“Global Warming” is, and alwayswas, a policy for genocidal reduc-

tion of the world’s population. The pre-posterous claim that human-producedcarbon dioxide will broil the Earth, meltthe ice caps, and destroy human life,came out of a 1975 conference inResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina,organized by the influential anthropolo-gist Margaret Mead, president of theAmerican Association for theAdvancement of Science(AAAS), in 1974.

Mead—whose 1928 book onthe sex life of South PacificIslanders was later found to be afraud—recruited like-mindedanti-population hoaxsters to thecause: Sow enough fear of man-caused climate change to forceglobal cutbacks in industrialactivity and halt Third Worlddevelopment. Mead’s leadingrecruits at the 1975 conferencewere climate scare artist StephenSchneider, population-freak biol-ogist George Woodwell, and thecurrent AAAS president JohnHoldren—all three of them disci-ples of Malthusian fanatic PaulEhrlich, author of The Popula-tion Bomb.1 Guided by luminar-ies like these, conference discus-sion focussed on the absurdchoice of either feeding peopleor “saving the environment.”

Mead began organizing for herconference, “The Atmosphere:Endangered and Endangering,”shortly after she had attendedthe United Nations PopulationConference in Bucharest,Romania, in August 1974. Shehad already bullied Americanscientists with her Malthusianview that people were imperil-ing the environment. She wrotein a 1974 Science magazineeditorial that the Population

Conference had settled this question:

At Bucharest it was affirmed that con-tinuing, unrestricted worldwide popu-lation growth can negate any socio-economic gains and fatally imperil theenvironment.... The earlier extremeviews that social and economic jus-tice alone can somehow offset popu-lation increase and that the mere pro-vision of contraception can sufficient-

ly reduce population—weredefeated.2

The North Carolina conference, whichtook place Oct. 26-29, 1975, was co-sponsored by two agencies of the U.S.National Institutes of Health: the John E.Fogarty International Center for AdvancedStudy in the Health Sciences and theNational Institute of Environmental HealthSciences. (Mead had been a Scholar in

Residence at the Fogarty Centerin 1973.)

It was at this government-sponsored conference, 32 yearsago, that virtually every scarescenario in today’s climate hoaxtook root. Scientists werecharged with coming up with the“science” to back up the scares,so that definitive action could betaken by policy-makers.

Global cooling—the comingof an ice age—had been in theheadlines in the 1970s, but itcould not easily be used to sellgenocide by getting the citizensof industrial nations to cut backon consumption. Somethingmore drastic and more personalwas needed.

Eugenics and The Paradigm Shift

Mead’s population-controlpolicy was firmly based in thepost-Hitler eugenics movement,which took on the more palat-able names of “conservation”and “environmentalism” in thepost-World War II period. AsJulian Huxley, the vice presidentof Britain’s Eugenics Society(1937-1944), had announced in1946, “even though it is quitetrue that radical eugenic policywill be for many years political-ly and psychologically impossi-ble, it will be important forUNESCO to see that the eugenicproblem is examined with the

64 Fall 2007 21st CENTURY Science & Technology SPECIAL REPORT

1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference

Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Bornby Marjorie Mazel Hecht

SPECIAL REPORT

Jack Manning/NYTimes Pictures

Anthropologist Margaret Mead gave global warming its start,as part of a movement to curb population growth. Here sheposes at the Museum of Natural History in front of an EasterIsland stone figure. Mead is famous for saying, “Instead ofneeding lots of children, we need high-quality children.”

greatest care and that the public mind isinformed of the issues at stake so thatmuch that now is unthinkable may at leastbecome thinkable.” Huxley was thendirector-general of the United NationsEducational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO).

By the 1970s, the paradigm shift thatobliterated the optimistic developmentpolicies of Franklin Roosevelt and ofDwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace”program, was in full swing. The Club ofRome’s Limits to Growth, whichremoved the role of scientific advances,was drummed into the public con-sciousness. Nuclear energy, in particu-lar, was under attack, because of itspromise of virtually unlimited cheapenergy to support a growing population.In the guise of protecting the world frompotential terrorism, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibited develop-ing countries from acquiring civiliannuclear technologies.

