Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

13 failed predictions from the 1st Earth Day


Merc14

Recommended Posts

April 22nd was Earth Day and--as expected--the celebration focused primarily on the potential catastrophic dangers of global warming. But, fortunately, Jon Gabriel, the editor of the conservative website Ricochet has collected a long list of some of the dire warnings environmental disaster made by climate alarmists since Earth Day began in 1970, all of which turned out not to come to fruition (check out #13 :w00t: ):

  1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
  2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  3. “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”New York Times editorial
  4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [by 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
  6. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  7. “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.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  8. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”Life magazine
  9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
  11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.”Newsweek Magazine
  13. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

Original located here: http://www.mrctv.org...he#.qxaikm:lyXp

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"since Earth Day began in 1970, all of which turned out not to come to fruition"

Perhaps none came to fruition because of the implementation of Earth Day and a more conscientious effort to thwart the disasters listed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"since Earth Day began in 1970, all of which turned out not to come to fruition"

Perhaps none came to fruition because of the implementation of Earth Day and a more conscientious effort to thwart the disasters listed?

You're a bit optimistic thinking that turning the lights off for an hour one evening a year has influenced people's thinking enough to avert ecological disaster.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a bit optimistic thinking that turning the lights off for an hour one evening a year has influenced people's thinking enough to avert ecological disaster.

I am A LOT optimistic, but that comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything.

Flat earth theorists are often verbally abusive.

What :hmm: ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flat earth theorists are often verbally abusive.

What are you talking about? Explain quickly before this ice age freezes you solid.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of those people are not and were not scientists and none were climatologists. The list includes an eye doctor, a philosopher and several magazines. Only Paul Ehrlich actually had any expertise in an environmental field (He was a population ecologist.).

Several of those statements were flat out wrong to begin with. During the entire 20th century, there never was a 20-year cooling period. And the air is 80% nitrogen, so what's the big issue with nitrogen? The quotations attributed to Kenneth Watt are so bad I have to wonder if they actually originated with him. Who did your fact checking?

Though ecology is an environmental science, it is not climatology. While a climate catastrophe would also be an ecological catastrophe, it doesn't necessarily work in reverse. We could easily precipitate ecological crisis without much affecting the climate.

If anything, your article serves to underscore the lack of understanding of climate issues by yourself and the general public. Now why don't you tell us what the science says?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of those people are not and were not scientists and none were climatologists. The list includes an eye doctor, a philosopher and several magazines. Only Paul Ehrlich actually had any expertise in an environmental field (He was a population ecologist.).

Several of those statements were flat out wrong to begin with. During the entire 20th century, there never was a 20-year cooling period. And the air is 80% nitrogen, so what's the big issue with nitrogen?

If anything, your quotes serve to underscore the lack of understanding of climate issues by yourself and the general public.

Doug

In the 70's we did not have the world at our fingertips via the internet to check credentials and read peer reviewed papers. All we had was newspaper and magazine articles, network news and speakers going around the country espousing their opinions...loudly. Activists were going to save the planet by doing away with those nasty, tree killing paper bags and take us to the "environmentally friendly" plastic bags. We all know how well that turned out. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical about jumping to restrict anything and everything that is the "demon" of today without thorough research. Public opinion, aka those who shout the loudest, is not the best way to go about restructuring or shutting down major industries.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of those people are not and were not scientists and none were climatologists. The list includes an eye doctor, a philosopher and several magazines. Only Paul Ehrlich actually had any expertise in an environmental field (He was a population ecologist.).

Several of those statements were flat out wrong to begin with. During the entire 20th century, there never was a 20-year cooling period. And the air is 80% nitrogen, so what's the big issue with nitrogen? The quotations attributed to Kenneth Watt are so bad I have to wonder if they actually originated with him. Who did your fact checking?

Though ecology is an environmental science, it is not climatology. While a climate catastrophe would also be an ecological catastrophe, it doesn't necessarily work in reverse. We could easily precipitate ecological crisis without much affecting the climate.

If anything, your article serves to underscore the lack of understanding of climate issues by yourself and the general public. Now why don't you tell us what the science says?

Doug

They were pretty much running things and the scientists have long since bowed to the pressure and jumped on board the money train of AGW. No one may question AGW theory without being attacked and threatened with various punishments or simply ridiculed if their job isn't involved. This kind of behavior signals that AGW is no longer science, it is religion. Science ALWAYS questions theories but religion, like AGW, punishes the heretics.

