Climate Change is a Hoax

[Doug1029]

22 hours ago, tmcom said:

Tini, lol, l believe that the number in this video was 31,000 climate scientists, (Hartland institute) don't believe it. Most if not all publish papers and some are considered to be experts on the subject.

And 55% of Americans don't fall for it anymore, (30% in my country with latest newspaper/political polls).

And the guy in the previous video is an expert on Carbon, and gives some pretty good views on exactly what it can and can't do.

Got a chance to listen to the video.  I'm going to answer this piece-meal in case UM's computer decides to screw it up.

 

Let's start with the "publication" they listed:

"Scientific Consensus on Global Warming"

The heading says that 31,000 scientists disagree with global warming, but the voice-over says the book lists 500.  So where did the 31,000 figure come from?  I searched Google, Google Scholar, Amazon and Heartland's own website.  It's not on any of them.  As far as I can tell, there is no such book and those 31,000 scientists who oppose global warming do not exist.  I am willing to be corrected if you can post a link.

 

Look up the Heartland Institute's website.  It espouses a lot of different conservative causes, again without posting anything to back up its opinions.  No science in evidence.

 

They call it "global warming alarmism."  I suppose that depends on your definition of "alarmism."  Is it alarmism to warn that there is a problem?

 

Their interviewees in order of appearance are:

Harrison Schmidt - Astronaut; geologist.

Formal climate qualifications:  none.

Publications:  five on the moon; three on geology

Climate publications:  none

 

S. Fred Singer - physicist; emeritus professor of environmental science; formally trained as an atmospheric physicist

About a half-dozen scientific papers.  Instrumental in space research and satellites.

Climate publications:  None.

He has served as a shill for a wide variety of industry-backed "scientific" scams.  These include challenging the links between UVB and melanoma, CFCs and atmospheric ozone loss, the dangers of passive smoking and now, climate change.

 

Jay Lehr - Ground Water Hydrologist

Current Director of the Heartland Institute - the ones who put out the video.

Testified before Congress on the subject of ground water

Served six months for defrauding the EPA and now refers to that agency as "fraudulent."

http://polluterwatch.org/blog/man-who-defrauded-epa-calls-epa-fraudulent-fox

Published 13 books and 400 journal articles on ground water and its monitoring.

Climate publications:  None.

 

 

 

 

 

[tmcom]

9 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Got a chance to listen to the video.  I'm going to answer this piece-meal in case UM's computer decides to screw it up.

Let's start with the "publication" they listed:

"Scientific Consensus on Global Warming"

The heading says that 31,000 scientists disagree with global warming, but the voice-over says the book lists 500.  So where did the 31,000 figure come from?  I searched Google, Google Scholar, Amazon and Heartland's own website.  It's not on any of them.  As far as I can tell, there is no such book and those 31,000 scientists who oppose global warming do not exist.  I am willing to be corrected if you can post a link.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[lost_shaman]

9 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Local thermodynamic equilibrium does not equal isothermal atmosphere. 

And you are trolling because Reinhardt clearly states, " In this paper, we are focusing on the laws of physics to calculate the heat retention capability of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This problem is still very complicated to solve correctly. We are establishing a solid upper limit of the green house effect as a function of the CO2 concentration, by considering a quasi-equilibrium state."

So he is making a different assumption than Myhre or both Myhre and the IPCC. That was never in doubt. Yet you make some big deal over the wording I guess because other people looking at the IPCC's math are saying as I quoted them that they assume a thermal equilibrium under 40 kms. 

Now, what does it matter if Reinhardt is looking at this differently which he clearly states he is to overestimate and thus gleam the maximum thermal contribution to the atmosphere? 

What is your point? To say "even if he was right you (LS) stated it wrong?"

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

And you are trolling because Reinhardt clearly states, " In this paper, we are focusing on the laws of physics to calculate the heat retention capability of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This problem is still very complicated to solve correctly. We are establishing a solid upper limit of the green house effect as a function of the CO2 concentration, by considering a quasi-equilibrium state."

