Discussion:
Part 5 of the climate change articles by Ian Bradford
(too old to reply)
Tony
2021-05-03 00:24:26 UTC
Permalink
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
John Bowes
2021-05-03 05:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
George Black
2021-05-03 20:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
New Zealand is about 80 miles wide at the widest part.
Any weather that we could affect (or affect us) would be out over either
ocean in a matter of hours.
And whatever BS the greens pull the population of the country is 5
million spread out.
There are cities with 2 and even 3 times that population where those
freaks should be concentrating their anti crap crap
Rich80105
2021-05-03 21:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
New Zealand is about 80 miles wide at the widest part.
Any weather that we could affect (or affect us) would be out over either
ocean in a matter of hours.
And whatever BS the greens pull the population of the country is 5
million spread out.
There are cities with 2 and even 3 times that population where those
freaks should be concentrating their anti crap crap
Meanwhile, business have to cope with the real world
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/climate-emergency/cut-methane-slow-climate-change

It has been a lot of years now since Paul Bennet, on behalf of the
then John Key /National government, signed us up to the international
agreements on climate change. Bleating about the past does no-one any
good.
Rich80105
2021-05-03 22:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
New Zealand is about 80 miles wide at the widest part.
Any weather that we could affect (or affect us) would be out over either
ocean in a matter of hours.
And whatever BS the greens pull the population of the country is 5
million spread out.
There are cities with 2 and even 3 times that population where those
freaks should be concentrating their anti crap crap
Meanwhile, business have to cope with the real world
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/climate-emergency/cut-methane-slow-climate-change
It has been a lot of years now since Paula Bennet, on behalf of the
then John Key /National government, signed us up to the international
agreements on climate change. Bleating about the past does no-one any
good.
Paula not Paul - typo fixed.
John Bowes
2021-05-04 04:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
New Zealand is about 80 miles wide at the widest part.
Any weather that we could affect (or affect us) would be out over either
ocean in a matter of hours.
And whatever BS the greens pull the population of the country is 5
million spread out.
There are cities with 2 and even 3 times that population where those
freaks should be concentrating their anti crap crap
Meanwhile, business have to cope with the real world
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/climate-emergency/cut-methane-slow-climate-change
It has been a lot of years now since Paul Bennet, on behalf of the
then John Key /National government, signed us up to the international
agreements on climate change. Bleating about the past does no-one any
good.
Paula and John borrow the Dr's Tardis did they Rich? The kyoto Protocol was signed in 2005 when Helen Clark had a firm grip on the reigns of government :)
Bleating about the past can leave left wing bleaters looking like even bigger fools than usually do Rich :)
Gordon
2021-05-04 05:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
New Zealand is about 80 miles wide at the widest part.
Depending on how you define width the width is more like 270km (168 miles)

It is more a case of there are very few places in NZ which are more than
80 miles from the sea.
George Black
2021-05-04 20:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
New Zealand is about 80 miles wide at the widest part.
Depending on how you define width the width is more like 270km (168 miles)
It is more a case of there are very few places in NZ which are more than
80 miles from the sea.
Okay.
Thanks for the update and the claim still stands that any weather we
have doesn't stick around because the islands are to narrow
Rich80105
2021-05-05 01:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by Gordon
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
The comedy duo of Rich and Keith will naturally poo poo everything that goes against what they're prepared to accept without question but that's the way of trolls everywhere and Rich and Keith in particular....
New Zealand is about 80 miles wide at the widest part.
Depending on how you define width the width is more like 270km (168 miles)
It is more a case of there are very few places in NZ which are more than
80 miles from the sea.
Okay.
Thanks for the update and the claim still stands that any weather we
have doesn't stick around because the islands are to narrow
What do you mean by "weather we have doesn't stick around"? We have
weather every day, and the closest correlation to weather today is
weather yesterday or tomorrow, but yes there is constant change -
always has been and always will be. How narrow our country is (and
that does vary) does not have much effect - mostly our weather
patterns are mainly South to North. Of course our weather is changing
on longer cycles as well, and it is those longer cycles that are
affected by such things as atmospheric conditions, which in turn are
partly influenced by some activities of humans.
James Christophers
2021-05-04 22:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/05/02/the-myths-of-climate-change-5-the-new-zealand-reality/
Some good points in his presentation. The graph at the bottom of the page indicates the CCC and UN aren't looking at all the facts.
It's a dead cert the CCC and the UN will be looking closely at the fact that the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.

