Video: Barrasso, Inhofe tag-team Boxer on 1970s “New Ice Age” exposure of Holdren

posted at 9:30 am on March 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’m old enough to remember when scientists issued alarms over a coming Ice Age that would wipe out life on Earth on a massive scale. Senator John Barrasso’s memory holds up pretty well, too, and he reminded everyone of the consensus in the 1970s that the climate had begun to cool so significantly that, er, the world needed massive government interventions in energy production and consumption to survive it. Barrasso quotes from Newsweek and Time articles of the period. Senator Tom Udall attempts to ride to EPW Chair Barbara Boxer’s rescue by introducing an article that claims the global-cooling consensus of the 1970s was a “myth,” and Boxer urges Udall to add it to the record. But that’s just the set-up Jim Inhofe needed to complete this two-man demolition of “consensus” and to expose the main White House adviser on climate change as a chronic crank, as the Daily Caller reports:

The exchange started with Barrasso addressing the committee’s witness, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson.

“Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” said Barrasso. “So if we had committed the same amount of taxpayer resources and government manpower that the administration now wants us to commit to prevent global warming — if we’d done that prevent global cooling, we wouldn’t be the most prosperous nation on earth.” …

Still later, Inhofe got into the science debate by citing a 1971 study by Dr. John Holdren, who just so happens to be President Obama’s advisor on science technology. In that study Holdren wrote, “The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here.” Holdren went on to write that the effects could “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

A visibly satisfied Inhofe then turned to Boxer, and stated, “So even the president’s people are agreed with me, Madam Chairwoman!”

The passage scanned at Zombietime is even more explicit about Holdren’s hysteria over hypothermia, emphases Zombie’s:

It seems, however, that a competing effect has dominated the situation since 1940. This is the reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollution (smoke, aerosols), agricultural air pollution (dust), and volcanic ash. This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend—a total of about .2°C in the world mean surface temperature over the past quarter century. This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age.Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8°C. We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and other suitable pollutants. A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface(albedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts.

Remember — Holdren is one of the leading voice in the US on global warming now.  He’s also Obama’s climate-change czar.

I haven’t seen that kind of a setup and payoff since Bob Hope and Bing Crosby made movies with Dorothy Lamour. That was during the period when American industry and economic expansion held the national consensus rather than Chicken Little hypotheses with chronically faulty models and contradictory results. Man, I guess I am getting old.

Update: Sen. Inhofe’s office wrote to correct the identification of Mark Udall in the video, which I got from the DC.  It’s actually Tom Udall, his brother.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

BTW – Trains run on fossil fuels.

barnone on March 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Not all of them.

Maglev trains are operational in Japan, China and South Korea. France wants to eliminate all of its fossil fuel powered trains over the next 15 years. And biotech companies are now making “fossil fuel” with the aid of bacteria.

And here in New Hampshire (where it’s a balmy 10 degrees this morning) the Mt. Washington Cog Railway has phased out many of its old coal-fired engines and replaced them with biodiesel ones.

Del Dolemonte on March 3, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I was in high school during the talk about a coming Ice Age, and I thought the idea was about as ridiculous as AGW.

Ward Cleaver on March 3, 2011 at 11:32 AM

One should not forget James Hansen at NASA who is better know than John Holdren as being a pusher of both global cooling of which he was one one of the originators and global warming which he now peddles all over the earth.

burt on March 3, 2011 at 11:32 AM

The iron age. Building and operating rail has twice the carbon combustion per passenger mile than does air travel.

seven on March 3, 2011 at 11:35 AM

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Shouldn’t you be over on the fiscal sanity threads spouting Marxist nonsense or something?

Chip on March 3, 2011 at 11:36 AM

We had to stop using aerosols and freon because they created a hole in the ozone layer that was getting bigger. Of course, that hole has always been there and get bigger and smaller on it’s own. The same kind of scare got rid of DDT and other pesticides that protected people from diseases borne by mosquitoes. Now we buy bed nets for 3rd world nations instead. The net makers and mosquitoes are happy. The eco nuts have now jumped all over our energy production which will have us joining that 3rd world.

