http://youtube.com/watch?v=GQR9vmVcB_k&mode=related&search=

The Little Ice Age, Part I

you can find the rest pretty easily

Part II:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kKuBAEvt4bE&mode=related&search=

Part III
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pVkdU3EMB2s&mode=related&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aZdZSpkfKG0
The Little Ice Age, Part I

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kKuBAEvt4bE
The Little Ice Age, Part II

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pVkdU3EMB2s&mode=related&search=
The Little Ice Age, Part III

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GQR9vmVcB_k&mode=related&search=
The Little Ice Age, PartIV

you can find the rest pretty easily

from the History Channel's "Little Ice Age"

--

Not so long ago, civilization learned that it was no match for just a few degrees drop in temperature. Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and two feet of snow fell on New England in June and July during "the Year Without a Summer". Could another catastrophic cold snap strike in the 21st century? Leading climatologists offer the latest theories, and scholars and historians recreate the history that could be a glimpse of things to come. Face the cold, hard truth of the past.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=173248

--

Perhaps the headline should be changed. These are not photos. They are rendered images. i.e. they are fake.

This is nothing more than typical media behavior. Nothing more than typical media distortion and really what it is, is constant focus on crisis. If somebody they think is credible, a scientist or an expert, comes out and says, "We got global warming. It's going to happen," you had a former vice president with a movie out there, they love it. It's crisis. It sells newspapers! It gets ratings! It promotes liberalism! It promotes big government! I don't think, folks, based on where some of our thermometers are that take official temperature readings in this country and around the world, I don't think we can possibly know for sure whether it's getting warmer or colder climate-wise worldwide. How can in the middle of global warming we set record lows in the summertime and have record highs in the winter? Some of these things just don't make sense. But aside from all that, you don't factor precipitation, you throw the sun out of the equation, and you only factor in rich countries and wealthy human beings and then point the finger of blame, you don't think that's liberalism? That's liberalism to its core, combined with a compliant media that is focused not on facts and truth and open exchange of ideas, but just promoting crisis, pure and simple. Don't fall for it. It's a hoax!

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth's surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning 'the earth is steadily growing warmer.' After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled 'Climate – the Heat May Be Off.' As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature. The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: 'A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.'"

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of 'geologists.' Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming -- it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be 'wiped out' or lower crop yields would mean 'billions will die.' Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting -- blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature. Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, 'Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.'

an analysis of the last 100 years of journalism on global warming puts the blame for all of this hysteria on global warming exactly where it belongs, and that is the media! Now, for a hundred years we've had wacko scientists trying to advance agendas, and if the agenda happens to fit the media -- and the agenda here, by the way, is chaos. The agenda is crisis. That is why in 1979, Newsweek had run a cover on global cooling, the coming ice age, and there was a cover story on some magazine of a glacier, totally surrounding Manhattan with only Empire State Building protruding. Just as today, Algore's movie has a flood wiping out Manhattan. It doesn't matter, global cooling, global warming; it's crisis; it's we're in trouble; it's we need big government to fix it; we need to punish people; we need to control their lives. People are causing this. It's been going on for 100 years.

Don’t be so negative, look on the bright side, we’ll be able to fish off buildings downtown.

http://earthvsman.tripod.com/id15.html

Buy land along the edge and get yourself a future waterfront view!

repent for the end is nigh. get on your knees and pray to the GW gods that they don't get pissed and burn your sinful, heathen asses.

repent you fools!!! offer up the blubbery albert arnold gore junior in sacrifice. get off of your evil computers. start shitting in the woods.

trade in your lawnmowers for goats.

start using dirt to wipe your asses. that depressing greedy capitalist sheryl crowe hates the earth and uses too much.

break your own bones if you have too. but godammmit!!!!!

repent!!!!!!

As bad as the effects will be here in the United States they will pale in comparison with the calamity much of the world faces. Think about Bangladesh and its 100 million people, China's coastlines, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Phillipines.
They will be devastated economically and many of them won't have the funds to build barriers or to relocate buildings and people to higher ground.

What we're going to witness is not a new page, but an old one, in the history of our planet. Climate change has always been with us; this time we're inducing it. And it will force mass migrations of people in search of higher ground, and arable land. It will cause conflict between those who are on the good land and those wanting it.

It's not the end of the world, but it will end the lives of many.

Is the ocean rising? Drive down Rt. 47 in South Jersey and visit the ex towns of Thompsons Beach or Mores Beach, they are no longer there. They were 25 years ago. Heading south on Rt. 47 in Middle Twp, look to your right and see all the large areas of dead deciduous trees that died in the past 25 years fro salt water intrusion.

Perhaps Huffpo should show the graph of future oil production from proven reserves and of futre oil usage.

Bad news guys.

the corporate stooges really hate this one. this hits them where they live. don't be confused by shills compiling a few climatological observations in a post. they think google makes them trained peer-respected scientists; because they don't know the difference between their own opinions and scientific method of formulating and testing hypotheses in objective conditions. peer reviewed research in the accepted journals of the fields is in consensus. human activity is a significant factor in changing the earth's environment in ways adverse to base requirements of human life: air, water, food.

you can google thousands of pieces of information that seem to contradict this finding- also that contradict relativity, evolution, quantum physics, neurology, psychology, etc. any 3 or 4 of them can make quite an impression. the main thing to remember is: if you were sick, would you go to one of these corporatist shills and have him google what he should do to you? or would you go to a doctor who has been trained in medical science- a doctor? or someone who googles quotes from doctors?

the danger is that the likes of huge world polluters like alcoa, dow, rhone-poulenc, gazprom, india, russia, the US, and china.. can create pseudo science like the nazis did to suit their needs. this is what you are reading. possibly these shills are hobby posters- but they are certainly fueled by an organized campaign by major industry and the polluter states of the united states, india, and china to create false science that protects their activity.

we who understand that we are not climatologists, meteorologists, or geophysicists- and further that very specific research praxis within even these broad disciplines is required to even formulate a worthy research objective- are at a disadvantage, as usual, intelligence being a recessive trait. but let us not be misled by fascist science trying to protect heavy industry and it's home in backward nations.