A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:16 am

Claim: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

. . .


Claim April 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.

Read all of them here:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/courses/e2200/pop.htm
I wonder how much unnecessary grief and worrying these predictions caused?...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Tommy Tar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:32 am

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Tommy Tar » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:29 am

I remember the coming ice age stuff from the 70s. #-o

Same playbook as today :hide:
‘I Haven’t Seen Democrats This Mad Since We Freed the Slaves!’..... Rob Schneider.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:39 am

Tommy Tar wrote:I remember the coming ice age stuff from the 70s. #-o

Same playbook as today :hide:

Exactly.

If you're scared, you're malleable. It's why the liberal's marketing and protection organizations (the MSM) writes climate change stories with words like "really really scary" and "frightening."

"really really scary?" Really...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

MDDad
Posts: 12123
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by MDDad » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:35 pm

As long as the current amount of "climate change" is only really, really scary, I'm not gonna sweat it until it's really, really, REALLY scary.

Seriously, I think we have to look at "climate change" pragmatically. Either mankind's contribution has had no effect on "climate change" and what we are witnessing is just the normal, random variations in the earth's climate,

OR

mankind's contribution has impacted "climate change" but billions of people will not agree to the drastic lifestyle changes that would be required to reverse things. In that case, like Thelma and Louise, we've already gone over the edge of the cliff and we might as well just enjoy ourselves on the way down.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Fordama » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:26 pm

Tommy Tar wrote:I remember the coming ice age stuff from the 70s. #-o

Same playbook as today :hide:
You don't remember that from any scientific writings, you remember that from an overpublicized magazine article.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Wabash » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:58 pm

Fordama wrote: You don't remember that from any scientific writings, you remember that from an overpublicized magazine article.

Fordama
Using facts again. How dare you? :D
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Fordama » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:04 pm

Wabash wrote: Using facts again. How dare you? :D
I know. In fact, I think I'll throw a little graph out about the subject: It is the number of peer-reviewed studies on climate. The red bars are the number of studies that predicted warming, the blue cooling.

Even back then the scientists were predicting warming.

Image
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

Tommy Tar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:32 am

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Tommy Tar » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:51 pm

Fordama wrote: You don't remember that from any scientific writings, you remember that from an overpublicized magazine article.

Fordama
Newport Harbor High School science teachers 1974-1977. It was just like todays global warming, only then it was man made smog was stopping sunlight from reaching the earth. The lack of sunlight was going to cool the earth and over time the ice age would come. I saw the move future shock in science every year. The end of the earth coming and it was on us. :hide:
‘I Haven’t Seen Democrats This Mad Since We Freed the Slaves!’..... Rob Schneider.

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Parrotpaul » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:07 pm

.....and what happened when they decided to regulate emissions causing all that smog?
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8880
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Omar Bongo » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:08 pm

Yeah, I stopped believing anything scientists say after we found out the Earth isn't the center of the universe like they told us.
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:28 pm

Fordama wrote: I know. In fact, I think I'll throw a little graph out about the subject: It is the number of peer-reviewed studies on climate. The red bars are the number of studies that predicted warming, the blue cooling.

Even back then the scientists were predicting warming.

Image
... The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
[Rockefeller funded UEA climate 'scientist'] Phil

http://di2.nu/foia/1089318616.txt
[Hey Phil, if the science in that paper was "garbage", then why not let simple peer review science reject them? Why the need to figure out a way to "somehow" keep them out? Scared of something? Protecting somebody?...


Climategate "Email 2151, Jan 2005, Tom Wigley: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted""

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2151.txt

[Wow... A climate 'scientist" suggested going through "channels" to get a suspected climate skeptic at a peer review journal ousted... If these 'scientists' were successful at getting people in power with their point of "science' view, then this would be one big reason why that there are so many more peer reviewed warmist papers than skeptical papers... The other would be the massive funding from Soros, Rockefeller, and governments in pushing their one interdependent world of lower lifestyle living. ]

. . .

Response from Saiers, Nov 2009:
"I haven’t looked for, and don’t intend to look for, my name in the CRU emails, but one of my colleagues did alert me to an email written by Wigley in which he suggested that, if I were a climate skeptic, then steps should be taken to get me “ousted.” Wigley’s suggestion stems, I believe, from the publication of a GRL paper (by McIntyre and McKitrick) that criticized certain elements of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper. This paper caused a bit of a stir and because I oversaw the peer review of this paper, I assume that Wigley inferred (incorrectly) that I was a climate-change skeptic. I stepped down as GRL editor at the end of my three-year term, long after the excitement over the McIntyre and McKitrick paper had passed. My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked."