Of course, the crowd of heretics is growing daily as more and more holes are punched in the AGW theory. 18 years and 4 months now woth zero GW. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/06/global-warming-pause-continues-temperature-standstill-lengthens-to-18-years-4-months/

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing does seem very much like a religion, I have to agree. Perhaps the climate change experts might like to consider that they might be the ones at fault for not getting their message across, or perhaps getting their message across too melodramatically so that their utterances are viewed with skepticism, rather than saying that it's all far too complicated to expect the public to understand, but they'll just have to trust the Experts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 70's we did not have the world at our fingertips via the internet to check credentials and read peer reviewed papers. All we had was newspaper and magazine articles, network news and speakers going around the country espousing their opinions...loudly. Activists were going to save the planet by doing away with those nasty, tree killing paper bags and take us to the "environmentally friendly" plastic bags. We all know how well that turned out. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical about jumping to restrict anything and everything that is the "demon" of today without thorough research. Public opinion, aka those who shout the loudest, is not the best way to go about restructuring or shutting down major industries.

I don't blame you. Check out the facts before making up your mind. But a great many people make up their minds and never get around to checking out the facts. That's what I'm criticizing.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were pretty much running things and the scientists have long since bowed to the pressure and jumped on board the money train of AGW. No one may question AGW theory without being attacked and threatened with various punishments or simply ridiculed if their job isn't involved. This kind of behavior signals that AGW is no longer science, it is religion. Science ALWAYS questions theories but religion, like AGW, punishes the heretics.

Of course, the crowd of heretics is growing daily as more and more holes are punched in the AGW theory. 18 years and 4 months now woth zero GW. http://www.climatede...years-4-months/

Where is all this money you keep talking about? For the first time in my life, I just made it to the median income level. The truth is that environmental science doesn't pay well. But I knew that when I went into the field, so I have no complaints. But from my POV, that money bit is so much hype. Besides, there are lots of opportunities in related fields. One can always make some money there while continuing with climate research. Sometimes a climate study can "piggy-back:" on another study, like creating tree ring chronologies from data obtained in a silviculture study.

By all means question AGW. But do it using the science. If you think something is wrong, tell us what research supports your idea. When I give an explanation of something that you disagree with, present some research that disagrees with me. At least, create the impression that you have actually read the material and know what you're talking about.

To shout loudly that you think something is BS and then not be able to support your opinion is to invite (and deserve) ridicule. If AGW is "full of holes," identify those holes and tell us why.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

They were pretty much running things and the scientists have long since bowed to the pressure and jumped on board the money train of AGW. No one may question AGW theory without being attacked and threatened with various punishments or simply ridiculed if their job isn't involved. This kind of behavior signals that AGW is no longer science, it is religion. Science ALWAYS questions theories but religion, like AGW, punishes the heretics.

Of course, the crowd of heretics is growing daily as more and more holes are punched in the AGW theory. 18 years and 4 months now woth zero GW. http://www.climatede...years-4-months/

Merc you have never actually questioned it in any meaningful way, preferring to repeat the old AGW money train mantra as if it actually relates to reality. Refute the science if you really think it is wrong but otherwise keep your politically motivated rants to yourself.

And if you really want to we could look into why our 18yrs and 4mths is just another cherry picked time period which falls apart with fair analysis.

You never seem to assimilate the evidence when your latest pet theory is proven wrong, such is the ideological approach to reality.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't blame you. Check out the facts before making up your mind. But a great many people make up their minds and never get around to checking out the facts. That's what I'm criticizing.

Doug

I'm not educated enough, on this particular subject, where I can make decision without relying on experts. I've read expert testimony from both sides and can't decide who is being bought and who is giving an honest, educated opinion. When people have an agenda they will go to great lengths to convince others of their sincerity and superior knowledge. I especially don't like the global warming alarmists approach with villainizing anyone who has doubts. This only causes people to dig in their heels and stand their ground. In my opinion, that attitude has been extremely detrimental to the cause and set us back. When people are sitting on the fence you don't push them to the other side by insulting them.

I can clearly see why this is losing support and as an environmentalist it makes me angry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

I'm not educated enough, on this particular subject, where I can make decision without relying on experts. I've read expert testimony from both sides and can't decide who is being bought and who is giving an honest, educated opinion. When people have an agenda they will go to great lengths to convince others of their sincerity and superior knowledge. I especially don't like the global warming alarmists approach with villainizing anyone who has doubts. This only causes people to dig in their heels and stand their ground. In my opinion, that attitude has been extremely detrimental to the cause and set us back. When people are sitting on the fence you don't push them to the other side by insulting them.

I can clearly see why this is losing support and as an environmentalist it makes me angry.

All of those expert witnesses which leave you in doubt have not actually produced any actual research to justify theirs or your doubt. If you really want to understand the subject I implore you to follow up on their actual peer reviewed scientific work and base your opinion on that - I know you will find it very thin pickings.

