http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/events/wwii/iwo_jima650.jpg

Here are excerpts from the Jun 24, 1974, Time Magazine, entitled: “Another Ice Age?”:

“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

“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.”

And the list of gloom and doom goes on in the article. Now that global warming is in vogue, (and the same gloom and doom) Time has jumped on the bandwagon again, because it sells. And people fall for it. How sad.

What is sad is your obstinate refusal to look at the world around you with open eyes and allow evidence / fact to influence you.

http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1566643,00.html

Isn’t this the very kind of stuff that’s supposedly wrecking the planet?

And they also don’t seem to have any problem with all the so-called greenhouse gases that are emitted creating, and transporting their magazine to various retail locations around the world.

But then I’m old, bitter, and cynical. I’m sure Time will prove how much they really care by shutting down their operations, laying off all their staff, selling all their assets and donating the proceeds to some “save the rainforest” organization. It will be a wonderful example for us all.

Joe, was this the part you take issue with? He portrays the debate on very simplistic terms, making it sound as if all enviros are tree-hugging granola crunchers who want us all to go back to the land. If you look at the plans from Sierra Club, Green for All, Environment America and most other ‘environmentalists’, they always take the economy into account and base their claims with research going back to the recently-reconsidered optimistic Stern Report.

Funny how between expert environmentalists and corporate advocates, the real solution supposedly comes from a journalist.

But hey, TIME, a mere tree raised again on a forsake island in the middle of nowhere is not going to save us from the coming problems associated with CO2 emissions. We are talking about the possible extinction of the human species 500 years from now, and TIME does a iconic photo cover? No wonder Bryan Walsh never replies to any of my emails about the polar cities project… By the way, if anyone wants to contact any reporter or editor at TIME, all you have to do is write their email address like this:
[first name] [underline] [last name] AT timeinc DOT com

So Robert Enders, for example, would be:

robert_enders@timeinc.com

It’s a good way keep the news a two-way street.

Richard_Stengel@timeinc.com

…like thorium!

Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earth’s climate.

The temperature of the earth’s surface depends largely on two minor constituents of the atmosphere: water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are transparent to the short-wave energy (light and near infrared) that comes from the sun, but opaque to most of the long-wave heat radiation that tries to return to space. This “greenhouse effect” traps heat and makes the earth’s surface considerably warmer than it would be if the atmosphere had no water vapor or carbon dioxide in it. An increase in either constituent would make it warmer still. Warm eras in the geological past may have been caused by CO2 from volcanoes.

At present the atmosphere contains 2.35 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, existing in equilibrium with living plants and sea water (which tends to dissolve it). Up to 1860, man’s fires added only about 500 million tons per year, and the atmosphere had no trouble in getting rid of this small amount. But each year more furnaces and engines poured CO2 into the atmosphere. In 1900, the amount was 3 billion tons. By 1950, it was 9 billion tons. By 2010, if present trends continue, 47 billion tons of carbon dioxide will enter the air each year.

This will be only 2% of the total carbon dioxide, but if it is more than can be dissolved by the oceans or absorbed by plants or minerals, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to increase. The greenhouse effect will be intensified. Some scientists believe that this is the cause of recent warming of the earth’s climate. Dr. Revelle has his doubts.

In the future, if the blanket of CO2 produces a temperature rise of only one or two degrees, a chain of secondary effects may come into play. As the air gets warmer, sea water will get warmer too, and CO2 dissolved in it will return to the atmosphere. More water will evaporate from the warm ocean, and this will increase the greenhouse effect of the CO2. Each effect will reinforce the other, possibly raising the temperature enough to melt the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which would flood the earth’s coastal lands.

Dr. Revelle has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe, but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), teams of scientists will take inventory of the earth’s CO2 and observe how it shifts between air and sea. They will try to find out whether the CO2 blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether man’s factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.

The former are entirely dependent on the health of the latter.
The reverse is not true.