Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009

[ScottBernard]

I wonder just how scientists are interpreting the data. How are they interpreting the data in context? Any scientist worth his or her 'sheepskin' might say all the data is rather inconclusive, instead of jumping on the intuitive leap hootenanny bandwagon.
Why not help other developing countries use their resources better and have smarter development? Why not help them develop sane government that can do this? Why not observe Arbor Day in this country and go plant a tree or two or three?
Yes, I was taught a lot of the "It's all going to Hell! We must take action now!" environmentalism back in school also. I have taken an inventory of it, and am trying to extirpate a lot of the neurotic alarmist nonsense.
I believe in the simple things. Keep the air and water as clean as possible. Keep an eye on industry and we should be okay. Everything else is in the hands of God or the creator.

Postscript.
I have been thinking. The environmentalists want us to switch to electric vehicles. Okay. These vehicles have to be charged. Just how much electricity does 100 vehicles use? How often a day? Now scale up that number to 10 million electric vehicles. Where is all this power going to come from? Can the current grid handle the demand and load? Can an electrical engineer tell me if it is possible to charge a vehicle with current solar panel technology? Do I need to use standard power off the grid to augment the charge of the battery pack if my groovy solar panels are not up to the task alone? Does it make economical sense for me to do it, or is going to be a wash?
I want these questions explored and answered.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Anyone here live in LA?

I lived there in the late 70"s and saw the impact of the smog. There was a permanent haze that hung over the LA basin all summer long. You don't think we needed the strict emissions regulations on automobiles? Do you think we are better off than we were in the 60's and 70s?

Pollution is not the same as climate change.

Good point Fitz!

The nutroot fisters are trying to compare "apples to oranges"
by saying see this regulation worked so all of it can work.

Of course, ignoring at the same time that their alarmist theories from the past have never proven true

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone here live in LA?

I lived there in the late 70"s and saw the impact of the smog. There was a permanent haze that hung over the LA basin all summer long. You don't think we needed the strict emissions regulations on automobiles? Do you think we are better off than we were in the 60's and 70s?

Pollution is not the same as climate change.

Good point Fitz!

The nutroot fisters are trying to compare "apples to oranges"
by saying see this regulation worked so all of it can work.

Of course, ignoring at the same time that their alarmist theories from the past have never proven true

Good point!

I believe it was the OP....one Neotrollski who made the initial connection between polution and climate change. Gues that makes him our resident nutroot fister

 

[Neotrotsky]

Pollution is not the same as climate change.

Good point Fitz!

The nutroot fisters are trying to compare "apples to oranges"
by saying see this regulation worked so all of it can work.

Of course, ignoring at the same time that their alarmist theories from the past have never proven true

Good point!

I believe it was the OP....one Neotrollski who made the initial connection between pollution and climate change. Gues that makes him our resident nutroot fister

Sorry Comrade

I was only reprinting the words of some our greatest nutroot fisters from the past with their false words of total world destruction.

It was you that tried to bring in isolated events of pollution as some type of "proof" of their predictions.


While I do take it as a "gesture of friendship" on your part to bring me into the "club", I do believe the honor of being a nutroot fister remains yours

 

[rightwinger]

For the OP to imply that the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s was an example of why we shouldn't pursue additional environmental initiatives is laughable.
Want to print some of the rightwing propaganda saying there was no environmental impact to dummping waste into rivers and lakes? Want to go pack to their predictions of how environnmental laws would lead to economic collapse?

The environmental movement was responsible for a major improvement in American quality of life and is a major success story. For Neotrollsky to imply otherwise is ridiculous

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I remember everything was about ACID RAIN

 

[Neotrotsky]

For the OP to imply that the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s was an example of why we shouldn't pursue additional environmental initiatives is laughable.
Want to print some of the rightwing propaganda saying there was no environmental impact to dummping waste into rivers and lakes? Want to go pack to their predictions of how environnmental laws would lead to economic collapse?

The environmental movement was responsible for a major improvement in American quality of life and is a major success story. For Neotrollsky to imply otherwise is ridiculous

Your poor attempt at "spin" is noted.
The issue of the original post is NOT that all enviromental regulation is bad; But that the "total world alarmist calls" of the nutroot fisters from the 70's were wrong then and now.

You are the one trying to digress from the subject at hand

So please, lets stay on issue

Which is the false "total world alarmist " claims of the nutroots fisters in the past.
Which brings in the bigger question of

If they were wrong then why are they not wrong now?

