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

[Neotrotsky]

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

I am glad you feel that way and it possible that we could agree on some "enviromental" rules

However, you "proof" is general and based on very limited causation. As such, my statement that, "you must agree the election of Ronald Reagan must have prevented these scenarios since they never happened, so we will never know" is just as valid as your claims.

Again, correlation does not imply causation.


But we digress from the original post topic

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

 

[Oddball]

Maybe the envirobats should get this dude on the horn:

 

[Neotrotsky]

Maybe the envirobats should get this dude on the horn:

Isn't this a czar?

 

[Oddball]

It's the Amazing Kreskin!

 

[rightwinger]

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

I am glad you feel that way and it possible that we could agree on some "enviromental" rules

However, you "proof" is general and based on very limited causation. As such, my statement that, "you must agree the election of Ronald Reagan must have prevented these scenarios since they never happened, so we will never know" is just as valid as your claims.

Again, correlation does not imply causation.


But we digress from the original post topic

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

By all means...it must have been Ronald Reagan

Remember good ole James Watt?

Watt's tenure as Secretary of the Interior was marked by controversy, stemming primarily from his alleged hostility to environmentalism and his support of the development and use of federal lands by foresting, ranching, and other commercial interests.

For over two decades, Watt held the record for protecting the fewest species under the Endangered Species Act in United States history. The record was broken by Dirk Kempthorne, a George W. Bush appointee who, as of August 27, 2007, had not listed a single species in the 15 months since his confirmation.

 

[Neotrotsky]

For over two decades, Watt held the record for protecting the fewest species under the Endangered Species Act in United States history. The record was broken by Dirk Kempthorne, a George W. Bush appointee who, as of August 27, 2007, had not listed a single species in the 15 months since his confirmation.

All that "damage" and still none of the dire alarmist predictions happened

Funny how that works

 

[rightwinger]

All that "damage" and still none of the dire alarmist predictions happened

Funny how that works

Oh yes

Watt and Kempthorne, two more in a long line of Republicans protecting the environment.

 

[kyzr]

Not to give away ages, but I remember the book "1984" and it seemed way out there.
Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then in 1968 a futuristic movie called "2001 A Space Odyssey" came out (like talking about 2042 now)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_(film)

Predictions always turn out to be way too extreme to come true. The truly scary part about our future is that Obama is spending way too much to cover. Clinton had a surplus if you don't count entitlements, Bush-2 squandered it.

Here is a link to Moynihan's Commission on saving SS & Medicare
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v58n2/v58n2p74.pdf

The DC whores ignored it and wasted 15-years. The longer it gets ignored the tougher it will be to make solvent. I can't imagine why no one is forcing the entitlement issue? Its only a $51-trillion mess.

 

[Polk]

A lot of the predictions being called stupid here have a similar "stupidity" to the writings of Malthus.

 

[Polk]

Notice how most of those predictions deal with food security. What happened around the same time those predictions were made? Great technological improvements which increased yields.

 

[Oddball]

The biggest and seemingly most oft made mistake of the Malthusian declinist doomsayer, is the refusal to acknowledge that technology doesn't stand still.

 

[Polk]

The biggest and seemingly most oft made mistake of the Malthusian declinist doomsayer, is the refusal to acknowledge that technology doesn't stand still.

Well, in Malthus's case, there wasn't really any reason to think a great leap in technology would solve the problem, as the pattern he observed had been a constant over the thousands of years of recorded history up to his time. More contemporary observers can't credibly say the same. Of course, I'm sure they'd counter with the argument that saying "don't worry, technology will solve the problem" is trusting in a huge uncertainty.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

And now we accomplished our goal and need to quit tightening the noose and making busywork for bureaucrats and busy work.

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

Now, don't think for one minute that this dog's gonna hunt. Why is there starvation in Africa? I'd put the vast vast VAST majority of it in barbaric tribalist politics and religious war preventing needed relief from getting where it needed to.

Look at the parts of the continent where they have stable governments. The starvation and horror are minimal in comparison to the bloodbath nations comprising the tribalist and religious insanity of the middle.

No, you can't make that equation.

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

If adjusted for inflation during the embargos, they'd think it was damn cheap.

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

Yes, this is the tasked purpose of the EPA. But you are also not taking into account nature's double edged cleaning machines nobody could have guessed ini Lake Erie: Zebra Muscles.

 

[Xenophon]

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

I'm always amazed by this kind of comment.

Can you provide a shred of proof that 'right wing conservatives' fought long and hard to prevent the saving of bald eagles and such?