Kissmygrits on March 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM

In high school, I thought I’d need to learn blacksmithing to have a useful skill when society collapsed under the advancing ice sheet.

The socialist ecofrauds were scaremongers then and they are scaremongers now. They’ve just changed scares.

For 30 years the (now) warmists have predicted a dramatic sea rise, and so far nothing. At this point my feet would have to be wet before I’d take catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) seriously.

theCork on March 3, 2011 at 11:43 AM

BTW – Trains run on fossil fuels.

barnone on March 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Not all of them.

Maglev trains are operational in Japan, China and South Korea. France wants to eliminate all of its fossil fuel powered trains over the next 15 years

BTW – Trains run on fossil fuels.

barnone on March 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Del Dolemonte on March 3, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I suppose you think that maglev trains don’t run on electricity? Gee! Where does that come from? Our environmental nuts won’t let us build nuclear central stations. I suppose fossile fuels that make electricity don’t count.

By the way, France can do this because over 85% of all their electricity is nuclear.
Where are these magic trains going to run between? – East Overshoe Indiana and Nan Francisco?

Remember folks – electricity is the least efficient delivery of power and natural gas is the most efficient. I realize that Obama and the liberals can ignore any law they wish, except the laws of thermodynamics and I-squared-R.

Old Country Boy on March 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Interesting that the chairwoman’s counter-argument to the scientists preaching the new ice age is that they were not the majority, as if that mattered more than that they were wrong.

The ‘science’ of global climate change is one that didn’t exist 20 years ago, and even today it is largely a black box, with proprietary computer models and unspecified ‘adjustments’ to thermometer readings. The ‘science’ can’t be judged on its merits in this state, and when AGW advocates tell us to listen to the experts, I have to ask: How do you know they’re an expert?

My opinion is that you don’t have to be a super-scientist to judge a self-proclaimed expert on global climate change. Just look for their results. Have their predictions been accurate? Have the observed weather phenomenon been foretold by their theories? Have critical measurements such as upper atmosphere air temperatures and ocean temperatures matched their theories? So far, they warmists are doing worse than rolling a dice or throwing darts. When that changes, I’ll consider paying serious attention to them, but I see little reason to destroy our economy and way of life before then.

Socratease on March 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Remember folks – electricity is the least efficient delivery of power and natural gas is the most efficient. I realize that Obama and the liberals can ignore any law they wish, except the laws of thermodynamics and I-squared-R.

Old Country Boy on March 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Another engineer. I feel right at home!

How long are we going to believe liberals and environuts can affect the Laws of Physics? They are Liars and charlatans who just want to cheat you out of your money. The Snake Oil Salesman of 2010.

Subsunk

Subsunk on March 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Every day looks more like John Ringo’s novel, The Last Centurion’s world, is around the corner.

El Coqui on March 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM

TouchE !!! Bravo to Senators Barrasso and Inhofe !!!

It seems, however, that a competing effect has dominated the situation since 1940. This is the reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollution (smoke, aerosols), agricultural air pollution (dust), and volcanic ash. This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend—a total of about .2°C in the world mean surface temperature over the past quarter century.

So, if we NOW want to prevent “global warming” from carbon dioxide, is Holdren suggesting that we should emit more urban air pollution to cool things down by 0.2 C? After the EPA has spent 40 years and industry has spent billions of dollars trying to reduce it?

Gee, I wonder what Lisa Jackson and the EPA might think about that idea? Bring back acid rain! What a COOL idea!!!

Steve Z on March 3, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Whoever it was that mentioned the Weekly Reader with the Ice Age story-I still have that copy packed away at my mom’s house. It has a picture that was very similar to the one on Time magazine of a frozen tundra world. Scared the crap out of us kids.

di butler on March 3, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I remember a friend and I both had science projects to do back in grade school in 1992. He did a report on a second Ice Age, and quoted many in the science community he found during his research. I, coincidentally, came right after him and presented the exact opposite, that our climate would actually warm due to a green house effect and had plenty of scientists of my own to quote and reference. I had done a project on Venus and it’s climate beforehand which lead me to look into if something similar could happen on Earth. Turns out we were both full of it and mislead – then again we were both 12 years old. How old is Boxer?