In the United States, where nuclearplant construction was poised for takeoff,the dream of a nuclear-powered economywas under ferocious attack from the topdown. The real “Dr. Strangelove,” RANDnuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter,counseled U.S. Presidents on his strategyfor winning a nuclear war, at the sametime that he advocated an end to civiliannuclear energy. In one report after anoth-er, “experts” paid by the Ford Foundation,among others, argued that nuclear powerwas not economical, not safe, and justplain no good. Thus was scientific opti-mism ushered out.

The rock-sex-drugs counterculture ofthe ’68ers lapped it up. Man was seen asjust another animal, but an exceedinglygreedy one, using up Mother Nature’sresources and making a mess in theprocess. The unique cognitive ability ofthe human being, with its power to createnew resources, to develop moreadvanced science and technology, andthus to provide better living standardswas trashed.3 Scientific pessimism invad-ed the scientific organizations.

Mead played a central role in thisdegeneration, from her obsession withspreading the “free love” message, to herparticipation in mind-control projects(the Cybernetics group at MIT) with herthird husband, Gregory Bateson, intellec-tual author of the infamous MK-Ultradrug-brainwashing program.

The Endangered Atmosphere?Mead’s keynote to the 1975 climate

conference set the agenda: Mankind hadadvanced over the years to have interna-tional laws governing the sea and theland; now was the time for a “Law of theAtmosphere.” It was a naked solicitationof lying formulations to justify an end tohuman scientific and industrial progress.

Mead stated:

Unless the peoples of the world canbegin to understand the immense andlong-term consequences of whatappear to be small immediate choic-es—to drill a well, open a road, builda large airplane, make a nuclear test,install a liquid fast breeder reactor,release chemicals which diffusethroughout the atmosphere, or dis-charge waste in concentrated amountsinto the sea—the whole planet maybecome endangered....

At this conference we are proposingthat, before there is a correspondingattempt to develop a “law of the air,”the scientific community advise theUnited Nations (and individual, pow-erful nation states or aggregations ofweaker states) and attempt to arrive atsome overview of what is presentlyknown about hazards to the atmos-phere from manmade interventions,and how scientific knowledge cou-pled with intelligent social action can

protect the peoples of the world fromdangerous and preventable interfer-ence with the atmosphere upon whichall life depends....

What we need from scientists areestimates, presented with sufficientconservatism and plausibility but atthe same time as free as possible frominternal disagreements that can beexploited by political interests, thatwill allow us to start building a systemof artificial but effective warnings,warnings which will parallel theinstincts of animals who flee beforethe hurricane, pile up a larger store ofnuts before a severe winter, or ofcaterpillars who respond to impendingclimatic changes by growing thickercoats [sic].

Mead deplored the fact that some scien-tists might be so cautious to “protect theirreputations” that they would not act. Shedescribed this as the “modern equivalentof fiddling while Rome burns.” As for thethinking population, she deplored “thosewho react against prophets of doom,believing that there is not adequate scien-tific basis for their melancholy prophecies,[for they] tend to become in turn prophetsof paradisical impossibilities, guaranteedutopias of technological bliss, or benigninterventions on behalf of mankind thatare none the less irrational just becausethey are couched as ’rational.’ Theyexpress a kind of faith in the built-inhuman instinct for survival, or a faith insome magical technological panacea.”

What Scientists Need to ’Invent’Here’s what Mead wanted the atmos-

pheric scientists to do:

What we need to invent—as responsi-ble scientists—are ways in which far-sightedness can become a habit of thecitizenry of the diverse peoples of thisplanet. This, of course, poses a set oftechnical problems for social scien-tists, but they are helpless without ahighly articulate and responsibleexpression of position on the part ofnatural scientists. Only if natural sci-entists can develop ways of makingtheir statements on the present state ofdanger credible to each other can wehope to make them credible (andunderstandable) to social scientists,politicians, and the citizenry.

...I have asked a group of atmos-pheric specialists to meet here to con-

SPECIAL REPORT 21st CENTURY Science & Technology Fall 2007 65

Stuart Lewis/EIRNS

Paul Ehrlich, a 20th Century Malthus,author of the prophetically wrong book,The Population Bomb. Ehrlich’s ideologyis shared by the leading global warmingscientists who attended Mead’s 1975conference.

sider how the very realthreats to humankind andlife on this planet can bestated with crediblity andpersuasiveness before thepresent society of nationsbegins to enact laws ofthe air, or plan for “inter-national environmentalimpact statements.”