Its easy to buy expert witnesses, but not so easy to buy expert verifiable evidence that passes peer scrutiny.

And its not losing support, acceptance of the evidence of AGW has been shown to be steadily growing among the general population over the last decade, even in the USA. it is only those who have set their heart against accepting that evidence who get angry that they are actually losing the argument.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of those expert witnesses which leave you in doubt have not actually produced any actual research to justify theirs or your doubt. If you really want to understand the subject I implore you to follow up on their actual peer reviewed scientific work and base your opinion on that - I know you will find it very thin pickings.

Its easy to buy expert witnesses, but not so easy to buy expert verifiable evidence that passes peer scrutiny.

And its not losing support, acceptance of the evidence of AGW has been shown to be steadily growing among the general population over the last decade, even in the USA. it is only those who have set their heart against accepting that evidence who get angry that they are actually losing the argument.

Br Cornelius

I have seen no irrefutable evidence. I've seen a general consensus, but not irrefutable evidence. The only reason I have seen a growing consensus is indoctrination. People are being ostracized, ridiculed and intimidated. Of course, they are going to tell you what you want to hear. It's not winning the hearts and minds of people though. They'll grudgingly go through the mandated motions but won't make any additional effort because they feel this is being crammed down their throats. They will go with what saves them money when it comes down to their personal finances regardless of whether they believe or not.

You'll just have to rely on my expertise on human behavior, but you won't find it in a peer reviewed paper. :innocent:

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is all this money you keep talking about? For the first time in my life, I just made it to the median income level. The truth is that environmental science doesn't pay well. But I knew that when I went into the field, so I have no complaints. But from my POV, that money bit is so much hype. Besides, there are lots of opportunities in related fields. One can always make some money there while continuing with climate research. Sometimes a climate study can "piggy-back:" on another study, like creating tree ring chronologies from data obtained in a silviculture study.

By all means question AGW. But do it using the science. If you think something is wrong, tell us what research supports your idea. When I give an explanation of something that you disagree with, present some research that disagrees with me. At least, create the impression that you have actually read the material and know what you're talking about.

To shout loudly that you think something is BS and then not be able to support your opinion is to invite (and deserve) ridicule. If AGW is "full of holes," identify those holes and tell us why.

Doug

Congrats! You read tree rings for a living, WTF did you expect to make? You started making a good living when you started preaching the bible according to Big AGW Science. Congrats on making my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats! You read tree rings for a living, WTF did you expect to make? You started making a good living when you started preaching the bible according to Big AGW Science. Congrats on making my case.

Not really, and considering he's contributed more to humanity than you have...

Were still waiting for your conspiracy evidence. Peace.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merc14 here are 5 predictions which I can say is either 100% true or will be in the future.

1. You will never be able to challenge the actual science of climate.

2. You will never be able to support any of your claims.

3. If you don't actually take the time to study our climate, then you will never be able to contribute to anything valid.

4. New generations will look back and think people like you is the cause why the world is not the same as it used to be.

5. Most skeptics will have a change in opinion when they see, with their own eyes, who their children/grandchildren are being affected by their ignorance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

I have seen no irrefutable evidence. I've seen a general consensus, but not irrefutable evidence. The only reason I have seen a growing consensus is indoctrination. People are being ostracized, ridiculed and intimidated. Of course, they are going to tell you what you want to hear. It's not winning the hearts and minds of people though. They'll grudgingly go through the mandated motions but won't make any additional effort because they feel this is being crammed down their throats. They will go with what saves them money when it comes down to their personal finances regardless of whether they believe or not.

You'll just have to rely on my expertise on human behavior, but you won't find it in a peer reviewed paper. :innocent:

It seems to me Michelle that you are a perfect example of the sort of person who set their heart against AGW at the outset and no amount of evidence could possibly sway you on your initial decision. What upsets you is that people keep presenting you with the evidence you don't want to accept.

Before you attempt to retort that the same could be said about me, let me remind you that I started out as a CT believing skeptic who changed his mind on examining the inconsistencies in the skeptical arguments and the weight of evidence coming from real scientists. Exactly the same happened to BFB.

There is hope, you can change.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not educated enough, on this particular subject, where I can make decision without relying on experts. I've read expert testimony from both sides and can't decide who is being bought and who is giving an honest, educated opinion. When people have an agenda they will go to great lengths to convince others of their sincerity and superior knowledge. I especially don't like the global warming alarmists approach with villainizing anyone who has doubts. This only causes people to dig in their heels and stand their ground. In my opinion, that attitude has been extremely detrimental to the cause and set us back. When people are sitting on the fence you don't push them to the other side by insulting them.

I can clearly see why this is losing support and as an environmentalist it makes me angry.