Since the earth's atmosphere is critical to all life and is also the only one we have, best, I think, not to fuck about with it overmuch because there is no association with benefits, and a significant association with harms. I'm talking about total man-made global emissions, gaseous and particulate et al.
BR
2021-05-05 17:11:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
George Black
2021-05-05 20:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
Bill.
Has the idiot seen the size of the Amazon forest????????
John Bowes
2021-05-05 21:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
Bill.
Has the idiot seen the size of the Amazon forest????????
In this case he's parroting what many scientists are saying. Our greed for hardwood trees and palm oil are destroying immense tracts of the Amazon on an annual basis and the governments that have control over it's area are failing to curtail it. Part of the problem is when the cleared land is planted in oil palms or other crops it's only good for a couple of seasons before it becomes uneconomical to farm because the land is in fact poor in nutrients and chemicals (many which come from the sahara). Thus causing further clearing. It's a bit like when Keith joins a thread: a never ending story :)
John Bowes
2021-05-05 21:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
It's an old belief pushed by the UN's band of mythmakers. Though he is correct that the Amazon forest are important to the worlds health. But typical of the climate fanatics like Keith it's considered holy writ and ignores all the other things that can affect climate. Hell some climate scientists are wondering if what's happening is leading to another ice age along with worries about a pole shift which could very well screw every electronic device and electrical system in the world :)
James Christophers
2021-05-06 02:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
John Bowes
2021-05-06 05:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
Pity you don't practice what you preach Keith :0
BR
2021-05-07 06:10:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 5 May 2021 19:26:14 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
Every opinion is represented on the internet.

So what is the source of the above claim, and how was it's accuracy
determined?

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2021-05-07 10:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
On Wed, 5 May 2021 19:26:14 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
Every opinion is represented on the internet.
So what is the source of the above claim, and how was it's accuracy
determined?
Bill.
You are identifying a perennial problem, and a question that can be
legitimately asked with respect to the articles by Ian Bradford, but
in defence of Tony who drew the attention of nz.general readers to
those articles, neither he not the author pretends that they are
anything other than opinions. It is my opinion that the articles are
worth what I paid to read them; others may hold different opinions.

Regarding the statement about the Amazon Forests, I suggest a few
simple relevant Google searches on the internet; if that does not
result in a reasonable answer fairly quickly, post the searches you
tried and ask for one that gives the statement made above.
John Bowes
2021-05-07 22:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
On Wed, 5 May 2021 19:26:14 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
Every opinion is represented on the internet.
So what is the source of the above claim, and how was it's accuracy
determined?
Bill.
You are identifying a perennial problem, and a question that can be
legitimately asked with respect to the articles by Ian Bradford, but
in defence of Tony who drew the attention of nz.general readers to
those articles, neither he not the author pretends that they are
anything other than opinions. It is my opinion that the articles are
worth what I paid to read them; others may hold different opinions.
Everything posted in the news and on the net ia opinion Rich. some are of interest and value but many are like yours worthless and support modern myths like climate change.
Post by Rich80105
Regarding the statement about the Amazon Forests, I suggest a few
simple relevant Google searches on the internet; if that does not
result in a reasonable answer fairly quickly, post the searches you
tried and ask for one that gives the statement made above.
Old news and old data Rich. They're starting to understand that the oceans are even more important than the amazon rain forset which is a major producer of methane which is the current bad gas1 Though much of it's emissions can be stopped by better maintenance of industrial facilities.
Gordon
2021-05-08 04:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
On Wed, 5 May 2021 19:26:14 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
Every opinion is represented on the internet.
So what is the source of the above claim, and how was it's accuracy
determined?
Deforeststation. The trees are being cut down and the carbon in them
converted to CO2. This is not strictly the forest doing this.
BR
2021-05-08 17:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
So what is the source of the above claim, and how was it's accuracy
determined?
Deforeststation. The trees are being cut down and the carbon in them
converted to CO2. This is not strictly the forest doing this.
Perfect answer, to a question that wasn't asked.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
James Christophers
2021-05-09 00:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
So what is the source of the above claim,
Scientific, as your own researches will reveal.
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
and how was it's accuracy
determined?
Scientifically, as your same researches will also reveal.
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Deforeststation. The trees are being cut down and the carbon in them
converted to CO2. This is not strictly the forest doing this.
Perfect answer, to a question that wasn't asked.
George Black
2021-05-08 20:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
On Wed, 5 May 2021 19:26:14 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
Every opinion is represented on the internet.
So what is the source of the above claim, and how was it's accuracy
determined?
Deforeststation. The trees are being cut down and the carbon in them
converted to CO2. This is not strictly the forest doing this.
So all the grass that can grow in that cleared area (think blade area)
wont produce as much CO2...
Really ?????????????????????????????????
George Black
2021-05-09 00:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Sort of like the Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the
summer by now..

We all know what happened to that prediction...

Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these
ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".

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

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which 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.”

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 “Echo-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.”