 

[Big Fitz]

For the OP to imply that the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s was an example of why we shouldn't pursue additional environmental initiatives is laughable.
Want to print some of the rightwing propaganda saying there was no environmental impact to dummping waste into rivers and lakes? Want to go pack to their predictions of how environnmental laws would lead to economic collapse?

The environmental movement was responsible for a major improvement in American quality of life and is a major success story. For Neotrollsky to imply otherwise is ridiculous

Your poor attempt at "spin" is noted.
The issue of the original post is NOT that all enviromental regulation is bad; But that the "total world alarmist calls" of the nutroot fisters from the 70's were wrong then and now.

You are the one trying to digress from the subject at hand

So please, lets stay on issue

Which is the false "total world alarmist " claims of the nutroots fisters in the past.
Which brings in the bigger question of

If they were wrong then why are they not wrong now?

The one point I AM going to make about pollution regulation is the 'ever tightening noose' phenomena. Sulfur Dioxide is a classic example of this. Once industry hit the targets set by the Clean Air Act, the EPA needed more work, so it tightened the restrictions. This was done in spite of no substantial data showing that this would cause a significant, or even minor improvement in atmospheric quality and carried heavy, business crippling regulations.

That is why all of these regulations need to have a thorough cost/benefit analysis before any new regulation changes are made. Secondly, you need to make sure that the agency is not 'creating busy work' to continue to justify it's existence. Consider this a bureaucratic/political Laffer Curve, finding the right point of equilibrium that maximizes the cheapest government while minimizing damage to industry by the least hindrance possible thereby providing enforcement of a balanced quality of life.

You really should cut the outfit back to an 'enforcement' unit and farm out individual projects to researchers and not create a permanent agency that requires support. That way you prevent the waste inherent with the system.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here are some more...

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." - Paul Ehrlich, 1968

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." - Paul Ehrlich, 1969

"Smog disasters in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles" - Paul Ehrlich, 1969

"Falling temperatures will cause the ice caps to sink into the ocean, producing a global tidal wave that could wipe out a substantial portion of mankind, and the sea level could rise 60 to 100 feet." - Paul Ehrlich, 1970

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity ... in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." - Paul Ehrlich, 1976

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Paul Ehrlich, 1978

"The Population of the U.S. will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before 1999 because of famine and global warming." - Paul Ehrlich

"We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." - Paul Ehrlich

 

[Ame®icano]

And more...

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." - Paul Watson, 1982

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world overpopulation problem." - Lamont Cole, 1993

"Climatologists will criticize the faulty science on which the film [The Day After Tomorrow] is based..." - Nature, 2004

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" - Phil Jones, developer of the UN's IPCC temperature history, 2005

"I agree the 11C figure was unreasonably hyped. It's a difficult line for all scientists to tread, as we need something 'exciting' to have any chance of publishing... to justify our funding," - Scientist to the BBC, 2006

"Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." - George Monbiot, The Guardian, UK, 2006

"Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead" - James Hansen, 2006

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is..." - Al Gore, 2006

"The debate on global warming is over." - Al Gore, 2006

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers" - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007

"We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008

"The peer review process assumes honesty and so was not designed to spot fraud" - Nature


"...all of our models have errors which mean that they will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective of how well they are initialized." - James Annan, William Connolley, RealClimate.org, 2005

"These codes are what they are - the result of 30 years and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not professional software engineers), around a dozen different software platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to fortran 95 on massively parallel systems. [...] No complex code can ever be proven 'true' (let alone demonstrated to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive." - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org, 2006

"No complex code can ever be proven 'true' (let alone demonstrated to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive." - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org, 2006

"...there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically." - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org, 2009


"Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible." - Gus Hall, National chairman of the Communist Party USA, 1972

"The Communist Party USA's environmental program "presents a viable plan to carry out on the long march to socialism." - Havel Wolf, Seattle Audubon Society, 1998

"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now." - Louis Proyect, Columbia University, 2004

 

[rightwinger]

For the OP to imply that the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s was an example of why we shouldn't pursue additional environmental initiatives is laughable.
Want to print some of the rightwing propaganda saying there was no environmental impact to dummping waste into rivers and lakes? Want to go pack to their predictions of how environnmental laws would lead to economic collapse?