So he is making a different assumption than Myhre or both Myhre and the IPCC. That was never in doubt. Yet you make some big deal over the wording I guess because other people looking at the IPCC's math are saying as I quoted them that they assume a thermal equilibrium under 40 kms. 

Now, what does it matter if Reinhardt is looking at this differently which he clearly states he is to overestimate and thus gleam the maximum thermal contribution to the atmosphere? 

What is your point? To say "even if he was right you (LS) stated it wrong?"

I'm not trolling.  I find that an amusing judgment from someone who ignores anything in my posts he can't answer, posts incorrect information about papers, introduces irrelevancies rather than address detailed answers to my posts, and misrepresents his own statements.

Just as an example of your prevarication, I'll address one clear point.  You say, in this post, that there has never been a doubt that Reinhart is making an different assumption than the IPCC and Myhre.  You either don't remember what you said, or you are not telling the truth.

Now, of course, you say that the different assumption was never in doubt.

It'll be easier to talk to you if you quit lying.

I know that getting through to you is a waste of my time.  I can't make you think.  However, I'm interested in helping those who read this thread later.  Helping at least a few of them realize the facts will make it worthwhile. 

No.  The point, which you have again missed, was that his assumption is flawed.  It's not giving him a maximum thermal contribution.  Reinhart is not right.  That's why he's posting his rants in a blog rather than subjecting them to detailed scrutiny.

[lost_shaman]

4 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Now, of course, you say that the different assumption was never in doubt.

 

Reference the vertical column in Myhre 1998 BBM. 

Edit: Excuse me "adjusted" BBM. 

 

4 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

t'll be easier to talk to you if you quit lying.

I disagree with you. Is that really hard to fathom? 

Edited April 25, 2019 by lost_shaman

[lost_shaman]

At any rate, call me a liar! If you can't help yourself, the point all along is that Reinhardt calculates the collision rate in the troposphere to be much faster than the re-emission rate. This then leads to more convection and much less radiative transfer as the IPCC assumes and Reinhardt explains. i.e. ΔT = 0.347 ln(Co/CO2)

[lost_shaman]

Btw Doc, notice that CO2s contribution is logarithmic by everyone's understanding. That means more and more CO2 equals less and less thermal contribution. The IPCCs "Alarmism" and everyone else's stems from just assuming a Water Vapor feedback will arbitrarily increase at a linear rate after CO2 concentration crosses some IMAGINARY threshold. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

It's interesting that you found this reference in a paper that very strongly takes the opposite point of view, stating that the consensus among publishing climate scientists is somewhere between 90% and 100% in support of global climate change, depending on the study.

 

But let's look at the petition:  Participants are self-selected.  Note the box that says "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute."  Do you think they're going to give those cards to people who disagree with them?  That virtually guarantees a highly-skewed result.  As such, it does nothing to dispute the 90% to 100% figures cited by other studies.  It also violates the Rule of Independence, one of the four rules governing sampling processes.  The most-likely outcome from any given card can easily be predicted by the outlook of the person who gave them that card.

The Ph.D.s they list are not necessarily connected with climate research.  They're just people with degrees which may or may not have anything to do with climate.

The petition included a paper expressing opposition to human-caused climate change, thus suggesting the response the author was seeking and making that response more likely.

I looked at the tab titled "Purpose of Petition."  It states that no consensus on the science of global warming exists, but presents no evidence to back up that statement.  As far as we know from the petition, this may be the world's entire list of doubters.   And there is no information provided on what these people know or don't know, or what their expertise, if any, might be.

There is a tab that lists "Qualifications of Signers."  MD stands for Medical Doctor.  And DVM stands for Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.  Yes.  They could be scientists and would understand scientific literature if they read it.  Signers include 3805 people, many of whom have only Bachelor's degrees.  That doesn't make one an expert on anything.  There are 935 computer scientists/mathematicians, 5812 physicists/aerospace people, 4822 chemists, 2965 biologists and 3046 with backgrounds in medicine.  There are 10,102 engineers.  Intelligent people all, but not necessarily knowledgeable about climate.