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 78.8 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.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences,
published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves
and estimated the 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 that, “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, 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.”
Rich80105
2021-05-09 10:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Sort of like the Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the
summer by now..
We all know what happened to that prediction...
Who predicted that?
Post by George Black
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these
ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
facing mankind.”
And he was correct
Post by George Black
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which 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.
And that is still correct
Post by George Black
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.”
Still correct
Post by George Black
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.”
Yep, incorrect. About that time there were also predictions about the
size of computers . . .
Post by George Black
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 “Echo-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.”
And they were wrong about peak oil as well . . .
Post by George Black
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.”
Still not true, despite Trump and Covid - it could have happened
though!
Post by George Black
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.
Our capacity to grow food was not correct at that time - but
predictions in other areas have been found to be true.
Post by George Black
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.”
So that was wrong too, but it has little to do with current scientific
predictions.

I guess if you get your predictions from popular magazines you may
well believe everything they say - our ability to analyse events has
changed a little since 1970 - why not go back to flat earth beleifs -
oh, that may not fit your preferences . . .
Post by George Black
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 78.8 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.'”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences,
published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves
and estimated the 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 that, “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, 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.”
John Bowes
2021-05-09 21:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Sort of like the Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the
summer by now..
We all know what happened to that prediction...
Who predicted that?
Post by George Black
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these
ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
facing mankind.”
And he was correct
Post by George Black
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which 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.
And that is still correct
Post by George Black
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.”
Still correct
Post by George Black
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.”
Yep, incorrect. About that time there were also predictions about the
size of computers . . .
Post by George Black
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 “Echo-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.”
And they were wrong about peak oil as well . . .
Post by George Black
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.”
Still not true, despite Trump and Covid - it could have happened
though!
Post by George Black
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.
Our capacity to grow food was not correct at that time - but
predictions in other areas have been found to be true.
Post by George Black
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.”
So that was wrong too, but it has little to do with current scientific
predictions.
I guess if you get your predictions from popular magazines you may
well believe everything they say - our ability to analyse events has
changed a little since 1970 - why not go back to flat earth beleifs -
oh, that may not fit your preferences . . .
But it would fit your belief the UN's proselytizing of climate warming/change is the one true faith Rich :)
Gordon
2021-05-10 03:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Sort of like the Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the
summer by now..
We all know what happened to that prediction...
Who predicted that?
Any number of "climate scientists"
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these
ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
facing mankind.”
And he was correct
2020 - 1975 > 30 yes? So we have either lost all civilisation or he was
wrong.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which 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.
And that is still correct
So you can see into the future?
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Still correct
This idea has taken hold. Not maybe as much as it could have.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Yep, incorrect. About that time there were also predictions about the
size of computers . . .
No the memory in them.

It is estimated that the earths poulation will peak at 11.6 billion give or
take a few. About 1.5 times what it is now.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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 “Echo-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.”
And they were wrong about peak oil as well . . .
Nope, like the weather it is the timing they got wrong.

A large chuck of rock crashing into the earth would give new meaning to
climate change. Happened 66 million years ago after all.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Still not true, despite Trump and Covid - it could have happened
though!
Post by George Black
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.
Our capacity to grow food was not correct at that time - but
predictions in other areas have been found to be true.
Post by George Black
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.”
So that was wrong too, but it has little to do with current scientific
predictions.
I guess if you get your predictions from popular magazines you may
well believe everything they say - our ability to analyse events has
changed a little since 1970 - why not go back to flat earth beleifs -
oh, that may not fit your preferences . . .
Post by George Black
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….”
What they left out was ..at the current rate....
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.
How about the O2 which is generated?
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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 78.8 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.'”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences,
published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves
and estimated the 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 that, “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, 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.”
James Christophers
2021-05-10 05:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Sort of like the Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the
summer by now..
We all know what happened to that prediction...
Who predicted that?
Any number of "climate scientists"
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these
ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
facing mankind.”
And he was correct
2020 - 1975 > 30 yes? So we have either lost all civilisation or he was
wrong.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which 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.
And that is still correct
So you can see into the future?
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Still correct
This idea has taken hold. Not maybe as much as it could have.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Yep, incorrect. About that time there were also predictions about the
size of computers . . .
No the memory in them.
It is estimated that the earths poulation will peak at 11.6 billion give or
take a few. About 1.5 times what it is now.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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 “Echo-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.”
And they were wrong about peak oil as well . . .
Nope, like the weather it is the timing they got wrong.
A large chuck of rock crashing into the earth would give new meaning to
climate change. Happened 66 million years ago after all.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Still not true, despite Trump and Covid - it could have happened
though!
Post by George Black
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.
Our capacity to grow food was not correct at that time - but
predictions in other areas have been found to be true.
Post by George Black
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.”
So that was wrong too, but it has little to do with current scientific
predictions.
I guess if you get your predictions from popular magazines you may
well believe everything they say - our ability to analyse events has
changed a little since 1970 - why not go back to flat earth beleifs -
oh, that may not fit your preferences . . .
Post by George Black
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….”
What they left out was ..at the current rate...
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Apropos of which, just in:

"...nitrate levels in the Selwyn (River have) increased but...the pollution now (is)... most likely the result of farming practices 30 years ago, as nitrates slowly (leach) their way through the soils."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/125082037/nitrates-in-canterbury-river-up-50-per-cent-in-22-months-fishing-group-says

Fuck with Nature, then cease and desist, and she can restore herself in remarkably short order. Punish and degrade her beyond tolerance and **you** and your kind will be the ultimate losers.

