Lake Erie Today

It's literally EXACTLY what you are doing.
I'm not a Marxist and have made that clear. Not just in this thread, either. It's obvious from my general forum presence. Though I do think you've revealing your real reason for ignoring science. You're scared of imagined communists, so much that you're willing to distort reality.
 
I'm not a Marxist and have made that clear. Not just in this thread, either. It's obvious from my general forum presence. Though I do think you've revealing your real reason for ignoring science. You're scared of imagined communists, so much that you're willing to distort reality.
So, like I said in the other thread, what's your solution for this so called "global warming catastrophe" you claim is headed our way.
 
So, like I said in the other thread, what's your solution for this so called "global warming catastrophe" you claim is headed our way.

I don't take positions on policy for the reasons I already gave you. I don't know the answer to those questions. I'll let other people argue about it.
 
I don't take positions on policy for the reasons I already gave you. I don't know the answer to those questions. I'll let other people argue about it.
Then you are engaging in nothing more than mental masturbation using claims from proven frauds.
 
Then you are engaging in nothing more than mental masturbation using claims from proven frauds.
Which claims have been proven to be fraudulent? Can you be specific and provide sources?
 
Which claims have been proven to be fraudulent? Can you be specific and provide sources?



Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “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.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “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.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “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….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “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.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “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.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “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.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “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.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded again this year with dire predictions of “gloom and doom” and “existential threats” due to climate change. And let’s think about the question posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, longer life expectancy, and lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future – and the present – never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by virtue-signaling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC, who said several years ago that we have “only 12 years left to stop the worst impacts of climate change.”
American Enterprise Institute – AEI

About​

Scholars​

Find a scholar by policy area:

Policy Areas​

Contact​

American Enterprise Institute
1789 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20036
Main telephone: 202.862.5800
Main fax: 202.862.7177


DonateSubscribe
© 2026 American Enterprise Insitute
 
Which claims have been proven to be fraudulent? Can you be specific and provide sources?
1st claim to fail was the hot spot over the tropics.

2nd claim to fail was "why can't we find the missing heat in the oceans"

3rd claim was that famous hockey stick, now proven to originate from a single tree in a grove of trees, the others of which didn't support the claim of Mann.

I can go on and on but you will ignore them because you're either a religious nutjob, or, and this is more likely, you are a Marxist desperate for control, so you will push whatever fraud will get you your desired power.
 


Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “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.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “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.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “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….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “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.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “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.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “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.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “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.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded again this year with dire predictions of “gloom and doom” and “existential threats” due to climate change. And let’s think about the question posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, longer life expectancy, and lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future – and the present – never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by virtue-signaling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC, who said several years ago that we have “only 12 years left to stop the worst impacts of climate change.”
American Enterprise Institute – AEI

About​

Scholars​

Find a scholar by policy area:

Policy Areas​

Contact​

American Enterprise Institute
1789 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20036
Main telephone: 202.862.5800
Main fax: 202.862.7177


DonateSubscribe
© 2026 American Enterprise Insitute
1st claim to fail was the hot spot over the tropics.

2nd claim to fail was "why can't we find the missing heat in the oceans"

3rd claim was that famous hockey stick, now proven to originate from a single tree in a grove of trees, the others of which didn't support the claim of Mann.

I can go on and on but you will ignore them because you're either a religious nutjob, or, and this is more likely, you are a Marxist desperate for control, so you will push whatever fraud will get you your desired power.
You’re conflating normal scientific error correction with fraud. Nobody proves a prediction wrong and then hides it; errors are identified, debated, and corrected by the scientific community.

The tropical hot spot, the so-called missing heat, and early reconstructions of the hockey stick have all been rigorously examined, refined, and updated, not erased.

These are examples of science working exactly as it should: hypotheses tested, data reanalyzed, methods improved. The corrections come from the same scientific process, often led by people who disagree with the original authors. Science is a self correcting system.
 
You’re conflating normal scientific error correction with fraud. Nobody proves a prediction wrong and then hides it; errors are identified, debated, and corrected by the scientific community.

The tropical hot spot, the so-called missing heat, and early reconstructions of the hockey stick have all been rigorously examined, refined, and updated, not erased.

