Blog

Sorry, Politico: The Media’s History of Panic Over Climate Is Very Real


Shane Goldmacher’s May 15 story in Politico about a fake magazine cover shown to President Trump was disturbing.

The cover, purportedly that of Time magazine, April 8, 1977, featured a photo of a penguin and spotlighted the story “How To Survive the Coming Ice Age.” Even a Google search for “ice age Time cover” or a similar set of search terms would have revealed the scam instantly.

The point of showing it to the President was to give him evidence of the news media’s long history of panic over climate change.

While it’s worrisome that any fraudulent document, obviously fake or not, would make its way to the President, it’s equally disturbing that the cover fraud distracts from the reality: The media’s history of panic over climate is very real. Sometimes it’s a heat wave that will melt the glaciers. Sometimes it’s a coming ice age.

In 1895, a New York Times article claimed, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again” and foresaw “perennial frost and snow.” By 1932, the Times warned “Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continent.” A 1958 Harper’s article predicted “The Coming Ice Age.”

Newsweek’s April 28, 1975 edition put it bluntly: “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” And now it’s global warming.

We don’t know who created the fake Time cover. But we do know that generations of journalists promoted “scientific” claims about the climate apocalypse. They should apply the first rule of both science and journalism: At all times, be skeptical.

See our video on this point:

Dr. Steven J. Allen

Dr. Allen heads CRC’s investigative unit, writes a series exposing political deception, and covers labor unions and environmental groups. He previously served as press secretary to U.S. Senator Jeremiah Denton, as editor…
+ More by Dr. Steven J. Allen
  • DrRaeMD

    The problem is that the media exists to sell copy. When the media gets into a frenzy, it may or may not mean there is a problem. Sadly, anthropogenic global warming is not a media frenzy over nothing. It is the media, for the most part accurately, reporting on what the overwhelming majority of the science is concluding–that the planet is warming, it’s due to humans (mostly our fossil fuel use), and this is a bad thing for the future of humanity. Due to the preponderance of the evidence, virtually every scientific body on earth has made a statement about AGW, its causes, and the concern we should all have for our future if we don’t get it under control, very, very soon.
    At all times, be skeptical of the media. But the science is clear, regardless of how the media reports it.

    • Sam

      Anthropogenic global warming has not been proven.

      • CB

        “Anthropogenic global warming has not been proven.”

        To you?

        Maybe.

        Whose fault is that, Sam?

        “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

        climate.nasa.gov/evidence

        • Sam

          baa haahhaaaaa!!! oh, my sides ache!!! lol!!! Do your homework, CB, and learn the Scientific Method. You will see that real science has nothing to do with emotions or knee-jerk conclusions. 🙂

          • CB

            “You will see that real science has nothing to do with emotions or knee-jerk conclusions.”

            You think science that’s been undefeated for over a century is a “knee-jerk reaction”?

            Hmmmm…

            Are you too stupid to understand why someone on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry might not be telling the truth about the dangerous nature of fossil fuel?

            “Powerful coal, oil, and gas interests are trying to confuse us all about global warming and renewable energy. Not with facts or reasoned argument — but with disinformation.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-facts-and-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html

          • Sam

            It’s hysterical leftist interpretations of the science that is knee-jerk, sweetie. 🙂

          • CB

            “It’s hysterical”

            Hysterical that you’re too stupid to understand why someone on the payroll of a company might be lying about the dangerous nature of that company’s product?

            Are you actually that stupid?

            I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid…

            “[Capital Research Center] has received large donations from pro-fossil fuel groups like Exxon and the Koch Family Foundations through its Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.”

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Capital_Research_Center

          • Sam

            So what? So-called scientists (97% of them?) receive grants from the world’s governments to spew their phony science. Your ad hominem attack means you don’t really have a leg to stand on… and you know it.

          • CB

            “So-called scientists (97% of them?) receive grants from the world’s governments to spew their phony science.”

            Uh huh, but as I’ve already pointed out, Sam, the very first person to prove AGW is a fact died over a century ago, and though many accuse her of engaging in “phony science” based on some centuries-old government conspiracy, no person has ever been able to produce any evidence any of it is true.

            Will you be the first?

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

            http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          • Sam

            “Speculation”… the key word. 😉 That means a hypothesis has been proposed but, in fact, has never been proven.

