Science vs Politicians

Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
Let’s take a look at past Environmental Predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.


In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”
Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.

In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:

The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.

Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.

Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:


“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”


In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”


Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.
A couple thoughts...

1. Nobody has a crystal ball. Scientists make predictions based on the data they have. Sometimes they're correct, sometimes they're incorrect. Is it wise to ignore these predictions totally out of hand, even if there is a fair possibility it may be the latter? In the case of scarcity of natural resources, I'd also note that speaks more to the power of human innovation and the ability to develop resources that were once considered unrecoverable than it does to general incompetence/deviousness of the people making predictions.

2. Nobody I'm aware of disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much can we get away with pumping into the atmosphere before there are serious negative consequences? Never mind the situation today, but consider what would happen if the West said screw it, and a growing African population underwent a coal powered industrial revolution in the next few decades. Do we want to find out if that's too much CO2? What alternatives do we have beyond striking some sort of international agreement and/or trying to figure out a technical solution?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
A couple thoughts...

1. Nobody has a crystal ball. Scientists make predictions based on the data they have. Sometimes they're correct, sometimes they're incorrect. Is it wise to ignore it totally out of hand, even if there is a fair possibility it may be the latter? In the case of scarcity of natural resources, I'd also note that speaks more to the power of human innovation and the ability to develop resources that were once considered unrecoverable than it does to general incompetence/deviousness of the people making predictions.

2. Nobody I'm aware of disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much can we get away with pumping into the atmosphere before there are serious negative consequences? Never mind the situation today, but consider what would happen if the West said screw it, and a growing African population underwent a coal powered industrial revolution in the next few decades. Do we want to find out if that's too much CO2? What alternatives do we have beyond striking some sort of international agreement and/or trying to figure out a technical solution?
I would be happier if scientists talked about the Earth as a group of systems that act to balance each other, rather than go all Doom & Gloom on us, especially when they're wrong. It't OK to be wrong, but it would be better for people who believe one way or the other than anyone who doesn't agree is stupid.

The rain forests need to remain and deforestation needs to stop.
 
Last edited:
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
But he does have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and thermodynamics is part of that. Hell, I took enough physics and HVAC classes to know when someone is BS-ing, or not.
This pic cracked me up although I can't say what Dolph's position is.

 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
A couple thoughts...

1. Nobody has a crystal ball. Scientists make predictions based on the data they have. Sometimes they're correct, sometimes they're incorrect. Is it wise to ignore it totally out of hand, even if there is a fair possibility it may be the latter? In the case of scarcity of natural resources, I'd also note that speaks more to the power of human innovation and the ability to develop resources that were once considered unrecoverable than it does to general incompetence/deviousness of the people making predictions.

2. Nobody I'm aware of disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much can we get away with pumping into the atmosphere before there are serious negative consequences? Never mind the situation today, but consider what would happen if the West said screw it, and a growing African population underwent a coal powered industrial revolution in the next few decades. Do we want to find out if that's too much CO2? What alternatives do we have beyond striking some sort of international agreement and/or trying to figure out a technical solution?
Also, at the current (500 years-present) rate species are disappearing we're at the start of a mass extinction event right now.

"First, they calculated the rate at which mammals, which are well represented in the fossil record, died off in the past 65 million years, finding an average extinction rate of less than two species per million years. But in the past 500 years, a minimum of 80 of 5570 species of mammals have gone extinct, according to biologists' conservative estimates—an extinction rate that is actually above documented rates for past mass extinctions, says Barnosky. All of this means that we're at the beginning of a mass extinction that will play out over hundreds or thousands of years, his team concludes online today in Nature."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/are-we-middle-sixth-mass-extinction



 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Let’s take a look at past Environmental Predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.


In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”
Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.

In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:

The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.

Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.

Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:


“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”


In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”


Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.
So can you field an argument without copying and pasting from some right-wing chain mail nonsense that engages in extreme cherry-picking to serve their point?

Anyway, to all that I would say...
 
Last edited:
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
This pic cracked me up although I can't say what Dolph's position is.

Let's be honest, Dolph is no dummy and his academic achievements are well above average. Note that Nye received his degree from Cornell, and that has one of the toughest science programs of all the Ivy league schools. They have a saying about Cornell, its the easiest Ivy league to get into, but the hardest to graduate. A BS in mechanical engineering is very meaningful coming from Cornell, you can ask anyone tuned into the science programs at the Ivy leagues.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
I would be happier if scientists talked about the Earth as a group of systems that act to balance each other, rather than go all Doom & Gloom on us, especially when they're wrong.
I agree, though the unfortunate reality is that doom and gloom is what grabs the headlines. I don't necessarily buy the worst case scenarios that they're selling, but the more moderate forecasts aren't that rosy either in the long term.

The rain forests need to remain and reforestation needs to stop.
How do you stop it? It takes more than saying "don't do that" to the people living in those parts of the world, given that it's their livelihoods at stake.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
A couple thoughts...

1. Nobody has a crystal ball. Scientists make predictions based on the data they have. Sometimes they're correct, sometimes they're incorrect. Is it wise to ignore it totally out of hand, even if there is a fair possibility it may be the latter? In the case of scarcity of natural resources, I'd also note that speaks more to the power of human innovation and the ability to develop resources that were once considered unrecoverable than it does to general incompetence/deviousness of the people making predictions.

2. Nobody I'm aware of disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much can we get away with pumping into the atmosphere before there are serious negative consequences? Never mind the situation today, but consider what would happen if the West said screw it, and a growing African population underwent a coal powered industrial revolution in the next few decades. Do we want to find out if that's too much CO2? What alternatives do we have beyond striking some sort of international agreement and/or trying to figure out a technical solution?
It's OK Steve, I am sure if we dramatically change the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere in a geologic instant, that will not have any serious side effects. Honestly, what's the worst that can happen?
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
...if we dramatically change the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere...
and oceans.