Throughout her presenta-tion, Mead stressed the needfor consensus, an end-prod-uct free from any troubling“internal scientific controversies” thatmight “blur the need for action.”

Mead and her co-organizer William W.Kellogg (a climate scientist from RANDand later NCAR, the National Center forAtmospheric Research), edited a reporton the proceedings of the conference intoa little book published a year later.4 (TheMead-Kellogg team also came up, in1976, with the idea that carbon dioxideemissions should be controlled “byassigning polluting rights to eachnation”5—an early version of the cap-and-trade program of Al Gore.)

The conference proceedings identifythe presenters and the rapporteurs for thesessions, but there is no list of all the par-ticipants. Some discord is reported in theaudience (more than is “allowed” todayin climate change circles!), and MargaretMead steps in to push for “consensus.”The editors note in their initial commenton the proceedings, “... we believe thatwe have captured something very closeto consensus.”

Mead’s Propagandist Scientists A few of the 1975 conference presen-

ters stand out today as leading spokes-men for global warming:

• Climate scientist Stephen Schneider,who was promoting the global coolingscare scenario in the 1970s, made him-self notorious by telling Discover maga-zine in 1989: “To capture the publicimagination, we have to offer up somescary scenarios, make simplified dramat-ic statements and little mention of anydoubts one might have. Each of us has todecide the right balance between beingeffective, and being honest.”6

Schneider has been one of the mostvisible and voluble scientist-lobbyists forglobal warming, testifying to Congress,playing a prominent role in the Inter-

governmental Panelon Climate Change(IPCC), and setting thestandards by which itpresents its opinionsto the public withoutany hint of uncer-tainty. At StanfordUniversity he hastrained new genera-tions of climate scareclones. He is also aclose friend of ThePopulation Bomb’s Paul Ehrlich and wife,Anne Ehrlich, both at Stanford, whoseanti-population philosophy he fullyshares. He and Paul Ehrlich co-authoredarticles on the “limited carrying capacity”of the Earth, and challenged populationadvocate Julian Simon with a bet on howfast man would exhaust certain resources.

• John Holdren, another Ehrlich collab-orator at Stanford, is now a Harvard-basedenergy specialist, and the president of theAAAS. Holdren has co-authored severalarticles and books with Paul Ehrlich, elab-orating on their formula (I = PAT) that theimpact of an increase in population andconsumption (affluence), although modi-fied by technology, is degrading the envi-ronment. Therefore, population growthshould stop. Their underlying assumption,like Mead’s, was that technology cannotsolve the problems created by “limitless”population growth. (Ehrlich’s view, in fact,is that the United States can sustain only150 million people; there are now 302million of us.)

In December 2006, Holdren shepherd-ed a radical global warming resolutionthrough the AAAS board of directors,which was announced at the organiza-tion’s annual meeting in February 2007,the first ever of such resolutions.7 Its con-

clusions, the AAAS stated,“reflect the scientific consen-sus represented by, for exam-ple, the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change....”

Holdren is one of a smallgroup of anti-nuclear “nuclearexperts” who push technolog-ical apartheid—the doctrinethat poorer nations cannot beallowed to gain knowledge ofnuclear science.

• Dr. George Woodwell, amember of the National Academy ofSciences and a Fellow of the Academy ofArts and Sciences, is a global warmingfanatic whose stated beliefs indicate thathe abhors human beings in general, andwhose zealousness in this cause leads himto bend the truth. Woodwell works close-ly with John Holdren at the Woods HoleResearch Center, which Woodwell found-ed and of which Holden is a director.

To get the flavor of Woodwell’s views:In a 1996 interview, he proclaimed: “Wehad an empty world that substantially ranitself as a biophysical system, and nowthat we have filled it up with people, andthe sum of human endeavors which islarge enough to affect global systems, itno longer works properly.”8 He attributesclimatic changes and warming to “thecrowding of people into virtually everycorner of the Earth.” “How will his planfor a 50 percent cut in [carbon dioxide]emissions happen?” the interviewer asks.Woodwell says it will require “a concert-ed effort on the part of the scientific andscholarly community; the public willhave to be sufficiently enraged....” Hestresses that the scientific community isgoing to have to exert pressure on thegovernment to act.