I don't think it requires that much education to understand basic science. The most-complicated scientific theorems can be written in less than 100 words, generally less than 25.

Most peer-reviewed articles state one simple fact and spend most of their time/words on demonstrating that their simple fact is true. You have to string a lot of simple facts together to discern a trend. Even when they are demonstrating that global warming is happening, they don't say that. "Findings are consistent with global warming theory" counts as a strong endorsement of that theory. The math/statistics that occur in most scientific articles are mostly there to show that the premise is true; you don't actually have to understand them.

I find one rule very helpful in digging out the truth of an article: go back to the original source. That eliminates the lies, hype and misconstrued interpretations. What did the original author mean to say?

Also, remember that science is not about conclusions. It's a way of thinking, starting with evidence and reasoning to a conclusion. Concentrate on the reasoning.

And I don't see climate concern waning. The US is the world's greatest producer of wind energy (measured in KWH) and while that's only about 3% of the energy we use, that's only because we use so much. We have the capacity to generate 30% of our power needs from wind and will probably reach 20% by 2030. The Plains and Eastern Clean Line will carry 7000 MW of DC power. Building it will cost $3.5 BILLION dollars. It is scheduled to go on line in 2017. Industry doesn't spend its own money in those amounts on things it considers failing enterprises.

I don't know where you live, but on Oklahoma-51 west of Tulsa, you can see two or three convoys every day carrying turbine blades to wind farms (That's two wind turbines a day.). Wind will win the battle because it's cheaper than any other power source. I know that's not what the deniers claim, but check out the facts for yourself.

I think the US is now at the position vis-a-vis wind that it was in in 1895 vis-a-vis electricity. The argument is no longer will we convert, but how best to do it. Maybe that's why you're seeing less hype - the decision has been made.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats! You read tree rings for a living, WTF did you expect to make? You started making a good living when you started preaching the bible according to Big AGW Science. Congrats on making my case.

Actually, I don't get money from "Big AGW." My funding comes from the USFS (Most of my tree-ring work applies to silviculture rather than climate.); I've said that before, but you weren't listening.). As of now, I have never applied for a grant, or needed to. I'm having too much fun studying trees - what other job will pay you to take a walk in the woods? What other job lets you determine your own schedule and what projects you will work on?

Several years ago I had the job of finding birch seeds for the Plant Materials Center. I drove to Colorado, to Brainard Lake near Boulder. I parked the truck and started hiking up the trail to the collection site about two miles away. It was a beautiful fall day. The sky was Colorado blue. Aspens formed a yellow landscape against a pine-green backdrop. As I was climbing up a rocky part of the trail, a woman from my church came past, going down the trail. She commented that I must be taking a day off. "No. I'm working. I'm collecting seed for the Plant Materials Center. It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it."

In 2012 I had an opportunity to collect samples from sawlogs that had been submerged for more than 100 years. Again, a beautiful fall day, but this time in eastern Oklahoma. I spent a day wading in waste-deep mud hitching up choker cables so we could pull the logs out of the almost-dry pond. Where else can you get paid to play in the mud? Or take a canoe to work? Or go on a hike? Or camp out?

Besides, that muddy pond is providing me with a baseline chronology for the entire nineteenth century. The technique used to stabilize the samples is new. That's worth a paper. And that is worth a job studying actual climate change. So in spite of the low pay now, I don't expect to remain in this situation more than two or three more years.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the US is now at the position vis-a-vis wind that it was in in 1895 vis-a-vis electricity. The argument is no longer will we convert, but how best to do it. Maybe that's why you're seeing less hype - the decision has been made.

Doug

Alstom opened a turbine manufacturing plant here in 2005. A couple of months ago they laid off 100 employees. I don't think the demand has lived up to the hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...says-study.html

Merc14 here are 5 predictions which I can say is either 100% true or will be in the future.

1. You will never be able to challenge the actual science of climate.

2. You will never be able to support any of your claims.

3. If you don't actually take the time to study our climate, then you will never be able to contribute to anything valid.

4. New generations will look back and think people like you is the cause why the world is not the same as it used to be.

5. Most skeptics will have a change in opinion when they see, with their own eyes, who their children/grandchildren are being affected by their ignorance.

I don't have to prove anything because I am not claiming anything. You and your buds are the ones claiming man is warming the climate and I am asking you to show me proof that is the case without using the flawed models. The models, which are being shown daily to be very flawed, are your only proof of AGW and that is not good for your side.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to prove anything because I am not claiming anything.

You are definitely making claims, in this thread and the others I've seen from you.

The premise of this thread is silly by the way. You can go back and look at early claims made about any field of study or idea, no matter how well proven and understood it may be in the present, and find numerous predictions that didn't pan out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.