Daemonocracy on March 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM

They really need to have this animation running on a screen behind the ‘Box’ every time they bring up global warming…
18,000 years of ice cap retreat
because they are talking about the last 1/10 of a tick mark. The video makes clear the fact they are excluding data to hype the fear.
-
18,000 years ago NYC was under the North Polar Ice Cap. The cap has been shrinking at a rate of 9 miles per 100 years since that time. Noticeable in a life time? Well YES.
-
The GW crowd is pointing at the last 100 yrs and freaking because because the ice is still melting away. And I believe that the AL Gores and other top proponents of this crap science scam know that they’re pulling a fast one.
-
But then it’s all about power and money… and the destruction of America as we know it. Bast*rds.
-

RalphyBoy on March 3, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Old Country Boy on March 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM Subsunk on March 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Yes, yes, enough about this efficiency stuff, what does it do to global warming?

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Really poor choice of words for the headline, Ed. I almost threw up.

Sorry, I think reading Ace is corrupting me.

cpaulus on March 3, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Erh…no. The sea level produced by the Arctic ice cap is already fully accounted for (its floating like an ice cube in a glass…no change in sea level no matter large the cap gets).

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Not quite… that assumes a closed loop system btwn the ocean and the ice cube. As soon as the first snow flake lands in the ice cap/cube which did not originate in the ocean, the balance is shifted. That’s the micro view, the macro view also suggests an issue when “no matter (sic) large the cap gets).” the Big Cube becomes so heavy that it touches the bottom of the ocean and/or grows so large that it covers the earth. Either of those events would, indeed, be reflected by a change of sea level.

TheCulturalist on March 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM

We had to stop using aerosols and freon because they created a hole in the ozone layer that was getting bigger. Of course, that hole has always been there and get bigger and smaller on it’s own. The same kind of scare got rid of DDT and other pesticides that protected people from diseases borne by mosquitoes. Now we buy bed nets for 3rd world nations instead. The net makers and mosquitoes are happy. The eco nuts have now jumped all over our energy production which will have us joining that 3rd world.

Kissmygrits on March 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Well said. And dont forget – the millions of kids dead because of mosquitos, because we all know eco nuts are about “the environment and children” or something.

On a side note – when I worked at a golf course in the late 80′s, early 90′s – our greens keeper had a barrel of DDT, in powder form that we would use for hornets, bees and sand wasps. We would put on the yellow suits, oxygen masks – and head out in the middle of the night to best kill the bees and of course, not be seen pouring DDT down hornet holes… good times, good times.

Odie1941 on March 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Erh…no. The sea level produced by the Arctic ice cap is already fully accounted for (its floating like an ice cube in a glass…no change in sea level no matter large the cap gets).

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Not quite… that assumes a closed loop system btwn the ocean and the ice cube. As soon as the first snow flake lands in the ice cap/cube which did not originate in the ocean, the balance is shifted. That’s the micro view, the macro view also suggests an issue when “no matter (sic) large the cap gets).” the Big Cube becomes so heavy that it touches the bottom of the ocean and/or grows so large that it covers the earth. Either of those events would, indeed, be reflected by a change of sea level.

TheCulturalist on March 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM

With all due respect – your example also is a closed looped event, that doesnt take into account evaporation, humidity levels, air temp, etc. It also doesnt take into effect platetechtonics, core shifts, lava flows, sun spots, etc

It is also the inane one “scientists” try to use, hence the post by Bobb.

The “macro BS” being sold is net, net – the earth is getting warmer, therefore ice melts, floods oceans, blah blah blah.

And its all false. Heres 1 great example: Greenland. For years we have heard (and seen – Goracles movie) that IF Greenland were to “melt” – it would ause oceans to rise by X amount… 1 problem – scientists discovered Greenland isnt as “icy” as first though, and roughly 5M square miles below the surface is actually terra firma.

Have you seen the updates to the so-called “ocean rise after Greenland melts” meme, consideirng the makeup is less ice… I didnt either.