The petition is evidence that there are some people around who do not accept global warming, but we can tell that just by reading UM.

Doug

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

3 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The petition is evidence that there are some people around who do not accept global warming, but we can tell that just by reading UM.

So what? Even if you are right and the end is near? So what? Guess we are in a bad spot because the rest of us are not convinced by your "proclamations" of Doom.

Now go sit in the corner with the Dunce hat on because you can't convince a Fish water is Wet!!!  

[Doug1029]

19 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

So what? Even if you are right and the end is near? So what? Guess we are in a bad spot because the rest of us are not convinced by your "proclamations" of Doom.

Now go sit in the corner with the Dunce hat on because you can't convince a Fish water is Wet!!!  

You missed the whole point.  That petition (It isn't even a paper.) tells us nothing we didn't know already.  It is not an accurate reflection of the level of consensus of people who accept or don't accept climate change.

I would like to see a competent study of the general population to see what they think.  But the petition is neither fish nor fowl.

Doug

[Doc Socks Junior]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Reference the vertical column in Myhre 1998 BBM.

Edit: Excuse me "adjusted" BBM. 

It doesn't mean what you think it does.  I quoted the relevant section earlier.

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

I disagree with you. Is that really hard to fathom? 

It's not hard to fathom your disagreement.  It's hard to fathom the constant prevarication.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

I would like to see a competent study of the general population to see what they think.  But the petition is neither fish nor fowl.

Found one:

Semenza, J. C., D. E. Hall, D. J. Wilson, B. D. Bontempo, D. J. Sailor and L.A.George.  2008.  Public perception of climate change.  Behavioral and Public Communication Issues, 479-487  https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271902/1-s2.0-S0749379708X00169/1-s2.0-S0749379708006831/main.pdf?x-amz-security-token=AgoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEBoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQCM62utBaU1ktME2HHbkJ6OyNHSNog51sImMR6xxbji7wIhAPfbMr47RHBqpCvrTdyWyDgh1apk%2Fx3v6ktxDezCUezHKuMDCPL%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQAhoMMDU5MDAzNTQ2ODY1IgxHYB2YiBjbORdFFFgqtwPbLetU%2FtXk8mQLEKHKBA24ZNn0JSXe1DPIpjY3m0AeuqN1%2BGtM%2ByOz6rANf39aTeG8eYUqfXiX4akeADDMrd2%2FZ5gsp2AIpFr6xg1S9KpfbtT8e2iZ62SOa7Tl4OxIZkcZ308e%2Bos0baXpQqtswR6R0cqxO6PpW%2F3DBTio%2FH0i6w4dZnzCrefINbMlgrIiAMKL0ko%2FQnF2V%2Bq%2FHDSMSJaAOCKe7CdGok0Nj3TKQ9ADpsxR523PeW%2FzXgpr4U8fzrRcq9kyniEMGFrVdjxcSjkbWeavzgJ2xu5g8%2FX3SeoVHvlXNZHnEExQzIzAMVXHUnL0JDG4hFRuML6bzFR65fhbA0ZDlgpxYXr67NnFG1eBqEkiYoQ%2B9U1F8dLQ4NLMmLgIY5yMg9t41bj4Y1wyhN4YC87%2FNNArgUJLBb44vFAU3UxPm0Yj2bdH0SrZY5U%2BuLrO1YHsUtkWK58VCsSl0tAUjEWGqvO6baB5B9dTYIuKMSW67y2XybiX1fHxD5KPZGIbo8S88f2XeasmmD91h1mvOFLaGiStroNFSY4WVUJb%2BzjtSKDROqLExW%2FvNX5i1R7MHCc7Wf8rMObYh%2BYFOrMBOQAvbL1tC6rFYDEAthDR61pUPBLb5xbobCJCxcyqJwznHF9aNU51h6%2FELIgSFuhilinJAxe1b%2Fu93vkeUBdtfx%2FO3R%2F%2Bj3MJOpS8CzKio2kSbJTH26n%2FyY2BvtOOyCwBDeayAUSoH5DojfLiJSzaZ4ErWQPX3sAxjw3PvIW9N9MubH16xKfz8paEsyUHbHu3q%2FUH1d8o%2Fr50%2BHCFwoaq2bZ0BbzkYhTHW8fujK7TR1BjpcM%3D&AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAQ3PHCVTYVY3CXAHR&Expires=1556218615&Signature=Mhe1iLJS%2B%2FhMJYKKtfc%2BJnV0ZEw%3D&hash=12e67fb38ef25868f981ae0a6cd22e0aaa19ce8734dff0a7d89f63071bf25d15&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S0749379708006831&tid=spdf-d95af51e-6ce3-44dc-a09e-2106fa0277e8&sid=816908783df262413f89979516cf03ee7697gxrqa&type=client  25 April 2019.