The environmental movement was responsible for a major improvement in American quality of life and is a major success story. For Neotrollsky to imply otherwise is ridiculous

Your poor attempt at "spin" is noted.
The issue of the original post is NOT that all enviromental regulation is bad; But that the "total world alarmist calls" of the nutroot fisters from the 70's were wrong then and now.

You are the one trying to digress from the subject at hand

So please, lets stay on issue

Which is the false "total world alarmist " claims of the nutroots fisters in the past.
Which brings in the bigger question of

If they were wrong then why are they not wrong now?

No spin intended. Merely pointing out that the entire planet has benefited from the environmental legislation enacted in the 60s and 70s. Did the gloom and doom happen? For the most part no, but the environmental protections also prevented many of those scenarios so we will never know. In addition, your logic that their predictions didn't come true then so no scientific projections will ever come true is pathetic....but you knew that when you started this thread

The bigger question is do you regret the environmental protections that we made in the 60s and 70s?? I don't

 

[Neotrotsky]

For the OP to imply that the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s was an example of why we shouldn't pursue additional environmental initiatives is laughable.
Want to print some of the rightwing propaganda saying there was no environmental impact to dummping waste into rivers and lakes? Want to go pack to their predictions of how environnmental laws would lead to economic collapse?

The environmental movement was responsible for a major improvement in American quality of life and is a major success story. For Neotrollsky to imply otherwise is ridiculous

Your poor attempt at "spin" is noted.
The issue of the original post is NOT that all enviromental regulation is bad; But that the "total world alarmist calls" of the nutroot fisters from the 70's were wrong then and now.

You are the one trying to digress from the subject at hand

So please, lets stay on issue

Which is the false "total world alarmist " claims of the nutroots fisters in the past.
Which brings in the bigger question of

If they were wrong then why are they not wrong now?

No spin intended. Merely pointing out that the entire planet has benefited from the environmental legislation enacted in the 60s and 70s. Did the gloom and doom happen? For the most part no, but the environmental protections also prevented many of those scenarios so we will never know. In addition, your logic that their predictions didn't come true then so no scientific projections will ever come true is pathetic....but you knew that when you started this thread

The bigger question is do you regret the environmental protections that we made in the 60s and 70s?? I don't

Again comrade,

While the collective appreciates your attempts to avoid the
main topic of the post, your false accusations against me will not help.

We appreciate your attempts to support the nutroot fister cause,
by speaking of environment pollution cleans up and such.
But again it has failed to address the main topic at hand- thus it is spin

As for your statement:
"In addition, your logic that their predictions didn't come true
then so no scientific projections will ever come true is pathetic"


Where have I made such a logic claim?

No where have I said since the nutroot fisters were wrong
then ALL scientific projections will never come true.
This is your either your poor understanding of logic or another poor attempt at spin

Tough call

Far from it, comrade

I am discussing an issue specific point of (as I have stated in the prior post) of their "total world alarmist " claims:

"If they (nutroot fisters) were wrong then why are they not wrong now?"


A question that you have attempted to avoid at all costs.

 

[Neotrotsky]

For the most part no, but the environmental protections also prevented many of those scenarios so we will never know.

Oh really. You do know that correlation does not imply causation. Indeed, using that logic, then you must agree the election of Ronald Reagan must have prevented these scenarios since they never happened, so we will never know


Which of the 70's environmental protections prevented any of these statements from the 70's or for that matter even addressed the issues below?

This should be good.






Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist


“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, the day after the first Earth Day

“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.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“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, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“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.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“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…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“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.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“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.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“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, Ecologist

 

[rightwinger]

Your poor attempt at "spin" is noted.
The issue of the original post is NOT that all enviromental regulation is bad; But that the "total world alarmist calls" of the nutroot fisters from the 70's were wrong then and now.

You are the one trying to digress from the subject at hand

So please, lets stay on issue

Which is the false "total world alarmist " claims of the nutroots fisters in the past.
Which brings in the bigger question of

If they were wrong then why are they not wrong now?

No spin intended. Merely pointing out that the entire planet has benefited from the environmental legislation enacted in the 60s and 70s. Did the gloom and doom happen? For the most part no, but the environmental protections also prevented many of those scenarios so we will never know. In addition, your logic that their predictions didn't come true then so no scientific projections will ever come true is pathetic....but you knew that when you started this thread

The bigger question is do you regret the environmental protections that we made in the 60s and 70s?? I don't

Again comrade,

While the collective appreciates your attempts to avoid the
main topic of the post, your false accusations against me will not help.