Oxone Layer!!!OMG. No longer talked about
Ice Age Coming!!! OMG. No longer talked about
Manhattans flooded!!! OMG. No longer talked about

Funny how these “conveninet” gloom and doom scenarios always a) ask for money for the doom, b) have zero science backing, but a consensus of “scientists” c) most importantly – go silent into that good night the moment the meme is no longer convenient and/or a new, more profitbale meme sprouts up.

Odie1941 on March 3, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 3, 2011 at 11:31 AM

You must have overlooked the heat generated by the braking system (heat generated when the brakes are applied…friction and all that) moving to the atmosphere and causing direct heating.

According to Holdren, this is part and parcel of the mammalian demise. It doesn’t matter what makes the train go, or how it slows down. Heat is the enemy. Or something.

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

IMHO the Progressive party should be renamed the Regressive party, because they want to use enviro scare tactics to take us back to the 1800s with the elimination of the car and other forms of technology that have improved our standard of living. We all need to have organic farms and live in villages and be serfs to the elite masters of the universe.

txmomof6 on March 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

So after cooling and warming, what’s the next environmental disaster that must be averted going to be?
Global sameness?

Climate change we can believe in. /sigh

Scrappy on March 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Scrappy on March 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

I fear you’re right, Scrappy. They’ll call it “climate stagnation,” so it sounds like it might involve standing water and rank-smelling algae, and they’ll proclaim a consensus that by the year 2100, humans will have evolved into mosquitos.

J.E. Dyer on March 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

So after cooling and warming, what’s the next environmental disaster that must be averted going to be?
Global sameness?

Climate change we can believe in. /sigh

Scrappy on March 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Shaving. Note that the Germans have a head start on the solution.

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Oh! The Weekly Reader! I wonder if it is still around and what it looks like today? I shudder to think.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

It’s called “Time for kids” now, and it is put out by Time magazine. One of my kid’s teachers loved that rag and would assign the kids all kinds of homework from it. There was not an issue that came through our house that wasn’t bashing Bush, or had page after page of liberal tripe. My son and I would read through it together, and I would point out all the fallacies and lies. He would do his homework with the “right” answers so he could get a good grade. Needless to say, I got tired of having to be the thought police, and they are home schooled now.

Kristamatic on March 3, 2011 at 1:24 PM

I’m old enough to remember when scientists issued alarms over a coming Ice Age that would wipe out life on Earth on a massive scale

then you also remember the Acid Rain (wauaaaaghhh!) scares as well.

ted c on March 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Update: Sen. Inhofe’s office wrote to correct the identification of Mark Udall in the video, which I got from the DC. It’s actually Tom Udall, his brother.

Still wrong. Tom Udall is Mark Udall’s first cousin, not his brother.

Common Sense on March 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I know that there’s a certain decorum in Senate hearings…but it seems that Senators should start using the term “dangerous crank” to describe Holdren. Wakefield of Lancet fame is a dangerous/corrupt crank who, along with the Trial Bar, induced a money grubbing effort to scare people wrt vaccinations.

There are dangerous cranks, there are bad people in this world…in the famous words of Barry, Senators should start calling them out, to their face, to the press

r keller on March 3, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Tom Udall, Mark Udall…who cares? I’m all about Melvin Udall.

Left Coast Right Mind on March 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Not all of them.

Maglev trains are operational in Japan, China and South Korea.

Del Dolemonte on March 3, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Where do you think that electricity comes from?

CLUE: It’s NOT your too-smart-by-half windmills, biomass, or solar panels: all of which are too puny, unreliable, inefficient, and wasteful to produce any meaningful amount of power. In addition, generators using these technologies don’t last long enough to amortize their initial capital costs!!! “Maglev” trains need an enormous amount of electric power (I would dispute that ‘maglev’ can ever be more efficient than rolling stock in most cases), and significant amounts of practical, reliable power only come from what you call “fossil fuels” (recent evidence suggests this is a misnomer) and nuclear energy.