Now THAT's a URL.

Page 481, Results:  Proportion of population concerned about climate change:  Portland, OR:  90%;  Houston, TX:  82%  The difference is significant.

One research paper does not usually make an adequate reference.  I'll look up some more later.  At any rate, somewhere between 74% and 90% of the general population are aware of climate change and willing to pay something to mitigate it.  By the usual breakdown model, that would leave somewhere between 1% and 6.1% who don't accept climate change and/or do not want to pay anything to mitigate its effects.

Doug

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

So what? Even if you are right and the end is near? So what? Guess we are in a bad spot because the rest of us are not convinced by your "proclamations" of Doom.

Now go sit in the corner with the Dunce hat on because you can't convince a Fish water is Wet!!!  

You might want to cool it with the insults.  That has already got the thread reviewed twice and may get it shut down altogether.  Thanks.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

8 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You might want to cool it with the insults.  That has already got the thread reviewed twice and may get it shut down altogether.  Thanks.

Doug

It was allegorical not an insult. 

[Doug1029]

26 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

It was allegorical not an insult. 

Sometimes hard to tell.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

It's not hard to fathom your disagreement.  It's hard to fathom the constant prevarication.

Is it now? That's your issue is my "sneaky ways" I skirt lies past you! 

Or maybe I'm just right? Ever fathom that possibility?

Edited April 25, 2019 by lost_shaman

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

So what? Even if you are right and the end is near? So what? Guess we are in a bad spot because the rest of us are not convinced by your "proclamations" of Doom.

Now go sit in the corner with the Dunce hat on because you can't convince a Fish water is Wet!!!  

Unfortunately we are not dealing with open minded individuals, of if we brought up the following someone who is open would see that serious doubts are raised.

• In the 70's, a prominent scientist said, that the science made it highly likely that we would see several large scale negative things occur in 15 years time, or whatever, and it was 100% incorrect, (previous post l made here). Quite ironically all the end is nigh predictions made on Earth Day in the 70's were all, well, none of them occurred.

• Now almost 50 years later, on Earth Day, 2 days ago, David Attemborough makes a similar statement in his so called Factural Prop,....doc, "based on the science it is highly likely, blah, blah".

Notice a pattern here???

The best scientists and science cannot predict anything reliably!

And yet we can reliably predict the end is nigh in the year 2033!

The end has been nigh for the last 50 ....years, but l guess that the fanatics don't want to give up their GMC, decoder rings and grim reaper hoods for anything.

I don't care either way, but make my decisions on Valid evidence, not emotional dependency.

It is funny that when this point is brought up, no rebuttel, just "personal warnings and equally change the subject comments".

I have seen this convenient dismissal many times, with someone either attacking the poster or the evidence, with the evidence being valid, and the opposing side having issues.

 

I think the issue is that one side believes in anything mass media, gov, and ...nature doc, presenters, actors, etc say, since they need to believe that the earth is a shiny apple, and don't want to believe that it is rotten in the core, (which is closer to reality) since that leads to fear and dread scenarios, (grays, or aliens near earth, ghosts, Mars not being dead and so forth).

 

We can try to show that this view has serious issues, but the closer we get to showing things that should raise serious doubt the more spaghetti science is brought up and the more "see spot run" evidence is given.