Woodwell’s 1989 article on global

66 Fall 2007 21st CENTURY Science & Technology SPECIAL REPORT

IISD

Stephen Schneider George Woodwell

John Holdren

Three of Mead’s scientistswho have preached globalwarming and populationcontrol since the 1975 con-ference. All have workedclosely with Paul Ehrlich,who thinks the the U.S.population should be cutin half (not starting with hisfamily and friends, ofcourse).

warming in Scientific American was illus-trated with a drawing that showed sea-water lapping at the steps of the WhiteHouse.

Another example of his “bending” thetruth: During the environmentalist cam-paign against DDT, Woodwell wrote atechnical article for Science magazine in1967 purporting to show that there were13 pounds of DDT per acre of soil. Heneglected to mention, however, that hemeasured the soil at the spot where theDDT spray trucks washed down! Thisdetail came out in his sworn testimony atthe official EPA hearings on DDT in 1972,but neither Woodwell nor Science maga-zine issued a retraction.9

• Dr. James Lovelock is best known asthe inventor (in the 1970s) of the Gaiathesis, which views the Earth as a wholeas a living biological being. Lovelock’sworry about global warming has led himto make dire predictions about what willhappen: “Before this century is over, bil-lions of us will die, and the few breedingpairs of people that survive will be in theArctic where the climate remains tolera-ble,” according to one of his scenarios.10

But unlike the three other scientistsabove, who attended the 1975 Mead con-ference, Lovelock has called for nuclearpower to slow the disaster that he warns iscoming. Again, unlike the three others,Lovelock sees mankind as a “resource” forthe planet, its “heart and mind.”

During the 1975 Mead conference,Lovelock occasionally pooh-poohedsome of the more hysterical suggesteddisasters of man-made warming. In a dis-cussion on ozone depletion, for example,Lovelock strongly criticized the NationalAcademy of Sciences report of the com-ing danger of skin cancers from increasedultraviolet radiation. “To speak of ultravi-olet radiation as analogous to nuclearradiation is most misleading,” he said.

(During this discussion, the report ofthe proceedings says, Mead called for a“ ’ceasefire’ in an attempt to avoid a pre-mature polarization of the participants.”Referring to the uncertainty of potentialeffects, she stated, “The time intervalrequired before we begin to see clear evi-dence of a particular manmade effect onthe environment may be long comparedto the time in which society has to act....A decision by policy-makers not to act inthe absence of scientific information orexpertise is itself a policy decision, and

for scientists there is no possibility forinaction, except to stop being scientists.”)

‘Anticipating’ Global WarmingMead’s co-editor of the proceedings,

climatologist William Kellogg, notes that“the main purpose of this conference is toanticipate the call that will be made onscientists and leaders of governmentregarding the need to protect the atmos-pheric environment before these calls aremade.”

Kellogg outlines the difficulties of com-puter modelling of climate change andman’s role because of the nonlinearitiesinvolved in climate, but he concludesthat climate models “are really the onlytools we have to determine such things.”He then states, “The important point tobear in mind is that mankind surely hasalready affected the climate of vastregions, and quite possibly of the entireearth, and that its ever escalating popula-tion and demand for energy and food willproduce larger changes in the yearsahead.”

Kellogg reviews the potential globalwarming disaster scenarios, which areactually what then became the scientificresearch agenda for the next 30 years. Hehimself had put forward arguments thatthe release of the energy necessary tosupport a “large, affluent world popula-tion could possibly warm up the earthexcessively.”

The issues Kellogg laid out are all toofamiliar today: warming that will melt“the Arctic Ocean ice pack and the icesheets of Greenland and the Antarctic.”

“What will happen to themean sea level and thecoastal cities around theworld?” Kellogg asks.

