For How Long Has The Media Been Talking About Climate Change? Since The 1930s

In today’s media, if you aren’t hearing about how President Trump did something that makes him a racist or is an “impeachable offense”, you’re hearing about how we are destroying our planet with all our fossil fuels and our capitalism and our very existence and we need to do something like electing Democrat after Democrat in order to stop it before the 666th Doomsday clock runs out. It’s tiring and it’s all b.s., but one might come to ask the simple question of how and when did this all begin?
 
This article, if it seems familiar to you, is similar in nature to a couple of other ones where I either talked about when the first climate change warning came about (as far as we know) and the other talking about how much more the Left can say that a particular climate conference or an election is our “last chance to save the planet”.
 
The first article talked about the first warning from someone in general (to refresh your memory, it was in 1864 that the first climate change warning came up, as far as we know) and the second mentioned a number of media articles that repeated the same phrase of “last chance” to save the planet or reverse course, etc. But this one specifically talks about how far back the media has reported on particular climate change talking points. Of course, given the title spoils the surprise, the media has been doing this since at least the 1930s (again, as far as we know).
 
ClimateDepot.com shared an article that showed various pieces from the media when they talked about something in relation to climate change, at any capacity.
 
The first and earliest example comes from a Jefferson City Post-Tribune paper published on May 2nd, 1932 in Jefferson City, Missouri. The article was titled: “Melting Glaciers Would Flood Earth’s Big Cities.”
 
Sound familiar to you? It’s one of the many talking points the Left often makes: “we are melting the arctic glaciers with our capitalist system and as a result, major cities throughout the world will be flooded.”
 
The article itself started with something we are all very familiar with: “Just raise the average temperature of the earth two or three degrees and you can bid goodbye to all the big cities on earth. Glaciers will melt and oceans will rise… New York, London, Paris, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington, Shanghai – all gone.”
 
Well, nearly 90 years later and the glaciers are NOT melting (quite the opposite, actually) and no big city on earth has suffered from such major flooding (apart from cities like Houston, which has flooded time and time again since even BEFORE it was founded in June of 1837, but not once as a result of “climate change”). But the funny thing is that you could just take the title and the content of that article, take out the date it was published, and it would read like a normal climate change article from the NYT.
 
But in any case, another article shown by Climate Depot was published in July 21st, 1932 in Brisbane, Australia for The Queenslander. The title of the article was: “A Warmer World.”
 
“Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent,” began the article. “Its glaciers are shrinking… it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.”
 
One thing I would like to point out is the fact that, given the timeframe of these articles, the Left cannot effectively blame gas-powered vehicles for climate change. That Queenslander article and the Jefferson City Tribune article both mention melting glaciers, which the modern Left has often attributed to the use of gas-powered vehicles such as cars, planes and ships. But the earliest combustion-engine cars, though they were around since the late 19th century, were nowhere near as prominent back then as they are today. And yet, they can be blamed for melting glaciers?
 
But the funny thing is that, while one might be able to b.s. their way around saying that there is, indeed, a connection between combustion-engine vehicles and climate change, that argument doesn’t stand the test of time.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, if one were to research the beginning of the Modern Warm Period, they would find it started at around the same time that these articles began to pop up, in the late 1920s, early 1930s. But there have been two other Warm Periods (as far as we know; there were probably more) in the history of the planet: the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 950 A.D. to 1250 A.D., and the Roman Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 250 B.C. to 400 A.D.
 
Both are periods of particularly high climate warming and NEITHER OF WHICH CAN BE BLAMED ON CAPITALISM AS THAT SYSTEM HADN’T EXISTED AT THOSE TIMES!
 
No one can blame the combustion-engine or fossil fuels for the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods. No one can blame A/Cs or lightbulbs or all the other things Leftists claim cause climate change on Warm Periods that occurred WELL before these things ever existed.
 
What’s more, considering the patterns of these two Warm Periods, the Modern Warm Period should’ve been easily-predictable. Roughly a thousand years passed between the beginning of the Roman Warm Period and the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period. Add another thousand years, and you get to the Modern Warm Period. This tells us that our climate changes in cycles, seemingly every thousand years or so, and in a thousand years, we should see the beginning of another Warm Period.
 
The Warm Periods also seemingly last for around 300 to 600 years, so considering when the last one began, I’d say the Modern Warm Period will likely end somewhere between the 2200s or 2500s, give or take a few decades or even a couple of centuries.
 
Now, while one might then argue that the articles were therefore correct, let me remind you that the articles tried to scare people into thinking we were facing a climate apocalypse totally unprecedented and it would take quite the sacrifice to reverse it. The first article talked about major cities flooding as a result of melting glaciers. The second one was, to its credit, a tad more objective and mentioned that the melting glaciers had been an occurrence for centuries.
 
But then you get an article from The New York Times (because of course it was going to be the NYT) from 1969 that was titled: “Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs,” where the “expert” that was interviewed said that the “North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.” Fast-forward FIVE decades later, and the glaciers are still there and growing in size.
 
Despite the fact that the Earth’s climate is rather obviously cyclical, ignorant people will assert that we must be doing something tremendously dangerous for the climate and that we are uniquely responsible for it and we must raise everyone’s taxes sky high in order to combat this unprecedented emergency.
 
It’s all fake and phony down to the last detail. The climate changes, not because of what humanity does, but because it’s how God made the Earth. It’s not static; it’s dynamic. The fact that it can rain or be completely sunny ought to tell people that (and before you tell me “climate and weather aren’t the same thing”, why does the Left always say that a hurricane, a weather phenomenon, is a sign of climate change?).
 
The Left, since the 1930s, has asserted that the perfectly normal change in the climate is a dangerous thing and that we must fight against it to some capacity. Now, as far as the writers from the 1930s go, I can give them some benefit of the doubt considering their technology and therefore knowledge was not quite as good as ours at the time, but there definitely is no excuse for the modern Left.
 
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they run with the idea that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, specifically as a result of living a comfortable life with our cars and our A/Cs in our capitalist economic system and our Republican governmental system. It’s all b.s., as we well know.
 
There is nothing particularly strange about a changing climate, or even a warming period. It happens in cycles and it’s not caused by us.
 
Certainly, none of the proposals brought up by the Left would do anything to help.
 
Hebrews 11:3
“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!