But hey, according some folks, there is nothing to see here, it's all a big liberal conspiracy to enrich scientists looking for that big grant money doncha know.

[Batman narrator voice]Meanwhile, previously vetoed, goofy anti-science 'healthcare' legislation is inserted into the omnibus funding bill while nobody pays any attention...

Yeah, science vs. politicians = we're fucked.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I agree, though the unfortunate reality is that doom and gloom is what grabs the headlines. I don't necessarily buy the worst case scenarios that they're selling, but the more moderate forecasts aren't that rosy either in the long term.



How do you stop it? It takes more than saying "don't do that" to the people living in those parts of the world, given that it's their livelihoods at stake.
That's the problem- too many people believe what they see/hear on the news and when they don't have knowledge of scientific fundamentals, something that seems plausible can be a usable substitute for the truth.

They can be shown, just like what we see. Show the plant and animal species that they used for medicine and food, but have gone extinct. Show them the plumes of smoke from the satellites or planes. explain how important the rain forests are to the rest of the World.
 
Last edited:
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
They can be shown, just like what we see...explain how important the rain forests are to the rest of the World.
I'll paint a simple picture: imagine you're in a place where roughly 50% of the population still doesn't have indoor plumbing. You explain to them how important rain forests are to the world. In the other corner, a Chinese logging company comes in and offers money and jobs (and of course bribes the necessary authorities for good measure), while others are waiting to use that land for farming / raising cattle. Like your odds?
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I'll paint a simple picture: imagine you're in a place where roughly 50% of the population still doesn't have indoor plumbing. You explain to them how important rain forests are to the world. In the other corner, a Chinese logging company comes in and offers money and jobs (and of course bribes the necessary authorities for good measure), while others are waiting to use that land for farming / raising cattle. Like your odds?
Thanks for the simple and direct example. I was wanting to try and get across the perspective of the people in these situations and you did it much more simply and clearly than where I was going with it!
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
Thanks for the simple and direct example. I was wanting to try and get across the perspective of the people in these situations and you did it much more simply and clearly than where I was going with it!
Always happy to offer my thoughts. Actually, my mother hails from that part of the world (Guyana), and I've got relations down there in the sawmill business, so it's a little more than purely hypothetical. On the upside, Harald's peeps are trying to do something about it :D
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/norway-and-guyana-sign-rainforest-deal-1823225.html
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I'll paint a simple picture: imagine you're in a place where roughly 50% of the population still doesn't have indoor plumbing. You explain to them how important rain forests are to the world. In the other corner, a Chinese logging company comes in and offers money and jobs (and of course bribes the necessary authorities for good measure), while others are waiting to use that land for farming / raising cattle. Like your odds?
I'll paint a simple picture: imagine you're in a place where roughly 50% of the population still doesn't have indoor plumbing. You explain to them how important rain forests are to the world. In the other corner, a Chinese logging company comes in and offers money and jobs (and of course bribes the necessary authorities for good measure), while others are waiting to use that land for farming / raising cattle. Like your odds?
Not having indoor plumbing isn't as bad as not having clean water- we need clean water, the other can be done by going behind a shrub.

If they can be bribed to do something, they can be bribed to stop.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
Not having indoor plumbing isn't as bad as not having clean water- we need clean water, the other can be done by going behind a shrub.
If you don't have indoor plumbing, clean water isn't exactly a guaranteed commodity that you can just access via the tap. In either case, the point is were asking some very poor nations to essentially forgo the revenue they gain from logging as well as developing their lands because the world depends on it.

If they can be bribed to do something, they can be bribed to stop.
That's more or less my point. An explanation with financial and technical aid goes a lot further than an explanation alone. Even then, there are issues to deal with. On the political side, such schemes are branded as wealth redistribution, and become a political hot potato. On the practical side, it's one thing to make promises to a national government, and get them to go along. It's another to try and ensure at the local level that officials aren't taking bribes and granting permits illegally.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
If you don't have indoor plumbing, clean water isn't exactly a guaranteed commodity that you can just access via the tap. In either case, the point is were asking some very poor nations to essentially forgo the revenue they gain from logging as well as developing their lands because the world depends on it.



That's more or less my point. An explanation with financial and technical aid goes a lot further than an explanation alone. Even then, there are issues to deal with. On the political side, such schemes are branded as wealth redistribution, and become a political hot potato. On the practical side, it's one thing to make promises to a national government, and get them to go along. It's another to try and ensure at the local level that officials aren't taking bribes and granting permits illegally.
In the case of lumber, who owns the land? If it's publicly-owned/government-held, which species are being harvested? Are they restricted (Brazilian Rosewood, some Ebony, etc) and subject to legislation like the Lacey Act, but for other countries?

Some call this 'Fair Trade', but it sounds like they're imposing their beliefs and opinions on people who never had much.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
In the case of lumber, who owns the land? If it's publicly-owned/government-held, which species are being harvested? Are they restricted (Brazilian Rosewood, some Ebony, etc) and subject to legislation like the Lacey Act, but for other countries?

Some call this 'Fair Trade', but it sounds like they're imposing their beliefs and opinions on people who never had much.
AFAIK, rosewood is one of the big ones (popular in China and elsewhere). As a result of various agreements like the one I linked to earlier, the national government has set some restrictions on how much logging can occur. Ownership is a mixed bag, and more importantly, so is enforcement. When the government has been claimed to be in bed with guys like this, you know the problems run pretty deep.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
That is obviously ignoring the effect of glacial ice melt raising the sea levels!
That's not the only cause of rising sea levels. As oceans warm, they expand, raising their volumes.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top