If all creatures on earth that do dwell - bar humans - were to vanish overnight, humans would be extinct within less than 50 years. If all humans were to vanish off the face of the earth tomorrow morning, this world would thrive and within 50m years would have restored itself to its original pre-human condition.
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use
up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to
suffocate.
(See my preceding para)
Post by Gordon
How about the O2 which is generated?
From decaying organic pollutants? (Polite cough)
James Christophers
2021-05-10 11:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Sort of like the Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the
summer by now..
We all know what happened to that prediction...
Who predicted that?
Any number of "climate scientists"
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these
ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
facing mankind.”
And he was correct
2020 - 1975 > 30 yes? So we have either lost all civilisation or he was
wrong.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which 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.
And that is still correct
So you can see into the future?
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Still correct
This idea has taken hold. Not maybe as much as it could have.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Yep, incorrect. About that time there were also predictions about the
size of computers . . .
No the memory in them.
It is estimated that the earths poulation will peak at 11.6 billion give or
take a few. About 1.5 times what it is now.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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 “Echo-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.”
And they were wrong about peak oil as well . . .
Nope, like the weather it is the timing they got wrong.
A large chuck of rock crashing into the earth would give new meaning to
climate change. Happened 66 million years ago after all.
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
Still not true, despite Trump and Covid - it could have happened
though!
Post by George Black
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.
Our capacity to grow food was not correct at that time - but
predictions in other areas have been found to be true.
Post by George Black
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.”
So that was wrong too, but it has little to do with current scientific
predictions.
I guess if you get your predictions from popular magazines you may
well believe everything they say - our ability to analyse events has
changed a little since 1970 - why not go back to flat earth beleifs -
oh, that may not fit your preferences . . .
Post by George Black
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….”
What they left out was ..at the current rate...
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
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.”
"...nitrate levels in the Selwyn (River have) increased but...the pollution now (is)... most likely the result of farming practices 30 years ago, as nitrates slowly (leach) their way through the soils."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/125082037/nitrates-in-canterbury-river-up-50-per-cent-in-22-months-fishing-group-says
Fuck with Nature, then cease and desist, and she can restore herself in remarkably short order. Punish and degrade her beyond tolerance and **you** and your kind will be the ultimate losers.
If all creatures that on earth do dwell - bar humans - were to vanish overnight, humans would be extinct within less than 50 years. If all humans were to vanish off the face of the earth tomorrow morning, this world would thrive and within 50 years would have restored itself to its original pre-human condition.
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use
up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to
suffocate.
(See my preceding para)
Post by Gordon
How about the O2 which is generated?
From decaying organic pollutants? (Polite cough)
James Christophers
2021-05-10 00:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Sort of like the Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the
summer by now..
We all know what happened to that prediction...
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these
ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which 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.”
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 “Echo-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.”
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 78.8 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.'”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences,
published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves
and estimated the 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 that, “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, 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.”
A healthy sprinkling of apocalyptic visionaries will always be with us. They make good copy and even if their only purpose is to give us pause in our headlong rush to "progress"(n), then so much the better.

That said, your post refers to predictions made about half a century ago. At best, they could only have been inferred unknowns, extrapolations of **then-existing conditions**, the quality and accuracy of such data limited by the quality and availability of the science and the methodologies then to hand.

It was either that or do nothing, and good luck to those least able to cope with or even survive the potential consequences of collective inaction.

So, George, from the global perspective which option would have been preferable at the time, and why?
Rich80105
2021-05-08 23:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
On Wed, 5 May 2021 19:26:14 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
...the Amazon forests - "the lungs of the world" - are now a net emitter of CO2. This change is solely down to human activity.
Where did you get that from?
From sources equally available to you online free of charge. All that's required is a little effort on your part to secure the knowledge you evidently lack...
Every opinion is represented on the internet.
So what is the source of the above claim, and how was it's accuracy
determined?
Deforeststation. The trees are being cut down and the carbon in them
converted to CO2. This is not strictly the forest doing this.
That is why the statement "This change is solely down to human
activity." Yes storms and natural fires do destroy parts of
forests, but they regenerate fairly quickly; widespread deforestation,
particularly through fire, is what has made a significant difference,
not just related to climate change, but to the livelihood of those
displaced.
Loading...