National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6

This article summarizes the brilliant essay of Marjorie Mazel Hecht that offers one of the most compelling insights into the back-story of how a clique of U.S. academics sold a Malthusian population control scare story.* Their aim: to use man-made global warming as the front to introduce drastic worldwide population control.

Margaret Mead

Hecht’s piece, “1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born” identifies that the key conspirators of the climate hoax came together to formulate their ideas at a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Influential anthropologist Margaret Mead organized the event. [1] Mead was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1974 but had a shadowy past. Her 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud. Thus Mead was “well qualified” to form a new school of anti-population charlatans under her tenacious and bullying tutelage. Among her team was climate con artist Stephen Schneider, biologist George Woodwell, and President Barack Obama’s science adviser, John HoldrenAll were “students” of Malthusian mad man Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.[2] 

In a 1974 Science magazine editorial Mead successfully forged a narrative that her Population Conference had settled the issue that population growth was very bad for the environment. From Hecht’s well-crafted article we learn that the U.S. National Institutes of Health: the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences were all in with Mead from the start. With a growing team Mead had the beating heart of a new “science” (climatology) to back up the scares. The goal was simple: policy-makers would be presented with such compelling “evidence” that they had to act, and fast, on man-made global warming.

All the bright and hopeful “Atoms for Peace” ideas of Franklin Roosevelt and of Dwight Eisenhower for a universal program of cheap, clean nuclear power to raise the living standards of all peoples was swept away. Suddenly “nuclear” became a dirty word. In its place Mead’s 1975 climate conference set a new agenda: world nations were to bow down to a new “Law of the Atmosphere” intended to stunt human scientific advance and industrial wealth creation for the masses.

Mead’s conference spin was that unless all citizens bowed down to these new environmental laws then “the whole planet may become endangered.” Mead proclaimed “I have asked a group of atmospheric specialists to meet here to consider how the very real threats to humankind and life on this planet can be stated with credibility and persuasiveness before the present society of nations begins to enact laws of the air, or plan for ‘international environmental impact statements.’ “

Working closely with her co-organizer William W. Kellogg (a climate scientist from RAND and later NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research), Mead declared they had won over a consensus of scientists. Then a year later Kellogg and Mead published a book selling the idea that each nation ”should control carbon dioxide emissions.” [3]

Climate scientist Stephen Schneider typified this new generation of activist “scientists” when he brazenly told Discover magazine in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

Schneider was a close friend of The Population Bomb‘s Paul Ehrlich and held a prominent role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). John Holdren, now Obama’s science guru, co-authored several articles and books with Ehrlich. Holdren’s stated goal was reduce the population of the United States from its current 302 million down to only 150 million people.

On Mead’s team was also prominent environmentalist, Dr. James Lovelock, best known as the creator of the Gaia thesis, which views the Earth as a whole as a living biological being. But Lovelock famously jumped ship in an interview with MSNBC in which he admitted he and his colleagues had been “alarmist.”

Kellogg’ and the others ramped up the sense of urgency and pending catastrophe: “To ignore the possibility of such changes is, in effect, a decision not to act. Then Woodwell’s presentation, “The Impact of Environmental Change on Human Ecology,” sounded the Chicken Little cry, “The fact that the toxic effects of human activities are spreading worldwide and reducing the structure of the biota is an indication that human activities at present exceed the capacity of the biosphere for repairing itself.”

*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part OnePart TwoPart ThreePart FourPart FivePart 6


[1] Margaret Mead, “World Population: World Responsibility,” Science,Sept. 27, 1974 (editorial), Vol. 185, No. 4157.

[2] The Population Bomb, published in 1968 repeated the discredited argument of the British East India Company’s Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) that population increases geometrically while food supply increases only arithmetically. Malthus was proved wrong by the development of fertilizers and scientific farming, industrialization, advances in biochemistry.

[3]The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering, Margaret Mead, Ph.D. and William W. Kellogg, Ph.D., eds. Fogarty International Center Proceedings No. 39, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHEW Publication No. [NIH] 77-1065).


Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6

  1. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5 | johnosullivan

  2. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 4 | johnosullivan

  3. Pingback: US National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part Three | johnosullivan

  4. Pingback: U.S. National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect (Part Two) | johnosullivan

  5. Pingback: Breaking: U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist | johnosullivan

  6. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6 « Skeptics Chillin'

  7. Pingback: controlling failures … | pindanpost

  8. GAI

    Actually it goes back a heck of a lot further than that.

    Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty

    ….In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — ….Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? …..

    Lamy goes on to say one of the roadblocks to geting rid of national sovereignty and implementing ” a new international order” now renamed Global Governance, is buy-in from the people to be ruled or legitimacy. That is the whole goal of the environmental movement and CAGW.

    Let’s face it Green Peace, PETA, Sierra Club and WWF would be stuck in Mom’s basement if it were not for the backing of very powerful people. People who happily told us in the 1950’s that pollution was “the price of progress” so why the turn around? Altruism, don’t make me laugh.

    Lamy tells us:

    ….For the international system is founded on the principle and politics of national sovereignty: the Wesphalian order of 1648 remains very much alive in the international architecture today. In the absence of a truly global government, global governance results from the action of sovereign States. It is inter-national. Between nations. In other words, global governance is the globalization of local governance.

    But it does not suffice…

    …The main challenge here is that the Westphalian order gives a premium to “naysayers” who can block decisions, thereby impeding results…. [In other worlds it blocks a World Government run by bureaucrats]

    The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy — for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”. By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community. This feeling, which is generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as distance to power systems grows. It finds its roots in common myths, a common history, and a collective cultural heritage. It is no surprise that taxation and redistribution policies remain mostly local!

    There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges…. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now…. [The Soviet Union experiment didn’t work so they pulled the plug and have decided to go with the EU experiment]

    Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice….

    …The world is in a state of serious distress. We are in the midst of the worst-ever economic crisis — and the first to have a global reach and which has seen a decimation of employment. [All nicely set-up by Bill Clinton as I showed in another comment ]

    We are seeing our planet deteriorate due to global warming. We see droughts and violent floods. We see entire islands disappearing under water. And we see nuclear proliferation, which poses a serious threat to world peace and security. [This is where Margaret Mead, CAGW and the nuclear scare enters, the stage]

    As we wonder what went wrong and search for urgent solutions, there is a place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tried following World War II — in Europe…..

    The challenge of global governance is distance — as legitimacy depends on closeness of the relationship between the individual and the decision-making process….

    …Whether public or private, governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive.

    It also needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions which lead to change — ownership to prevent the built-in bias towards resistance to modifying the status quo.

    In my opinion Lamy makes it very obvious why the world is now in “Serious Distress”

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” ~ Menchen 1922

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s