1) A massive north polar ice cap presaged dramatic climate anomalies in 1972 and is a forerunner of crop failures? Well how long were we monitoring the ice caps from space before 1972? We didn't start putting satellites in orbit until the late 50s and I doubt the first ones were put in to map the ice caps. But even so, they are looking at what, 12 years of data and inferring a conclusion that we could be heading towards an ice age? Wow, that's good science...A New World Climate Norm?
by Walter Orr Roberts
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies [Rockefeller funded], and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations. Some scientists believe that this may have presaged the onset of the dramatic climate anomalies of 1972 that brought far-reaching adversities to the world's peoples. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the bad climate of 1972 may be the forerunner of a long series of less favorable agricultural crop years that lie ahead for most world societies. Thus widespread food shortages threaten just at the same time that world populations are growing to new highs. Indeed, less favorable climate may be the new global norm. The Earth may have entered a new "little ice age". Perhaps this future period will not be so extreme as that around 1700 AD, but it seems likely, at least, to be a cooler period resembling the hemispheric climatic regimes of the period
Hot, dry weather in July and August of 1972 devastated food crops in the Soviet Union in the Moscow region. This was preceded by unusually cold and severe growing conditions in the Ukraine for winter wheat. The Soviet Union, as a consequence, purchased over 25 million metric tons of grain abroad. In the same year, India's monsoon rains came one to two weeks late, and retreated early. This materially reduced India's cereal production. The South Sahara (Sahel) drought worsened. Inadequate rains damaged grain production in Argentina and Australia. Peru's anchovy catch, a major Latin American protein resource, dropped drastically, though it is not certain that this was the result of a climate change. Abnormally wet weather, clearly a climate anomaly, in the fall of 1972 and into the spring of 1973 reduced U.S. production of corn and soybeans.
By the start of 1974 corn and wheat prices had doubled or tripled, as compared to a mere two years before. Many countries of the world are now experiencing serious waves of inflation; most economists con- sider the food cost spiral to be a significant contributing cause.
There are strong signs that these recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signals of the emergence of a new normal for world climates. If so, it is a normal that will be far less favorable to global agriculture, and thus to world food supplies.
Not all climate experts agree, however, that this is so. Because of this difference of view there is a clear and pressing need for a major new thrust of basic and applied research on climate change. In this respect it is most encouraging tht the Global Atmospheric Research Program, at a special meeting in Sweden this summer, is dedicat- ing heightened attention to the pursuit of fundamental understanding of the causes and predictability of world climate changes.
. . .
At this meeting Profs. H. Flohn of Germany, H.H. Lamb of the [UEA, a recipient of Rockefeller funds in the] United Kingdom and
Reid Bryson [recipient of Rockefeller funds?] of the United States developed a highly persuasive demonstration that there has been a steady cooling of northern hemisphere temperatures during the last 30 years, with the strongest cooling at the higher latitudes. The average cooling has been only about 0.3°C, but this appears to be sufficient to cut about one week from the mid-latitude growing season, a highly significant matter agriculturally. Even more important, however, such acooling appears, these climatologists believe, to be accompan- ied by a more variable climate, with agriculturally adverse droughts, abnormally cold spells, heat waves, and other extremes becoming more common.
The workshop, sponsored by the newly- created [Rockefeller funded] International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IF IAS), was primarily focussed on the social, economic, political and ethical consequences of the climate changes. The participants, from 11 countries, included climatologists, agricultural economists, geographers, lawyers, oceanographers, political scientists, as well as representatives from the World Council of Churches [Rockefeller funded] and the League of Red Cross Societies [also Rockefeller funded].
. . .
Their unanimously adopted conclusions are sobering. They expect anomalies like 1972 to recur, and consider the world ill-equipped to deal with them. They state:
"Grain reserves which used to be abundant in some regions are no longer sufficient to serve as insurance against disaster and by some estimates have dropped to such low levels that they can suffice to supply the world needs for less than one month at present consumption rates. At the same time wasteful and excessive consumption by the affluent, along with increasing numbers of mouths to feed, strains the capacity of
farmers to deliver enough food even from the best of harvests. It becomes ever more difficult, expensive and risky to open up new arable land, and at least as difficult to limit the use of marginal land highly vulnerable to erosion and worsening of climate.
. . .
Age-old problems of social justice inherent in the current distribution of wealth among economic classes will at the very least be sharpened. These furthermore may now have practical as well asethical significance; one way to find reserves could be to eliminate wasteful and physiologically excessive consumption among the affluent of the world;
. . .
It is evident that the world faces a grave challenge to its political machinery and its capabilities for social and technological innovation. The right to adequate nutrition should be guaranteed to every human born to this planet. To accomplish this, the peoples of the Earth will be called upon to take unprecedented measures of co- operation and self-restraint. The successful solution of this problem may be the most important item on the entire agenda of humanity.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazi ... 796265.pdf
2) The paper says: "The Earth may have entered a new "little ice age". Perhaps this future period will not be so extreme as that around 1700 AD." Well, Michael Mann's hockey stick got rid of the little ice age. How convenient for the believers.
Even more convenient, Mann fought tooth and nail to keep his public emails from UVA from being disclosed via FOIA requests. Why? Issues with the science? Fraud? We won't know unless we see them.
Going back to the little ice age, here is the most logical reason it occurred:
Here is the sunspot activity for recent years, notice how low they were around 1970ish...
Could that have been the reason for the cooling in the 70's that got many scientists thinking we were heading towards an ice age or global cooling?
Also notice that the current sunspot activity is very low (so far). If this keeps up there is a chance that the world will actually cool. If it doesn't than that might be a testament to CO2's radiative forcing ability or climate sensitivity. But so far since 2000, we are seeing cooling IF you use unadjusted data or one of the two sets of satellite data.
And does anybody think it's a coincidence that a 1979 research paper by Libby and Pandolfi predicted warming from 1980ish to 2000 and then cooling for perhaps 50 or more years and this is aligning with current lower sunspot activity (so far at least) and scientists are noting that the warming has been on "pause" since 2000?
Now some scientists are claiming the ocean is hiding the heat which is why there is a pause since 2000ish. And how are they doing this? They put a bunch of ocean temperature measuring devices in the ocean that go from 0 feet down to 2000 meters. But when they started trending the data, it showed cooling. So these 'scientists' started adjusting the data from these start of the art calibrated measuring devices until the data showed warming. I'm not kidding...
3) Those "serious waves of inflation" were most likely the result of the spike in oil prices.
4) We were seeing "the new normal" back then? Wow. We're seeing it today as well...
5) "Grain reserves which used to be abundant in some regions..."
Another failed scare...
6) What is climate change really about? Fair and equitable access to the world's resources is one reason as the paper says: "...wasteful and excessive consumption by the affluent,..."
7) What else is climate change about? Righting the wrongs of colonialism by redistributing wealth from rich nations to poor nations: "problems of social justice inherent in the current distribution of wealth"
8] "the world faces a grave challenge to its political machinery" Translation: Free markets/capitalism have to go.
In summary, Rockefeller money seems to fund the work of scientists and then Rockefeller funded think-takes write reports which then Rockefeller associated MSM sources report them as credible with terms like "renowned," "esteemed," and "distinguished" to describe the scientists involved...
In short, Rockefeller money is being used to promote a effing farce. And idiots, idiots, dimwitted idiots buy into it and lack the brains to see the issues in their 'science.'
(Sorry for the long post...)