whether or by what mechanisms observed arctic warming may have influenced midlatitude circulation and weather patterns over the continental United States.”Other climate scientists have also challenged Francis’s and Cohen’s claim that cold snaps are becoming more frequent. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Amy Butler noted breakdowns in the polar vortex, which happen every winter, “does not seem to be increasing in frequency nor is there consensus it will by 2100.”Cohen fired back over Twitter, saying he stood by the results of his work. Butler didn’t dispute the findings of his 2017 study, but did show there seems to be no evidence of a long-term weakening of the polar vortex.Amy H Butler on Twitter‘Cooling Is Warming’: Climate Hoaxers Spin US FreezePublished on February 1, 2019Written by John NolteAmerica enjoys a winter filled with tons of snow and frigid cold weather and out pops the Climate Hoaxsters to assure us this kind of weather only further proves our planet is getting, um… warmer.This current Climate Hoaxster freak-out is largely in reaction to President Trump’s tweet earlier this week mocking them.“In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded,” he tweeted. “What the hell is going on with Global Waming? [Sic] Please come back fast, we need you!”Naturally, this launched a million reactionary headlines from our oh-so objective, unbiased, not-at-all left-wing media.“Look at This Embarrassing F*cking Moron,” screamed Esquire.“Debunking the utter idiocy of Donald Trump’s global warming tweet,” pouted CNN.“Here’s Why the Crazy Cold Temperatures Prove Global Warming is Real,” Forbes says reassuringly.“What Trump keeps getting wrong about Global Warming,” the Washington Posthelpfully reports.But here is my personal favorite headline from, where else?, NBC News…. “Yes, it can be this cold outside in a time of global warming.”There are three Party slogans in George Orwell’s 1984, his masterpiece about an all-controlling centralized government that runs on lies, terror, and propaganda. See if you can pick out which Party slogan I invented among the four:War is PeaceFreedom is SlaveryIgnorance is StrengthFrigid Weather Means Our Planet is Getting WarmerThe Climate Hoaxsters say that this run of cold weather does not mean the planet will not warm over the course of years, which would sound reasonable if these were not the same Climate Hoaxters who told us Global Warming meant the “end of snow,” or that this winter would be “warmer-than-average,” or that a run of warm weather last winter proved the planet is warming.That last example is interesting, no?You see, last year our Climate Hucksters told us a run of warm weather proved the planet is warming, which means we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.BUT… a run of frigid weather this year also proves the planet is warming and we all have to give up our freedoms to a centralized government in order to save the planet.So no matter what happens, no matter how cold or warm or temperate it is, everything proves Global Warming is fer real.Hey, remember when the Climate Grifters told us Global Warming would make hurricanes worse?Remember how, when that scientific prediction was humiliated in the face of record low hurricane activity, these same Climate Grifters told us this lack of hurricane activity proved Global Warming was really fer real?Remember in 2005 when the establishment media told us that by 2015 Global Warming would drive gas up to $9 a gallon (it’s $2.08 here today), milk up to $12 a gallon ($2.99), and New York City would be underwater?Remember how during that crucial time between 2005 and 2015, that decade before the imminent flooding of Manhattan, the establishment media did not remove any of its personnel from a New York City that was about to be drowned?In fact, while CNN was telling us the seas were certain to rise, CNN shifted much of its base of operations from the inland safety of Atlanta to Manhattan; while CNN’s then-parent company, Time Warner, spent billions relocating its headquarters just two blocks from the water’s edge in New York.And, soon enough, I’ll be asking if you remember how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a sitting member of Congress — went on TV and said the world would end in 12 years because of Global Warming.You see, no matter what happens, no matter what the weather looks like, no matter how false their predictions turn out to be, no matter often they act as though they don’t believe in Global Warming, the Climate Swindlers still scream See! See! Toldjaso! — and almost always do it from a wildly expensive base of operations on the same coast they claim will soon be underwater.Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue said claims global warming was driving U.S. cold snaps were “[mostly anecdotal” and that such news articles “serve mostly to reassure their audience and continue a research narrative.”Read more at dailycaller.com'Polar Vortex' NOT Proof of Global Warming | PSI IntlMEDIA BIAS REFUSE TO REPORT BOTH SIDES OF CLIMATE ISSUEConflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and IceJournalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide whether we face an ice age or warmingBy R. Warren Anderson and Dan GainorGlobal Research, January 22, 2009Business & Media Institute 17 May 2006Theme: EnvironmentGlobal Research Editor’s NoteThis article first published in May 2006 provides an interesting review of the debate on Climate Change.It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. In a March 30, 2006, piece on ExxonMobil’s approach to the environment, a reporter argued the firm’s chairman “has gone out of his way to soften Exxon’s public stance on climate change.”The effect of the idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind.Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies.One-time presidential candidate Al Gore, a patron saint of the environmental movement, is releasing “An Inconvenient Truth” in book and movie form, warning, “Our ability to live is what is at stake.”Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and Ice - Global ResearchGlobal Warming or The “New Ice Age”? Fear of the “Big Freeze”Top Scientists, Government Agencies Have – For Over 100 Years – Been Terrified of a New Ice Age...By Washington's BlogGlobal Research, January 02, 2013Washington's Blog and Global Research 16 April 2012Theme: Environment, Science and MedicineIn-depth Report: Climate ChangeThere has been an intense debate among leading scientists, government agencies and publications over whether the bigger threat is global warming or a new ice age. As we’ve previously noted, top researchers have feared an ice age – off and on – for more than 100 years. (This post does not weigh in one way or the other. It merely presents a historical record.)On February 24, 1895, the New York Times published an article entitled “PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again”, which starts with the following paragraph:The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.In September 1958, Harper’s wrote an article called “The Coming Ice Age”.On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article entitled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future” which stated:Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters–the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends.In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:Dear Mr. President:Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …With best regards,George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activitylooking into the threat of an ice age.On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:Changes in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:There were also a number of short-term climate events of national and international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El Niño of 1972-1973.A killing winter freeze followed by a severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive up food prices.Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late 1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein feedstocks.The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S. Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric energy requirements for the region.On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled “Another Ice Age?” which stated:As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.Telltale signs are everywhere …Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.