Five Hysterical Environmentalist Claims in Modern History
Tricks @ Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:47 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Full title: Here Are 5 Hysterical Environmentalist Claims in Modern History
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/11/ ... jZ3Rm5NcG1
It's a big article so I'm just posting a few juicy excerpts here.
THEY HAD A CONSENSUS!!!!
The quote is from Dr. Peter Gunter, a philosphy professor. Not a scientist. Next.https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/11/ ... jZ3Rm5NcG1
It's a big article so I'm just posting a few juicy excerpts here.
$1:
Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
Ah, yes, all the scientists agree that the world will end by the year 2000.
Ah, yes, all the scientists agree that the world will end by the year 2000.
THEY HAD A CONSENSUS!!!!
$1:
Moving along...
Yup, we have the charts and graphs that portend DooM!!!
What's interesting is this doesn't have to do with climate change. This was about nitrogen dioxide, lead, and other particulate pollutants. And we don't know if they were right, because 2 years later DDT was banned. Nitrogen dioxide (which was the concern, not C02) producing fertilizers had regulations put in place in the 1970 clean air act and leaded gasoline was also phased out in the 70s, after these predictions were made. The out cry forced the governments to bring in regulations, and things improved. Maybe the prediction would be wrong, seems weird to gloat that everyone didn't die after change happened though.$1:
Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support … the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution [and] by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.
Again, such remarkable accuracy from these all-knowing scientists.
Again, such remarkable accuracy from these all-knowing scientists.
Yup, we have the charts and graphs that portend DooM!!!
$1:
$1:
A recently resurfaced report from the Associated Press shows how an almost identical, but more precise, prediction was once made by a high-ranking United Nations official in 1989.
AP reported: “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, claimed in 1989 that human beings had a mere 10 years to stop the effects of global warming.
Brown said: “Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?”
Brown pronounced doom for Canada and the United States, where the entire East Coast would be flooded and conditions would be like the 1930s Dust Bowl.
AP reported: “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, claimed in 1989 that human beings had a mere 10 years to stop the effects of global warming.
Brown said: “Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?”
Brown pronounced doom for Canada and the United States, where the entire East Coast would be flooded and conditions would be like the 1930s Dust Bowl.
Dammit, kids...we've only got until NINETEEN YEARS AGO TO SAVE THE EARTH!!!!
$1:
Dr. Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University. He also holds a diploma in International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law.
Not a scientist. Also UNEP doesn't do research, they do policy initiatives. IPCC is the research arm. And since the claim is so old, I can't find any responses to it.
$1:
And here's a subject that keeps coming up here:
So.. not a scientist again. Why does the right put so much stock in what non-scientists say about scientific matters? Yeah the polar ice caps are still there, but they are shrinking. From actual scientists:$1:
Predictions about the polar ice caps melting have been common. Dramatic pictures of polar bears floating on tiny icebergs have been some of the iconic images of the climate change movement.
Former Vice President Al Gore said at a conference in 2009 that a scientist predicted a “75 percent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.”
In 2014, the ice caps were still there. In fact, it’s 2019 and the ice caps are still there.
Gore wasn’t the only one to make such bold prognostications about the future of Arctic ice.
In his book “A Farewell to Ice,” Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, predicted that polar ice in the Arctic would be gone by mid-decade.
Not only have the ice caps survived these predictions of doom, but they have occasionally grown in size. Between 2012 and 2016, Arctic ice increased from an average of 2.2 million square miles to 3.3 million square miles, according to The Telegraph.
Former Vice President Al Gore said at a conference in 2009 that a scientist predicted a “75 percent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.”
In 2014, the ice caps were still there. In fact, it’s 2019 and the ice caps are still there.
Gore wasn’t the only one to make such bold prognostications about the future of Arctic ice.
In his book “A Farewell to Ice,” Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, predicted that polar ice in the Arctic would be gone by mid-decade.
Not only have the ice caps survived these predictions of doom, but they have occasionally grown in size. Between 2012 and 2016, Arctic ice increased from an average of 2.2 million square miles to 3.3 million square miles, according to The Telegraph.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resour ... rea-graph/
Also, the scientist that Gore was "quoting" come out immediately afterwards and corrected that. But of course, that was ignored. I'll admit, his prediction was still wrong. In fact, other scientists chimed in and said that was too aggressive, and their prediction was closer to 2030.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/ ... ction.html
Then for Peter Wadhams. I was curious to see what he said when his prediction was wrong, which he basically said he was wrong, but still expected it to disappear. Other scientists have contested his claim (and the one quoted by gore) as being too aggressive, and while they agree the sea ice minimum will eventually reach zero, they don't expect it for upwards of another decade. I'm curious as to why you think that one bad prediction from someone that other scientists have publicly stated is making a bad prediction is some how proof that all science is wrong on the matter. In your mind, when a field of study gets something wrong, are they permanently wrong forever?