Bet you’ll never see a ‘maglev’ freight train: the additional energy used to levitate heavy loads is way more than the energy used to overcome the friction of rolling stock. In addition, the capital cost of building a ‘maglev’ railway is orders of magnitude higher than for conventional rolling stock over any significant distance.

landlines on March 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM

THE NEXT SCARE.
Now it is earthquakes caused by liquid fracting for natural gas in Arkansas. Gonna make the New Madrid fault blow up and cause the Mighty River to run backwards and flood St Paul.
Zombies will rush to Green Bay to protest the catfish invasion er sumptin’?

Col.John Wm. Reed on March 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM

THE NEXT SCARE.

Col.John Wm. Reed on March 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Here it is:

Anthropogenic Continental Drift: An Incoherent Truth

theCork on March 3, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Ha ha.

petunia on March 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Anthropogenic Continental Drift: An Incoherent Truth

theCork on March 3, 2011 at 4:54 PM

I love it.

Scrappy on March 3, 2011 at 6:18 PM

With all due respect – your example also is a closed looped event, that doesnt take into account evaporation, humidity levels, air temp, etc. It also doesnt take into effect platetechtonics, core shifts, lava flows, sun spots, etc

Thank you for your input and for making my point. That being that the “ice cube in a glass of water” example has limitations when you suddenly remember that the ice cap is not, in actuality, an ice cube in a glass of water and has many other forces acting upon it.

It is also the inane one “scientists” try to use, hence the post by Bobb.

I know the “scientists” try to scare people regarding the effects of warming on the ice caps, I was just pointing out the limitations of the “ice cube in a glass of water” counter-argument… sorry if that was less than obvious.

The “macro BS” being sold is net, net – the earth is getting warmer, therefore ice melts, floods oceans, blah blah blah.

See “point” explained above.

And its all false. Heres 1 great example: Greenland. For years we have heard (and seen – Goracles movie) that IF Greenland were to “melt” – it would ause oceans to rise by X amount… 1 problem – scientists discovered Greenland isnt as “icy” as first though, and roughly 5M square miles below the surface is actually terra firma.

Have you seen the updates to the so-called “ocean rise after Greenland melts” meme, consideirng the makeup is less ice… I didnt either.

Oxone Layer!!!OMG. No longer talked about
Ice Age Coming!!! OMG. No longer talked about
Manhattans flooded!!! OMG. No longer talked about

Funny how these “conveninet” gloom and doom scenarios always a) ask for money for the doom, b) have zero science backing, but a consensus of “scientists” c) most importantly – go silent into that good night the moment the meme is no longer convenient and/or a new, more profitbale meme sprouts up.

Now you’re firing on all cylinders. Exactly right.

Odie1941 on March 3, 2011 at 12:47 PM

TheCulturalist on March 3, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Just for the record, petroleum based products are NOT fossil fuel, and the continued use of the term needs to be challenged every time it happens. This lie is just another brick in the wall of leftist misinformation. There is no evidence of latent DNA in petroleum, it is a naturally occuring and RENEWING substance created by internal reactions below the surface of the Earth. Many of the oil deposits discovered in the last 40 years were originally estimated to have a “drilling life” of between 5 and 8 years, and have never stopped producing.

Freelancer on March 3, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Just for the record, petroleum based products are NOT fossil fuel, and the continued use of the term needs to be challenged every time it happens. This lie is just another brick in the wall of leftist misinformation. There is no evidence of latent DNA in petroleum, it is a naturally occuring and RENEWING substance created by internal reactions below the surface of the Earth. Many of the oil deposits discovered in the last 40 years were originally estimated to have a “drilling life” of between 5 and 8 years, and have never stopped producing.

Freelancer on March 3, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Check. The Deep Hot Biosphere.

slickwillie2001 on March 3, 2011 at 10:27 PM

I love how Barbra Boxer was thrown off at the end there.

Excellent tag team there boys!!

Conservative Samizdat on March 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Holdren was completely wrong about his population bomb hysteria and he admitted that during hearings, or pretended to admit it. He would likely admit that he was completely wrong about his global cooling hysteria back then. There has never been a scientist that I’m aware of that has been so extremely wrong about everything in his career. And that is why he has risen to the very top and is the science czar.

Buddahpundit on March 4, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2