          • TheDudeofVoo
    • Mark

      Show me the equation of Temp rise = Function of manmade added CO2.
      I would like to see the temp rise just in Al Gore’s dumping of CO2.

      Liberals, especially the liberal scientists are such hypocrits. It is all about socialism. globalism, money, power and control.

      • DrRaeMD

        The most basic formula is dT=1.66 ln(C/Co), although it is my understanding that experimental observations show it should be closer to dT=5ln(C/Co)… that’s the equation, determined by Arrhenius in ~1896.
        You’re welcome.

        • Richard Martin

          There is no undeniable proof that the heating of our planet is not just a normal cycle in its heating and cooling cycles. You would get more people to listen if you stop using words that suggest that man made global warming is a fact, It may be true, but its not proven yet. What is proven is the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles has for hundreds of thousands of years, now whether this particular heating cycle is normal or produced by us is neither fact or fiction as of right now. What’s making allot of people doubt is the large amount of money people are making pushing this as fact.

          • DrRaeMD

            Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires “external” forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.
            For this reason, “it’s just a natural cycle” is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn’t warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
            It’s not the sun, it’s not volcanoes, it’s not milankovitch cycles, it’s not oceanic cycles, it’s not… anything except anthropogenic. The other natural forcings do play a role, but it is very small at the present time.

          • Craig Anderson

            BS.

          • DrRaeMD

            Proof, please? Or are you simply posting to comment on what’s between your ears?

        • Richard Martin

          Also, there is allot of evidence contradicting the role CO2 plays on global warming. Meaning in history there has been 5 times the CO2 and the apposite happened. Look up how much CO2 there was during the dinosaurs and its effect on the environment

          • DrRaeMD

            Care to provide a link to some evidence? During much of the dinosaur era, the CO2 level was ~5x today. And the average temperature was 5-8C (or 9-14F) warmer than it is today. So no, the “apposite” did not happen.

    • Charles

      Global warming may not be the most emergent concern for increases in CO2.
      The acidification of our oceans is already seriously impacting the ecosystem.
      The current rate of species extinction on our planet is of grave concern.

      We can not impact the natural sources of greenhouse gases, but we certainly can and should be creating policy for the long-term reduction of anthropogenic sources without further delay.

      • CB

        “we certainly can and should be creating policy for the long-term reduction of anthropogenic sources without further delay.”

        Agreed.

        For anyone not in the know, this propaganda outlet is funded by those anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses.

        I’m not sure how anyone could possibly miss a conflict of interest so obvious…

        “According to the most recent data available from Greenpeace, the Capital Research Center has received at least $699,200 from Koch-related foundations between 1987 and 2015.”

        http://www.desmogblog.com/capital-research-center

        • TheDudeofVoo

          Who funds you, CB? You post comments about 38 times a day, every day, seven days a week, all year. For years. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7e58c92d10f17ce30b577a0c892e0ec919ab11c716360f47e3ffa89442161f8.jpg
          Your “red shirt” profile joined in 02Aug2014, 1,048 days ago. You commented, using this profile, 32,094 times, to date … more than 30 comments each day.
          Your “green shirt” profile joined in 03Apr2012, 1,899 days ago. You commented 13,739 times, to date … better than seven comments a day, seven days a week.

          • CB

            “Who funds you”

            Me! I fund me. This is volunteer work. Does anyone pay you for your mad Photoshop skillz?

            climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg

  • nicholasbarnett

    Contrary to the impression fostered by this piece, an approaching ice age was never a scientific consensus. In the 1970’s there was a series of cold years. A few–a very few–climate scientists formulated the hypothesis that this was the beginning of a new ice age. This was a part of the scientific method–observe a phenomenon; formulate a hypothesis to explain it; test the hypothesis by experiment, by further observation, by calculation, and by logical analysis; revise the hypothesis; repeat. Formulating the hypothesis is, and should be, highly speculative. Note that the people who proposed the hypothesis did not necessarily believe it. They were simply suggesting that this was a possible explanation, and that it should be examined. It was examined, and abandoned. But the media got ahold of it, and went overboard. Global warming, on the other hand, is based upon very robust and well-tested scientific principles–conservation of energy, radiative heat transfer, infra-red absorption spectroscopy–that are well-understood. It has also been tested by multiple observations of various kinds. It’s coming, it’s here, it’s man made, and it’s going to be ugly.