$1:
And the concurrence of leftards and climate doom has quite a history...
So how's that continental ice sheet working out for Canada? Do you folks feel like Climate Deniers because your reality is in conflict with Betty Friedan's dogmatic prediction of disaster?
Well, now I have to wonder what new (or old) apocalypse the leftards will come up with next.
![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
$1:
In 1958, Betty Friedan, one of the leading thinkers of radical, modern feminism, wrote an article in Harper’s magazine describing the “coming ice age.”
It seems the mixing of climate science and radical left-wing politics is nothing new.
Friedan based her article on the work of two scientists, geophysicist Maurice Ewing, director of Columbia University’s Lamont Geological Observatory, and geologist-meteorologist William Donn.
She explained how these scientists foresaw American port cities being drowned by rising oceans, and how a giant glacier would cover Europe and North America. The scientists described conditions by which the earth would dramatically warm and then cool, sending us into another ice age.
These scientists were more cautious in their predictions than others, but this didn’t stop Friedan from speculating that, based on their calculations about the rate of warming, a layman could conclude that “the Arctic Ocean will be open and the Ice Age [will] begin in another twenty years.”
It seems the mixing of climate science and radical left-wing politics is nothing new.
Friedan based her article on the work of two scientists, geophysicist Maurice Ewing, director of Columbia University’s Lamont Geological Observatory, and geologist-meteorologist William Donn.
She explained how these scientists foresaw American port cities being drowned by rising oceans, and how a giant glacier would cover Europe and North America. The scientists described conditions by which the earth would dramatically warm and then cool, sending us into another ice age.
These scientists were more cautious in their predictions than others, but this didn’t stop Friedan from speculating that, based on their calculations about the rate of warming, a layman could conclude that “the Arctic Ocean will be open and the Ice Age [will] begin in another twenty years.”
So how's that continental ice sheet working out for Canada? Do you folks feel like Climate Deniers because your reality is in conflict with Betty Friedan's dogmatic prediction of disaster?
Well, now I have to wonder what new (or old) apocalypse the leftards will come up with next.
Also not a scientist. Also the majority of scientists didn't ascribe to the global cooling theory, which I've personally proven several times on this forum, but you refuse to listen to it.
This is why the daily signal is shit. The present the first claims as a "professor" but don't bother to say professor of what hoping that it will be ignored and assumed to be a scientist. The second claim they completely ignore the legislative change that happened as a direct result of the outcry from the people over shitty practices that was fucking up the air. Third is not a scientist, and put in that he's from UNEP to fool people into thinking he would be an expert on the matter. It's political nonsense. Fourth is a combination of not a scientist, and scientists who were wrong that other scientists said had too aggressive of models. And 5th was not a scientist talking about a claim that has been repeatedly debunked as being a fringe theory.
xerxes @ Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:52 pm
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:12 am
Yeah right, that's what the Warministas are about - creating a better world.
DrCaleb @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:05 am
Tricks Tricks:
This is why the daily signal is shit. The present the first claims as a "professor" but don't bother to say professor of what hoping that it will be ignored and assumed to be a scientist. The second claim they completely ignore the legislative change that happened as a direct result of the outcry from the people over shitty practices that was fucking up the air. Third is not a scientist, and put in that he's from UNEP to fool people into thinking he would be an expert on the matter. It's political nonsense. Fourth is a combination of not a scientist, and scientists who were wrong that other scientists said had too aggressive of models. And 5th was not a scientist talking about a claim that has been repeatedly debunked as being a fringe theory.
'Science' is only science when it's possible to prove it false. The Climate Deniers have given up trying to prove it's false, because every time they try they can't. So they'll cherry pick some other science-y things, and put the words 'doctor' or 'professor' in front to give them credibility.
But as Tricks so beautifully demonstrated, all it takes is a little (very little I assume) work by an untrained amateur to show why reporters should never be trusted to report science, and which editors and publishers should be blamed when they damage they are doing to society is revealed.
Tricks @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:58 am
It took me about 20 minutes. I googled the quote or the name provided.
xerxes @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:31 am
...
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:54 am
Kind of depends on what you mean by "climate change" but...