We appreciate your attempts to support the nutroot fister cause,
by speaking of environment pollution cleans up and such.
But again it has failed to address the main topic at hand- thus it is spin

As for your statement:
"In addition, your logic that their predictions didn't come true
then so no scientific projections will ever come true is pathetic"


Where have I made such a logic claim?

No where have I said since the nutroot fisters were wrong
then ALL scientific projections will never come true.
This is your either your poor understanding of logic or another poor attempt at spin

Tough call

Far from it, comrade

I am discussing an issue specific point of (as I have stated in the prior post) of their "total world alarmist " claims:

"If they (nutroot fisters) were wrong then why are they not wrong now?"


A question that you have attempted to avoid at all costs.

You call this a response? What a load of tripe.

You learned a new word today..."nutwing fisters" and we are all impressed. But once again you have failed to defend the object of your initial post other than to serve as another of your multiple troll induced posts.

 

[Neotrotsky]

No spin intended. Merely pointing out that the entire planet has benefited from the environmental legislation enacted in the 60s and 70s. Did the gloom and doom happen? For the most part no, but the environmental protections also prevented many of those scenarios so we will never know. In addition, your logic that their predictions didn't come true then so no scientific projections will ever come true is pathetic....but you knew that when you started this thread

The bigger question is do you regret the environmental protections that we made in the 60s and 70s?? I don't

Again comrade,

While the collective appreciates your attempts to avoid the
main topic of the post, your false accusations against me will not help.

We appreciate your attempts to support the nutroot fister cause,
by speaking of environment pollution cleans up and such.
But again it has failed to address the main topic at hand- thus it is spin

As for your statement:
"In addition, your logic that their predictions didn't come true
then so no scientific projections will ever come true is pathetic"


Where have I made such a logic claim?

No where have I said since the nutroot fisters were wrong
then ALL scientific projections will never come true.
This is your either your poor understanding of logic or another poor attempt at spin

Tough call

Far from it, comrade

I am discussing an issue specific point of (as I have stated in the prior post) of their "total world alarmist " claims:

"If they (nutroot fisters) were wrong then why are they not wrong now?"


A question that you have attempted to avoid at all costs.

You call this a response? What a load of tripe.

You learned a new word today..."nutwing fisters" and we are all impressed. But once again you have failed to defend the object of your initial post other than to serve as another of your multiple troll induced posts.

I understand comrade

Can't answer the question

Truth is the worst enemy of the left

..."nutwing fisters"

It is nutroot fisters

 

[Oddball]

The object of the OP was to show that the doomsayer environutbars have been wrong at virtually every turn... An object that was met.

Saying little more than "nuh-uhhh" doesn't refute any of it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The object of the OP was to show that the doomsayer environutbars have been wrong at virtually every turn... An object that was met.

Saying little more than "nuh-uhhh" doesn't refute any of it.

Yeah sure if you say it that way...

 

[Zander]

STFU!! It is settled Science!!! Evil Humans are causing global warming!!! Evil Humans are destroying the planet. Fight Imperialism!! Stand Together!! F.I.S.T.

 

[Neotrotsky]

STFU!! It is settled Science!!! Evil Humans are causing global warming!!! Evil Humans are destroying the planet. Fight Imperialism!! Stand Together!! F.I.S.T.

Comrade

You too know of the glory of the "socialist fist"

 

[rightwinger]

We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

We DID do many things to protect the environment, so the point is moot

We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

We were in a crisis and as I have pointed out previously, we made substantial environmental changes which impacted the survival of this nation. We protected water supplies, protected the air, prevented toxic chemicals from being dumped on our citizens

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, the day after the first Earth Day

We made substantial progress in stopping polution saved Lake Erie, Hudson River, our water supplies, stopped further "Love Canal" type disasters, air polution. There would have been intolerable deterioration if we had not acted

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.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

Didn't happen in the scope predicted. We did see tens of millions in Africa die of starvation and disease. Small victory I guess

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…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

Indeed, a dire prediction..But we will never know what would have happened if we did not reduce air polution significantly. LA would probably have needed gas masks if we did not enact strict air polution controls in California

Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

Another prediction that we will never know what would have happend if we did not significantly reduce air pollution. I was in LA in the early 70s and saw the smog, I would not like to see the results if we did nothing for 40 years

We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

Many resources are being used up and we do use nonrenewables faster than we find new ones

“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.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Did the present trends continue? No
What would they have thought if they saw $4 a gallon gas?