Best to leave the cows in the pasture!

Edited April 26, 2019 by tmcom

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Unfortunately we are not dealing with open minded individuals, of if we brought up the following someone who is open would see that serious doubts are raised.

• In the 70's, a prominent scientist said, that the science made it highly likely that we would see several large scale negative things occur in 15 years time, or whatever, and it was 100% incorrect, (previous post l made here). Quite ironically all the end is nigh predictions made on Earth Day in the 70's were all, well, none of them occurred.

• Now almost 50 years later, on Earth Day, 2 days ago, David Attemborough makes a similar statement in his so called Factural Prop,....doc, "based on the science it is highly likely, blah, blah".

Notice a pattern here???

The best scientists and science cannot predict anything reliably!

And yet we can reliably predict the end is nigh in the year 2033!

The end has been nigh for the last 50 ....years, but l guess that the fanatics don't want to give up their GMC, decoder rings and grim reaper hoods for anything.

I don't care either way, but make my decisions on Valid evidence, not emotional dependency.

We work on the best models we have at the time.  In the 70's a PC had what 32k memory?  It was awesome when 8meg  hard disks came along.

The point of that is you cannot do finite element analysis on a machine that small.   Fifty years ago a lot of it was still done by hand.  I started engineering in the 80's in metallurgy, not related, but we still did FEA.  We used slide rules and early PC's.

 

To get a better model, you need more cells in your analysis.   If you divide the earth's surface into cells 500km on a side and the same for the atmosphere, you don't get very reliable results.  It is not a great model.  When you have a supercomputer that can divide the earth into 1km squares, you start to get some resolution.  Equations get better too as you apply results and improve them, and understanding of our earth increases.  

Models are better, predictions are better.  Are they 100% accurate in time and temp, I doubt it.  SO I would contest your assumption that the best scientists cannot predict anything reliably.  We have made quite a bit of progress. 

In my own field, casting metallurgy, we have gone from pretty useless models to simulations that can predict how a casting fills and how it cools and where the shrink will be.   Some of the runs we try still take six or eight hours on a pretty big PC, bit the results are amazing.  It could not be done practically even 20 years ago.

Same thing is going on in other fields.  I know how bad models were 50 years ago, and where they were 10 years ago.  Do a little research, you will find they are  getting progressively better.  

 

[tmcom]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

We work on the best models we have at the time.  In the 70's a PC had what 32k memory?  It was awesome when 8meg  hard disks came along.

The point of that is you cannot do finite element analysis on a machine that small.   Fifty years ago a lot of it was still done by hand.  I started engineering in the 80's in metallurgy, not related, but we still did FEA.  We used slide rules and early PC's.

To get a better model, you need more cells in your analysis.   If you divide the earth's surface into cells 500km on a side and the same for the atmosphere, you don't get very reliable results.  It is not a great model.  When you have a supercomputer that can divide the earth into 1km squares, you start to get some resolution.  Equations get better too as you apply results and improve them, and understanding of our earth increases.  

Models are better, predictions are better.  Are they 100% accurate in time and temp, I doubt it.  SO I would contest your assumption that the best scientists cannot predict anything reliably.  We have made quite a bit of progress. 

In my own field, casting metallurgy, we have gone from pretty useless models to simulations that can predict how a casting fills and how it cools and where the shrink will be.   Some of the runs we try still take six or eight hours on a pretty big PC, bit the results are amazing.  It could not be done practically even 20 years ago.

Same thing is going on in other fields.  I know how bad models were 50 years ago, and where they were 10 years ago.  Do a little research, you will find they are  getting progressively better. 

True, to a point, and as this article shows we may be able to predict weather for several years or more in general terms in the future, but now, after 1 month, with our best computers, (including quantum) it falls in a heap.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/extreme-weather-forecasting-looking-years-or-even-decades-into-the-future-could-soon-be-a-thing/news-story/bf83d430a072d204a41bd7f2a3975487

Or we cannot predict any further than a month.

So all end is nigh predictions are based on things going up indefinitely, eventhough all charts don't go up forever, they go up and down.