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:37 am
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
'Science' is only science when it's possible to prove it false. The Climate Deniers have given up trying to prove it's false, because every time they try they can't. So they'll cherry pick some other science-y things, and put the words 'doctor' or 'professor' in front to give them credibility.
But as Tricks so beautifully demonstrated, all it takes is a little (very little I assume) work by an untrained amateur to show why reporters should never be trusted to report science, and which editors and publishers should be blamed when they damage they are doing to society is revealed.
But as Tricks so beautifully demonstrated, all it takes is a little (very little I assume) work by an untrained amateur to show why reporters should never be trusted to report science, and which editors and publishers should be blamed when they damage they are doing to society is revealed.
Hang on there, Mr. Puffy MacPuffedup...
Where did you get the idea that these hysterical predictions had to be from scientists - much less a consensus of scientists? Read the title of this thread again.
Now what have you got? Imagine that sound a balloon makes when you poke it with a pin. That's what you've got.
I'll tell you what though if you really want to impress us by dealing with predictions that fell flat from actual scientists I think I can help you out. Let's do them one at time.
There's the case of IPCC head Dr. Kevin Trenberth contradicting his hurricane expert Christopher Landsea and calling a press conference to which Dr. Landsea was not invited. There he proclaimed that larger, stronger and more rapidly occurring hurricanes were coming to the Atlantic coast. That became worldwide news.
No such hurricanes or landfall Atlantic hurricanes in general happened for over a decade.
How many more of those did you want to do your easy peasy Google-checks on. Do that one first though. Show me how Trenberth isn't a climate scientist or how what I just described didn't happen.
fifeboy @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:54 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Kind of depends on what you mean by "climate change" but...
Does anyone smell herring? Red herring!
Douwe @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:33 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Yeah right, that's what the Warministas are about - creating a better world.
You don't believe a world with cleaner air would be better? Interesting.
Douwe @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:43 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
No such hurricanes or landfall Atlantic hurricanes in general happened for over a decade.
But they have happened haven't they?
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 1924 to 1998 (74 years) - 22
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 2003 to 2018 (15 years) - 11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... hurricanes
Expect even more as the oceans continue to get warmer.
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:36 pm
Douwe Douwe:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Yeah right, that's what the Warministas are about - creating a better world.
You don't believe a world with cleaner air would be better? Interesting.
Define cleaner.
North America is cleaner today than it was - if you're talking about actual pollutants. Has nothing to do with global warming though.
If you mean CO2 I don't know why you'd find that dirty.
I saw an ad for something you might want to purchase though. It's for the true believer.
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:45 pm
Douwe Douwe:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
No such hurricanes or landfall Atlantic hurricanes in general happened for over a decade.
But they have happened haven't they?
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 1924 to 1998 (74 years) - 22
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 2003 to 2018 (15 years) - 11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... hurricanes
Expect even more as the oceans continue to get warmer.
You've got me confused.
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
Trenberth was giving a press conference for the IPCC in 2007 - 2 years after Katrina.
He warned stronger more frequent Atlantic Hurricanes like Katrina were coming as a result of global warming. So be scared was what he was getting at. There were no Category 5 Atlantic coast landfall hurricanes between then and last year when they returned. (Matthew was category 1 by the time it hit South Carolina) The prediction was incorrect.
That was my point. What was yours?
N_Fiddledog @ Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:23 pm
fifeboy fifeboy:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Kind of depends on what you mean by "climate change" but...
Does anyone smell herring? Red herring!
Depends on what you mean by red herring. I never know for sure what you "progressive" types are talking about because you change the meanings of things like you change your underwear - or at least like I would hope you change your underwear.
DrCaleb @ Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:36 am
Douwe Douwe:
But they have happened haven't they?
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 1924 to 1998 (74 years) - 22
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 2003 to 2018 (15 years) - 11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... hurricanes
Expect even more as the oceans continue to get warmer.
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 1924 to 1998 (74 years) - 22
Number of Category 5 hurricanes from 2003 to 2018 (15 years) - 11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... hurricanes
Expect even more as the oceans continue to get warmer.
Deniers are pretty good at cherry picking. You won't win a debate with them because of this.
"Well, there were no hurricanes over cat 3 In December of any year, therefore the prediction that I intentionally misquoted is wrong" - Denierism.
Just because a hurricane doesn't reach a certain intensity is lost on them, when hurricanes are 'stalling' over land and causing even greater damage than before. Ernesto for example hit the UK and Ireland. Michael did the most damage in South America. These fall outside of the cherry picked 'Atlantic' region and therefore "don't count" in whatever scoring system they use.