(here’s the printer-friendly version).Science News wrote an article in 1975 called “Chilling Possibilities” warning of a new ice age.A January 1975 article from the New York Times warned:Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and IceThe most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years.On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, 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. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.Newsweek discussed its 1975 article in 2006:In April, 1975 … NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” the magazine warned of an impending “drastic decline in food production.” Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect “just about every nation on earth.” Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you’d have known that the threat was: global cooling…Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it’s probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.New York Times science columnist John Tierney noted in 2009:In 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay [titled] “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote:The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.The American Institute of Physics – the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article – notes:For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with “clean” thermonuclear explosions.***The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.A 1994 Time article entitled “The Ice Age Cometh?” stated:What ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the temperature dangerously over the next 75 years or so. But if last week is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established part of the planet’s history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago; the next one — for there will be a next one — could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.The Register reported last year:What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.***The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun’s recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.***This could have major implications for the Earth’s climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.As NASA notes:Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”***According to the NSO:Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.In parallel with this comes research from the US Air Force’s studies of the solar corona.***“Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists … No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.”According to the collective wisdom of the NSO, another Maunder Minimum may very well be on the cards.“If we are right,” summarises Hill, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”***The big consequences of a major solar calm spell, however, would be climatic. The next few generations of humanity might not find themselves trying to cope with global warming but rather with a significant cooling. This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2 emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide.And Agence France-Presse reports:For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century.The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles, said experts from the National Solar Observatory and Air Force Research Laboratory.“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” said Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, as the findings of the three studies were presented at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.“But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”Solar activity tends to rise and fall every 11 years or so. The solar maximum and solar minimum each mark about half the interval of the magnetic pole reversal on the Sun, which happens every 22 years.Hill said the current cycle, number 24, “may be the last normal one for some time and the next one, cycle 25, may not happen for some time.“This is important because the solar cycle causes space weather which affects modern technology and may contribute to climate change,” he told reporters.Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715, a period known as the “Little Ice Age.”“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate,” said Hill.And the Wall Street Journal wrote in January:The entire 10,000-year history of civilization has happened in an unusually warm interlude in the Earth’s recent history. Over the past million years, it has been as warm as this or warmer for less than 10% of the time, during 11 brief episodes known as interglacial periods. [In other words, the Earth is in an ice age most of the time, and that the warmer “interglacial” periods are rare.] One theory holds that agriculture and dense settlement were impossible in the volatile, generally dry and carbon-dioxide-starved climates of the ice age, when crop plants would have grown more slowly and unpredictably even in warmer regions.This warm spell is already 11,600 years old, and it must surely, in the normal course of things, come to an end. In the early 1970s, after two decades of slight cooling, many scientists were convinced that the moment was at hand. They were “increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age,” said Time in 1974. The “almost unanimous” view of meteorologists was that the cooling trend would “reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” and “the resulting famines could be catastrophic,” said Newsweek in 1975.Since then, of course, warmth has returned, probably driven at least partly by man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. A new paper, from universities in Cambridge, London and Florida, drew headlines last week for arguing that these emissions may avert the return of the ice age. Less noticed was the fact that the authors, by analogy with a previous warm spell 780,000 years ago that’s a “dead ringer” for our own, expect the next ice age to start “within about 1,500 years.” Hardly the day after tomorrow.Still, it’s striking that most interglacials begin with an abrupt warming, peak sharply, then begin a gradual descent into cooler conditions before plunging rather more rapidly toward the freezer. The last interglacial—which occurred 135,000 to 115,000 years ago (named the Eemian period after a Dutch river near which the fossils of warmth-loving shell creatures of that age were found)—saw temperatures slide erratically downward by about two degrees Celsius between 127,000 and 120,000 years ago, before a sharper fall began.Cyclical changes in the earth’s orbit probably weakened sunlight in the northern hemisphere summer and thus caused this slow cooling. Since the northern hemisphere is mostly land, this change in the sun’s strength meant gradually increased snow and ice cover, which in turn reflected light back into space. This would have further cooled the air and, gradually, the ocean too. Carbon-dioxide levels did not begin to fall much until about 112,000 years ago, as the cooling sea absorbed more of the gas.Our current interglacial shows a similar pattern. Greenland ice cores and other proxy records show that temperatures peaked around 7,000 years ago, when the Arctic Ocean was several degrees warmer than today, trees grew farther north in Siberia and the Sahara was wet enough for hippos (Africa generally gets wetter in warm times). Data from the southern hemisphere reveal that this “Holocene Optimum” was global in extent.An erratic decline in temperature followed, with Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods peaking at successively lower temperatures, culminating in the exceptionally cool centuries of the “Little Ice Age” between 1550 and 1850, when glaciers advanced all over the world. In the Greenland ice cores, these centuries stand out as the longest and most consistent cold spell of the current interglacial.In other words, our own interglacial period has followed previous ones in having an abrupt beginning and a sharp peak, followed by slow cooling. The question is whether recent warming is a temporary blip before the expected drift into glacial conditions, or whether humankind’s impact on the atmosphere has now reversed the cooling trend.