In the 50s, Scientists Warned of Melting Polar Ice Caps

There’s always something catastrophic that’s about to happen that never actually happens. Right now, the catastrophe that we keep waiting to happen to wipe out the human race is global warming, that’s supposedly caused by the oil and gas industry. The only solution to prevent that catastrophe from happening is forcing everyone away from using fossil fuel industry products and toward green industry products. Somehow, that’s supposed to appease the climate gods. And make the green industry very wealthy at the taxpayers’ expense.

In the 70’s, the new ice age was all the craze. Just two decades before that, believe it or not, it was global warming. The ice caps were melting, and the subsequent sea level rise was going to drown all the coastal cities. The Daily Caller reported:

On Feb. 18, 1952, the Barrier Miner, a paper published for decades in Australia, reported that University of Vermont Arctic expert Dr. W. S. Carlson said that the “glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years ago.”

“The temperature around Spitsbergen [the largest island in the Svalbard archipelago] has been so modified that the time the sea is free of ice has lengthened from three to eight months of the year,” Carlson told the Cleveland Medical Library Association in 1952.

Carlson told the audience that rising sea levels from melting ice caps threatened to “swamp” coastal cities. Carlson did note that it would take hundreds of years for melting glaciers to have much effect, but he added that the rate of melt “in the last half-century had been exceedingly rapid.”

Today, climate scientists making similar warnings to global leaders that if nothing is done to reduce carbon dioxide emissions the rapid warming of the poles will cause sea levels to drastically rise.

So, scientists have been sounding a series of unnecessary alarms for decades. None of their dire predictions have come true; yet, we’re still supposed to trust them, just because they work for the government? And if we don’t trust them; if we question their motives, their “evidence,” their assumptions, their finagled data, and their conclusions, we’re “anti-science?”