Increased carbon dioxidewas high on the list of man-related climate change dis-asters. It was admitted thatthere might be other factorsinvolved, but, “It is con-cluded that, in cases wherethe societal risk is great,one should therefore act asif the unaccounted-foreffects had been included,since we have no way ofdismissing the very possi-bility that the calculatedeffect will prevail.”

In the Conference sum-mary of recommendations,

Kellogg’s thrust is repeated: Scientists andpolicy-makers must act now on man-caused climate change. “To ignore thepossibility of such changes is, in effect, adecision not to act.”

John Holdren repeated this idea: “Howclose are we to the danger point?” of eco-logical collapse, he asked. But then hewent on to say that it doesn’t matter,because we need to act now. He stated:

We already have reached the scale ofhuman intervention that rivals thescale of natural processes....Furthermore, many of these forms ofintervention will lead to observableadverse effects only after time lags,measured in years, decades, or evencenturies. By the time the character ofthe damage is obvious, remedialaction will be difficult or impossible.Some kinds of adverse effects may bepractically irreversible....

Should We Feed People?One of the most telling discussions

concerned the view of man as just anoth-er species competing for resources. Thereport of the summary session of the firstday of the conference stated “that we as aspecies are trying to maintain ourselves atthe expense of other species; there seemsto be a conflict between preservingnature and feeding the rapidly increasingpopulation. Is our major objective reallyto feed the population, or do we realizewe cannot continue to feed the world atany price? Where do we strike a balancebetween preserving nature and feeding

SPECIAL REPORT 21st CENTURY Science & Technology Fall 2007 67

James Lovelock, a global warming alarmist, hasadvocated nuclear energy as a preventative measure,which has grieved his fellow greens. Behind him isa statue of Gaia, the Earth goddess for whom henamed his theory of the Earth as a biological being.

the world?” Stephen Schneider’s presentation,

“Climatic Variability and Its Impact onFood Production,” sounds the alarm:

There is a further fear that mankind’sindustrial and energy productionactivities may affect the climate andlead to enhanced probabilities ofextreme variability. Thus the food-climate crisis could be very near-termand of major significance.... Thesmallest impact, and one we havealready seen, is the triggering of high-er prices for food by crop failures inone nation, such as the USSR in 1972,which had to be made up by NorthAmerica.... Simultaneous crop failuresin North America and the USSR couldlead to even higher prices and wide-spread starvation throughout theworld. Some estimates predict thatupwards of 100 million people indeveloping countries could starve,while the more affluent countrieswould be just inconvenienced by asignificant crop failure in NorthAmerica.

As a gauge of the immorality of the con-ference participants, Schneider felt com-pelled to assert that “national energy andfood policies must start with the assump-tion that population control by mass star-vation or nuclear war is untenable”!

Like the other presenters at the confer-ence, and the global warming factiontoday, Schneider fails to see how curbson science and industry will kill peopleby preventing the economic develop-ment that permits a higher relative poten-tial population density. Advances in sci-ence and technology are mentioned, butusually in the context of better energysavers and conservation, not in allowingmore people to be supported at a betterstandard of living on a given amount ofland.

Woodwell’s presentation, “The Impactof Environmental Change on HumanEcology,” is even more alarmist. Hewrites:

A careful analysis of the extent towhich the earth’s net primary produc-tion is being used directly in supportof man leads to the conclusion that, atpresent, as much as 50 percent of thenet production is being used in sup-port of human food supplies.... The

fact that the toxic effects of humanactivities are spreading worldwide andreducing the structure of the biota isan indication that human activities atpresent exceed the capacity of thebiosphere for repairing itself.

The Noösphere to the Rescue Thirty-two years after this 1975 confer-

ence, the world’s population, its scienceand technology, and its industry are dan-gerously in the grasp of Margaret Mead’sminions, including those on the IPCC. Agood part of the population is scared, asplanned, by the potential effects ofhuman-caused global warming. They areready to react, as Mead demanded, to“warnings which will parallel theinstincts of animals who flee before thehurricane,” and in the process tear downthe very institutions and technologies thatcan obviate the perceived “limits togrowth.”

In the intervening 32 years, most of ourscientific institutions have been takenover by an anti-science ideology, typifiedby the views of a Stephen Schneider or aJohn Holdren. How can there be a sci-ence when the mind and its capacity forcreativity is denied, when man is putequal to beast, and when man’s advance-ments are perceived as ruining the pris-tine confines of a limited world? Suchpessimism is a formula for a “no future”world.