These are examples of science working exactly as it should: hypotheses tested, data reanalyzed, methods improved. The corrections come from the same scientific process, often led by people who disagree with the original authors. Science is a self correcting system.
Nope. The fraud is once the scientific theory was proven false, they doubled down and lied about their results.

And they are continuing to do so, but they aren't very bright, so they are losing on all fronts. Because their arguments are crap.
 
You’re conflating normal scientific error correction with fraud. Nobody proves a prediction wrong and then hides it; errors are identified, debated, and corrected by the scientific community.

The tropical hot spot, the so-called missing heat, and early reconstructions of the hockey stick have all been rigorously examined, refined, and updated, not erased.

These are examples of science working exactly as it should: hypotheses tested, data reanalyzed, methods improved. The corrections come from the same scientific process, often led by people who disagree with the original authors. Science is a self correcting system.
Dr Fauci wrongly claimed covid came from an animal and blackmailed scientists to sign a letter of support or be denied funding.
The hockey stick was a fraud.
Trump is correcting the invalid science now by executive order.
Refined what a lame excuse for wrong
 
Nope. The fraud is once the scientific theory was proven false, they doubled down and lied about their results.

And they are continuing to do so, but they aren't very bright, so they are losing on all fronts. Because their arguments are crap.
You’re mistaking disagreement and refinement for intentional deception. Updating methods or clarifying data doesn’t equal fraud. It’s how science functions. Claiming “they doubled down and lied” without concrete, verifiable evidence is just an accusation, not proof. The fact that research is debated, corrected, and improved shows the system works, not that it’s corrupt.
 
Dr Fauci wrongly claimed covid came from an animal and blackmailed scientists to sign a letter of support or be denied funding.
The hockey stick was a fraud.
Trump is correcting the invalid science now by executive order.
Refined what a lame excuse for wrong
That’s a conflation of politics, public statements, and policy with how science actually works. Scientific claims are validated or disproven through evidence, replication, and peer review, not by executive orders or media headlines.

Refinement and correction of methods, like in the hockey stick reconstructions, isn’t “excuse for wrong,” it’s exactly what ensures results are robust. Calling it fraud ignores the entire process of verification, debate, and improvement that is the backbone of science.
 
You’re mistaking disagreement and refinement for intentional deception. Updating methods or clarifying data doesn’t equal fraud. It’s how science functions. Claiming “they doubled down and lied” without concrete, verifiable evidence is just an accusation, not proof. The fact that research is debated, corrected, and improved shows the system works, not that it’s corrupt.
No, I am not. CLIMATEGATE removed all doubt about.
 
Dr Fauci wrongly claimed covid came from an animal and blackmailed scientists to sign a letter of support or be denied funding.
The hockey stick was a fraud.
Trump is correcting the invalid science now by executive order.
Refined what a lame excuse for wrong
Correct
 
That’s a conflation of politics, public statements, and policy with how science actually works. Scientific claims are validated or disproven through evidence, replication, and peer review, not by executive orders or media headlines.

Refinement and correction of methods, like in the hockey stick reconstructions, isn’t “excuse for wrong,” it’s exactly what ensures results are robust. Calling it fraud ignores the entire process of verification, debate, and improvement that is the backbone of science.
No thats science lying and talk about science and politics thats what climate change science is. Its driven by politics.
You have been reduced to quibbling
 
15th post
No thats science lying and talk about science and politics thats what climate change science is. Its driven by politics.
You have been reduced to quibbling
Fau-chi is the most egregious example of that science as politics paradigm that has slowly permeated the science community as a whole.
 
No, I am not. CLIMATEGATE removed all doubt about.
Climategate was a storm over emails taken out of context. Frustration, internal debate, and strategizing about communication, not proof of fabricated data. Independent investigations repeatedly cleared the scientists of fraud, and the underlying temperature, CO2, and ice core data remain intact and reproducible.
 
No thats science lying and talk about science and politics thats what climate change science is. Its driven by politics.
You have been reduced to quibbling
You’re conflating the social context around science with the science itself. Politics, headlines, and funding debates don’t change the actual measurements, the reproducibility of experiments, or the underlying physics.
 
Back
Top Bottom