Nixon Era Global Warming Documents Send Alarmists Into Orgasm
Eric Gisin
And by documents, I mean a total of three, only two of which mention CO2, and were asking for
serious, real scientific inquiry into the matter, but, they have sent the climate alarmists in the
media into orgasm. Both the AP and MSNBC have great spin on these documents, among others. Let's
look at the MSNBC one
Global warming warnings were debated in President Richard Nixon's administration as early as
1969, according to newly released documents examined by The Orange County Register.
Two memos are a debate? If you read the documents, basically one from Nixon's Democratic adviser
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with a reply from Hugh Heffner, deputy director of the administration's
Office of Science and Technology, you will see that they were interested in what the effects of CO2
rise could have, which is interesting, considering the world was in the midst of a dip in
temperature, which went on long enough for several weekly news magazines to wonder if a new ice age
was coming in the mid-1970's. Anyhow
Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo that it was "pretty clearly agreed" that carbon dioxide
content would rise 25 percent by 2000,
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,"
he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye
Washington, for that matter."
Yet, the seas did not rise by 10 feet, and the temperatures did not rise by 7 degrees. But,
Moynihan was not a science guy, and, he was interested in the actual science, and advised that a
world wide monitoring system be established, you know, real science. Heck, I'll admit that I wrote
a paper in grad school on the effects of ocean pollution, which factored in the increase of CO2 due
to plankton die off, and a nasty circular increase in temperatures through this process. I won't
bore you with the details.
Moynihan received a response in a Jan. 26, 1970, memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the
administration's Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric
temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.
"The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the
silent majority in between," he wrote. "One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons
because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the
increased ocean level due to the temperature rise."
Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further
into the issue.
And that is how scientific inquiry works. A hypothesis, followed by research, and see if the
conclusion matches the original reasoning. And, all these years later, we find out that a)
atmospheric CO2 is not that simple, and b) the science has become totally perverted and infused by
politics, the need for alarmists to keep receiving grant money, status, and personal wealth.
Heffner's actual second paragraph, which follows the above blockquote middle paragraph
Since the potential consequences are so large, it is important that we find out what the true
situation is. I am asking Bob White of ESSA to devote some attention to the problem. I have also
been booked for a speech at an environmental session of a large engineering society and am using
this as an example of the kind of problem they can tackle.
Looks like he was interested in truth, unlike most of those who have had a vested interest in
promoting their pet Belief
The evidence of scientists cutting corners, playing down uncertainties in their calculations and
then covering their tracks by being secretive with data and suppressing dissent suggests a systemic
problem of scientific sloppiness, collusion and endemic conflicts of interest, but not of outright
fraud. (p. 241)
I mean, sheesh, at least one alarmist is blaming Robert Byrd's death on Globull Warming (couldn't
have anything to do with being 92 and in poor health, God bless his soul, could it?). Why don't we
deal with real pollution, instead of fake?
Crossed at Pirate's Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach
Larry
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Why don't we
> deal with real pollution, instead of fake?
>
Because this has nothing to do with AGW, sealevel rise or science. This
has to do with New World Order, wealth redistribution and the taking of
power by a new ruling elite bankers running a world government.
AGW hasn't been about science.....ever! It's just an excuse.
--
Global Warming and Creationism are to science what storks are to
obstetrics...
Larry