The question remains, will the reser-voir of sanity, in particular in today’syouth, who did not live through thegreenwashing of the 1970s and 1980s, beable to force reality—climate reality andfinancial reality—on the rest of the popu-lation? Will the Noösphere, man’s cre-ative ability to change the Biosphere, pre-vail?

Notes ___________________________________1. The Population Bomb, published in 1968, was a

campus bestseller among the 1968er genera-tion. Ehrlich employs the repeatedly discreditedargument of the British East India Company’sParson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) that popu-lation increases geometrically while food supplyincreases only arithmetically. Malthus wasproved wrong in his own lifetime by the devel-opment of fertilizers and scientific farming, andrepeatedly thereafter by the application of suc-cessive advances in mechanization, chemistry,and biochemistry to agriculture.

Describing the spirit of “gloom and misan-thropy” into which the English population hadfallen following the dashing of their hopes forprogress in the French Revolution, Malthus’sopponent Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote:“Inquiries into moral and political science, have

become little else than vain attempts to reviveexploded superstitions, or sophisms like thoseof Mr. Malthus.” (Author’s introduction to “TheRevolt of Islam,” 1818.)

2. Margaret Mead, “World Population: WorldResponsibility,” Science, Sept. 27, 1974 (editori-al), Vol. 185, No. 4157. The only opposition tothe Rockefeller/Club of Rome policy presentedat the Bucharest conference came from HelgaZepp-LaRouche.

3. See, for example, “The New EnvironmentalistEugenics,” by Rob Ainsworth, EIR, March 30, 2007,www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-13/pdf/36-46_713_ainsworth.pdf

4. The Atmosphere: Endangered andEndangering, Margaret Mead, Ph.D. andWilliam W. Kellogg, Ph.D., eds. FogartyInternational Center Proceedings No. 39, 1976(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, DHEW Publication No. [NIH] 77-1065).

5. Cited in P.C. Sinha, Atmospheric Pollution andClimate Change (Anmol Publications PVT,1998).

6. Schneider made this statement in an interviewwith Discover magazine, October 1989.

7. The text of the shamefully unscientific AAASresolution, which closely follows Mead’s 1975prescription, reads in part: “The scientific evi-dence is clear: global climate change caused byhuman activities is occurring now, and it is agrowing threat to society. Accumulating datafrom across the globe reveal a wide array ofeffects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilizationof major ice sheets, increases in extremeweather, rising sea level, shifts in speciesranges, and more. The pace of change and theevidence of harm have increased markedly overthe last five years. The time to control green-house gas emissions is now.

“The atmospheric concentration of carbondioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher thanit has been for at least 650,000 years. The aver-age temperature of the Earth is heading for lev-els not experienced for millions of years.... Asexpected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms isoccurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerableecosystems and societies. These events areearly warning signs of even more devastatingdamage to come, some of which will be irre-versible.

“Delaying action to address climate changewill increase the environmental and societalconsequences as well as the costs....Developing clean energy technologies will pro-vide economic opportunities and ensure futureenergy supplies.

“The growing torrent of information presents aclear message: we are already experiencingglobal climate change. It is time to muster thepolitical will for concerted action. Stronger lead-ership at all levels is needed. The time is now.We must rise to the challenge. We owe this tofuture generations.”

8. www.annonline.com/interviews/961217/ 9. Woodwell’s original article is “DDT Residues in

an East Coast Estuary: A Case of BiologicalConcentration of a Persistent Insecticide,”Science, May 12, 1967, pp. 821-824. His admis-sion that there was only 1 pound of DDT foundper acre appears in the transcript of the EPA’s1972 hearings on DDT, p. 7,232. He also man-aged to measure DDT in the forests at a site nearan airstrip where crop-dusting airplanes testedand calibrated their DDT spraying equipment.

10. Lovelock’s commentary in the Independent,Jan. 16, 2006, summarizes his views. http://com-ment. independent.co.uk/commentators /article338830.ece

68 Fall 2007 21st CENTURY Science & Technology SPECIAL REPORT