  • Mark

    It is all about money and power. For those people of upper middle class and wealthy means who believe man added CO2 is causing the earth’s temp to rise and cause a catastrophe should self limit their own CO2 output.

    • DrRaeMD

      Almost done. We built our home with virtually no carbon footprint, and once we get solar panels installed next week, our home will be carbon-negative.
      To offset our hybrids, we have planted 754 trees, and will be planting another 20-25 by the time we’re done.
      Not everyone can afford to do this. However, everyone can afford to make small changes to lower their footprint and save $$. In our last home, we replaced appliances as they broke down with more efficient ones, put in more insulation, etc. Total cost to us ~$2000 over 5 years. Savings on our energy (electricity and natural gas) bills ~$650 per year… by the time we moved, we were ~$5000 richer, and had reduced our carbon footprint by ~80%.
      Win-win-win. More money for us, less power for the fossil fuel industry, less pollution.

      • Craig Anderson

        Keep wasting your money…you can’t effect the climate and the C02 lie has been exposed. You have been lied to by your friends the liberals.

        • DrRaeMD

          Actually, we’re saving money each month with very low heating bills and virtually non-existent cooling bills. The last few days were >>30C here, we turned on our air conditioner for ~3 hours (1h the first day, 2h the second) to keep the house below 22C.
          The funny thing is, by lowering our Carbon footprint, we are saving money hand-over-fist.

  • Colford Bennet

    Climate change is more complicated than mere fossil fuel use — and in the US, industry sue of coal and auto emissions is substantially reduced from 40 years ago. Warming of the planet has allowed our human species to thrive over the past 10,000 years. It’s given us longer growing season, especially in areas where once it was too cold. The oceans have risen and fallen before. It will happen again. You can’t control nature – you can’t stop volcanic eruptions that spew CO2 and worse into the atmosphere. You cannot prevent global cooling either. Leave well enough alone. Enjoy our brief time in the “sun” – because it won’t last. Either another ice age will come or cataclysmic volcanic eruptions — this has been the pattern for hundreds of thousands of years.

  • Charles O. Slavens

    (APPLAUSE)
    TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you.
    The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord…
    Believe me, believe me
    We have taken historic steps
    Believe me, believe me
    We’re working very hard for peace
    Believe me, believe me
    One by one we’re keeping promises
    Believe me, believe me
    We’re also working very hard for peace
    Believe me, believe me
    Achieving a record reduction in illegal immigration
    Believe me, believe me
    And believe me, we’ve just begun
    Believe me, believe me
    American workers, who I love,
    Believe me, believe me
    I happen to love the coal miners
    Believe me, believe me
    The rest of the world applauded
    Believe me, believe me
    We had no idea we had such wealth
    Believe me, believe me
    We’re going to grow rapidly
    Believe me, believe me
    I think then the people of the world will be thrilled
    Believe me, believe me
    I believe it’s doing very well
    Believe me, believe me
    I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.
    Believe me, believe me
    It is time to exit the Paris accord
    Believe me, believe me
    It is time to make America great again.
    Believe me, believe me
    (APPLAUSE)
    Thank you.
    (APPLAUSE)
    Thank you.
    (APPLAUSE)
    Thank you very much.

  • Warren Reese
  • Chris Coutinho
  • Jeff Pansini

    How can anybody take global warming seriously when 1) plants use it in a process called photosynthesis and give us oxygen in return 2) why spray the entire globe with strontium and barium and who knows what else in chemtrails in chris-cross patterns up in our sky’s polluting the entire planet instead of controlling global warming and 3) if the environment is such a concern for everyone, especially scientist, then why let 100’s of tons of radioactive cesium 134 & 137, plutonium, and other radioactive elements going into our Oceans every single day coming from the destroyed nuclear plants from Fukushima, Japan which is reaching extiction level amounts now. Just because it happened in Japan doesn’t mean its only Japan’s problem to fix it. Last time i look, we all use the ocean and live on the same planet so everyone and their mother should be out there helping solve the containment problem or we’ll all be dead long before global warming has any serious affect on us. It doesn’t matter if Japan wants help or not, they need it to save them and the rest of us on this planet. I call it, the global nuclear radioactive extiction level event which dwarfs global warming right now.