I often see this 1970's ice age prediction meme being pasted on the forum, but it doesn't hold up to reviews of scientific literature of the time.
The reason that magazines like Time and Newsweek posted stories like this in the 1970's is the same reason that articles like the OP posted are still being published today: shock journalism and the like.
I suggest that forum readers ignore the media's treatment surrounding climate change (both pro and con anthropogenic causes), as it will always be dictated by sensationalism rather than presenting the forefront of climate science in a credible fashion.
Look instead towards the published articles of scientists during the 1970's and see what the forefront of science was saying at the time:
![[Image: 1970s_papers.gif]](http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif)
(From Peterson, 2008)
Shock journalism will always be shock journalism, guys, try not to get distracted by it .
The reason that magazines like Time and Newsweek posted stories like this in the 1970's is the same reason that articles like the OP posted are still being published today: shock journalism and the like.
I suggest that forum readers ignore the media's treatment surrounding climate change (both pro and con anthropogenic causes), as it will always be dictated by sensationalism rather than presenting the forefront of climate science in a credible fashion.
Look instead towards the published articles of scientists during the 1970's and see what the forefront of science was saying at the time:
(From Peterson, 2008)
Shock journalism will always be shock journalism, guys, try not to get distracted by it .
RVF Fearless Coindogger Crew