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/ ... aiers.html
[Peer review] [Climate science] Gatekeeping at GRL? You be the Judge:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/ ... judge.html
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:45 pm

Fordama wrote: You don't remember that from any scientific writings, you remember that from an overpublicized magazine article.

Fordama

How can you be sure he didn't read this peer reviewed article (that I brought to your awareness a year or two ago and which you've acknowledged:?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract
From the abstract:
"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

There were also a number of articles throughout the 70's that mentioned the possibility that we might be heading into an ice age. How can you be sure he didn't read any of these?


Even the CIA in 1974 was concerned with a coming ice age:
The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files
The threat of a new ice age loomed so large in 1974 that American intelligence collated a report on the likely effects. Maurizio Morabito unearthed it
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/559 ... ing-files/
Wabash wrote: Using facts again. How dare you?

A twofer again... :D
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8880
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Omar Bongo » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:55 pm

Oooooo....shiny object.
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:12 pm

What a discomforted liberal sounds like:
Omar Bongo wrote:Oooooo....shiny object.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Fordama » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:41 pm

kramer wrote:

How can you be sure he didn't read this peer reviewed article (that I brought to your awareness a year or two ago and which you've acknowledged:?
Did you happen to notice the number of peer reviewed items on the subject, or are you just going to continue to anomaly hunt?

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:53 pm

Fordama wrote: You don't remember that from any scientific writings, you remember that from an overpublicized magazine article.

Fordama
Wabash wrote:Using facts again. How dare you? :D
Some more instances of claims of "global cooling" and "ice age" from the 70s that show the claim that it came from one "over-publicized magazine article" is wrong:
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."


C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles ... genda.html
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:06 pm

kramer wrote: Some more instances of claims of "global cooling" and "ice age" from the 70s that show the claim that it came from one "over-publicized magazine article" is wrong:
More denialism. Despite the actual evidence of the actual amount of science on the issue, you continue to anomaly hunt and ignore the vast majority of evidence on the subject. This time you ignore the actual numbers of peer reviewed science on the issue.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:15 am

kramer wrote: Some more instances of claims of "global cooling" and "ice age" from the 70s that show the claim that it came from one "over-publicized magazine article" is wrong:
Fordama wrote:More denialism. Despite the actual evidence of the actual amount of science on the issue, you continue to anomaly hunt and ignore the vast majority of evidence on the subject. This time you ignore the actual numbers of peer reviewed science on the issue.

Fordama

All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong you are when you said that he got his global cooling or ice age information from "an overpublicized magazine article." There were more than "one" articles on this topic in the 70's.

Must suck for you to be educated by a buck-toothed mouth-breathing lesser intelligent conservative. I bet it wadded up your tin foil panties up the crack of your democrat...
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by Fordama » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:28 am

kramer wrote:


All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong you are when you said that he got his global cooling or ice age information from "an overpublicized magazine article." There were more than "one" articles on this topic in the 70's.

Must suck for you to be educated by a buck-toothed mouth-breathing lesser intelligent conservative. I bet it wadded up your tin foil panties up the crack of your democrat...
Sorry to burst your bubble again, but the hoo-haa that is being referenced was largely because of that Newsweek article. The actual science--which I've showed you, wasn't the source. You mistakenly believe that science is done in the media.

Once again, you demonstrate your failure to understand science or the scientific process.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: A 'few' predictions gone wrong

Post by kramer » Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:22 pm

Fordama wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble again, but the hoo-haa that is being referenced was largely because of that Newsweek article.
That newsweek article was dated Newsweek, April 28, 1975. There were a number or articles that preceded it.

Looks like you 'forgot' these prior articles.

...and this peer reviewed 1971 science article

Here's an article that came out almost 2 months before that Newsweek article.

I can show you more articles prior to 1975 but I think the bitch-slap is noted.


Fordama wrote: The actual science--which I've showed you, wasn't the source.
And I've shown you a 1971 peer reviewed science paper that suggested aerosols may cause global cooling and an article where James Hansen was concerned about an ice age. And these were before the Newsweek article.


Fordama wrote: You mistakenly believe that science is done in the media.
You purposely spew forth blatent BS like this. But hey, if you can back it up go for it. Here's the occonnect search link:
http://occonnect.com/community/search.php
Fordama wrote:Once again, you demonstrate your failure to understand science or the scientific process.

Fordama
You fail to see how AGW is being leveraged to push a huge left-wing agenda and you fail to see the shortcomings, weaknesses, and fraud in science. For some reason, you think scientists are pure, enlightened, and flawless people.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
- Richard Feyman (probably my favorite physicist)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Post Reply