Walter Cronkite In 1972: Coming Ice Age!

by on March 29, 2017 | 10 Comments

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


10 comments

  2. It’s fortunate that climate science has so vastly improved in the intervening decades, that it’s now clear via multiple lines of strong evidence that humans are contributing significantly to global warming.

    • I have no idea who any of these people are, or why their personal opinions on climate change should outweigh actual scientific data. Well, I have heard of Crichton, who seems to not appreciate the differences in the ways that pharmaceutical research and most all other scientific research is conducted. The main difference is of course the potential money involved. There is no existing mechanism to fund most science in the fashion that drug trials are performed.

      Nevertheless, if the raw data, analysis, etc., of climate science was kept as secure as such double-blind trials would require, then I wonder whether people like Crichton would criticize the secrecy.

      • Don,

        In 1975 the assured results of science predicted a coming ice age.

        In 1995 the assured results of science predicted a coming heat wave.

        In 2015 the assured results of science predicted a coming ice age (yes, we’re back to that).

        Check out the links. The East Anglia data scandal is real. It’s not the only one. Please watch the documentary. There is more than enough cause for reasonable people to be cautious about the extravagant claims being made re AGW.

    • In the 1970’s it was not clear which way climate was heading. A simple extrapolation of very-long-term natural trends pointed towards cooling, but warming via greenhouse effect was also considered possible. It doesn’t seem that the relative magnitudes of these effects were understood at the time.

      Correct about 1995, but “heat wave” is not a great term to use, since it typically refers to weather (e.g., the deadly summers of 1995 in Chicago or 2003 in Europe). I think a big source of confusion is that people don’t appreciate the difference between weather and climate.

      You’d have to point me to some evidence for what you’re claiming about 2015. Don’t know what you’re referring to.

      ” There is more than enough cause for reasonable people to be cautious about the extravagant claims being made re AGW.”

      I agree, but I don’t feel that the best course for reasonable people to take regarding the scientifically well-grounded claims is to simply deny the existence of any AGW.

Comments are closed.