Anything?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The 70s heralded the serious use of pseudo-science to sell fear. Before that though, it was used to convince recalcitrant settlers to move west into the semi-arid great plains. This was "rain follows the plow" which was cooked up to promote Manifest Destiny. Seems every time the government wants something it gets itself some bogus crap cooked up, calls it science, then foists it on the people.

Read:

Rain follows the plow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The basic premise of the theory was that human habitation and agriculture through homesteading, effected a permanent change in the climate of arid and semi-arid regions, making these regions more humid. The theory was widely promoted in the 1870s as a justification for the settlement of the Great Plains, a region previously known as the "Great American Desert". It was also used to justify the expansion of wheat growing on marginal land in South Australia during the same period.
According to the theory, increased human settlement in the region and cultivation of soil would result in an increased rainfall over time, rendering the land more fertile and lush as the population increased. As later historical records of rainfall indicated, the theory was based on faulty evidence arising from brief climatological fluctuations. The theory was later refuted by climatologists and is regarded as a serious error.

In 100 years, so will AGW be regarded as a serious error.

 

[Liability]

Where were we in 1970 vs where are we today in terms of protecting the environment?

Lake Erie was a wasteland, Hudson River was a cesspool, you couldn't eat the fish in many US rivers and lakes. Anyone remember "Love Canal" ?

Bald Eagles and a long list of creatures were in danger of extinction

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

There was and still is a very major distinction between:
(1) efforts to control or reduce or eliminate POLLUTION, and
(2) efforts to control or manage the CLIMATE and "eliminate" the "threat" of AGW.

Don't make the same mistake that leftwinger just made!

Most reasonable people applaud the former! Only left-wing socialist-inclined fubars buy the notions associated with the latter!

 

[rightwinger]

Where were we in 1970 vs where are we today in terms of protecting the environment?

Lake Erie was a wasteland, Hudson River was a cesspool, you couldn't eat the fish in many US rivers and lakes. Anyone remember "Love Canal" ?

Bald Eagles and a long list of creatures were in danger of extinction

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

There was and still is a very major distinction between:
(1) efforts to control or reduce or eliminate POLLUTION, and
(2) efforts to control or manage the CLIMATE and "eliminate" the "threat" of AGW.

Don't make the same mistake that leftwinger just made!

Most reasonable people applaud the former! Only left-wing socialist-inclined fubars buy the notions associated with the latter!

To argue that the same legal and technological techniques are not used to fight climate change and polution is naive

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

Repeating the same regurgitated pat partisan pablum doesn't make it true.

 

[Oddball]

The biggest and seemingly most oft made mistake of the Malthusian declinist doomsayer, is the refusal to acknowledge that technology doesn't stand still.

Well, in Malthus's case, there wasn't really any reason to think a great leap in technology would solve the problem, as the pattern he observed had been a constant over the thousands of years of recorded history up to his time. More contemporary observers can't credibly say the same. Of course, I'm sure they'd counter with the argument that saying "don't worry, technology will solve the problem" is trusting in a huge uncertainty.

Farmers tilling the land in the first place is trusting in huge uncertainty.

If people worried about the uncertain, most of them wouldn't make it out of bed each day.

 

[Liability]

Where were we in 1970 vs where are we today in terms of protecting the environment?

Lake Erie was a wasteland, Hudson River was a cesspool, you couldn't eat the fish in many US rivers and lakes. Anyone remember "Love Canal" ?

Bald Eagles and a long list of creatures were in danger of extinction

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

There was and still is a very major distinction between:
(1) efforts to control or reduce or eliminate POLLUTION, and
(2) efforts to control or manage the CLIMATE and "eliminate" the "threat" of AGW.

Don't make the same mistake that leftwinger just made!

Most reasonable people applaud the former! Only left-wing socialist-inclined fubars buy the notions associated with the latter!

To argue that the same legal and technological techniques are not used to fight climate change and polution is naive

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

ANd if I had argued that "the same legal and technological techniques are not used to fight climate change and polution," then there might have been some reason for your empty rhetoric. But as things stand, not so much.

And no. Conservatives did not argue against any VALID "environmental initiatives." It is true that rational people DID argue against the irrational alarmism of doomsayers who had no fucking clue what they were talking about.

As Mark Levin has noted, the enviro-wackoo fubars (my terminology, not Mr. Levin's) argued FOR the prohibition on DDT. Fucking schmucks. They are responsible for FAR more deaths than anything they helped to avoid.

So, in sum: your post is devoid of true factual basis or rationality.

You leftwingers are like that.