Point being even with less powerful mainframes back then, the previous statement was based on solid available science, and the prediction was certain.

And the prediction of less sunlight in 1985 was a load of crap. They were sure back then, and now say it is very likely, eventhough they just don't know.

[Essan]

11 minutes ago, tmcom said:

 

And not one of them is a genuine scientific prediction ......    

However, I agree that predictions made in the 1950s that we'd all be living on the Moon or under the sea by the 1990s didn't prove true.   Which has as much to do with climate change as everything else in that straw man.

However, one prediction that hasn't come true yet is the mini age the AGW deniers have been announcing is imminent ever since the 1970s ....

[tmcom]

1 minute ago, Essan said:

And not one of them is a genuine scientific prediction ......    

However, I agree that predictions made in the 1950s that we'd all be living on the Moon or under the sea by the 1990s didn't prove true.   Which has as much to do with climate change as everything else in that straw man.

However, one prediction that hasn't come true yet is the mini age the AGW deniers have been announcing is imminent ever since the 1970s ....

The air pollution blocking out 50% of the sun was a legitimate scientific remark, as shown in my previous links.

I have no reason to doubt the rest, but l doubt that someone will make it up.

It also shows that no prediction is reliable, but maybe l should just man up, and admit that David Attembouroughs we have to do something dramatic in the next ten years or we will very likely be screwed is correct, after all men or adults call people morons, socks or children!

[marsman]

2 minutes ago, tmcom said:

The air pollution blocking out 50% of the sun was a legitimate scientific remark,

 

air pollution DOES BLOCK THE SUN......dont you ever look things up?   how many times do i have to post images of chinas pollution?

 

Update A blanket of toxic air that has blocked out the sun across most of north China is dominating social media and looming as a serious health and political challenge.

Visibility was reduced to a few hundred metres for much of the weekend in the Chinese capital and many of the city's 20 million residents went online to vent their frustration about "apocalyptic"

https://www.smh.com.au/world/toxic-air-blocks-out-the-sun-in-beijing-20130113-2cn72.html

 

India’s dreadful pollution is blocking sunlight and threatening its booming solar sector
https://qz.com/india/1017635/indias-dreadful-pollution-is-blocking-sunlight-and-threatening-its-booming-solar-sector/

 

Air pollution is a drag for renewable energy. Dust and other sky-darkening air pollutants slash solar energy production by 17 to 25 percent across parts of India, China and the Arabian Peninsula, a new study estimates. The haze can block sunlight from reaching solar panels. And if the particles land on a panel’s flat surface, they cut down on the area exposed to the sun.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/air-pollution-takes-toll-solar-energy

 

 

good god mate.....RESEARCH

 

 

 

 

 

[Essan]

54 minutes ago, tmcom said:

The air pollution blocking out 50% of the sun was a legitimate scientific remark, as shown in my previous links.

I have no reason to doubt the rest, but l doubt that someone will make it up.

It also shows that no prediction is reliable, but maybe l should just man up, and admit that David Attembouroughs we have to do something dramatic in the next ten years or we will very likely be screwed is correct, after all men or adults call people morons, socks or children!

 

Air pollution is, of course, a major killer and many people living in urban areas do wear masks as a consequence

https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/en/

But I agree, predictions are only as good as the information available at the time.  New information means they change accordingly.   Although some do fail more spectacularly that others

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/global-cooling-coming-archibald-uses-solar-and-surface-data-to-predict-4-9c-fall/

 

[marsman]

lets make this simple

if you sit in a car with a hose from the exhaust pipe.....you change the interior climate of the car....to a climate that kills you? deny that.....if you can

[Doug1029]

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

• In the 70's, a prominent scientist said, that the science made it highly likely that we would see several large scale negative things occur in 15 years time, or whatever, and it was 100% incorrect, (previous post l made here). Quite ironically all the end is nigh predictions made on Earth Day in the 70's were all, well, none of them occurred.

Would you mind telling us what those predictions were.  Kind of hard to critique a comment when you don't know what it's saying.

Doug