Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 7, 2008 11:57:14 GMT -4
In 1885 the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same thing about Kansas and Texas.
In 1939 the U.S. Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
In 1967, Professor Paul Ehrlich in New Scientist said "the battle to feed all of humanity is over...In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." He also predicted 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and that by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
At the First Earth Day, 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 Meterorological Organization, at the same celebration: "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book The Doomsday Book said that Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they will, if permitted, be using all of them."
In 1970 George Wald, Harvard University biologist warned "...civilization will end within 15 or 30 yeasr unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wisconsin, and one of the principle founders of Earth Day) warned in Look Magazine that by 1995 "...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome (a global think tank) warning that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, and petroleum, copper, lead, and natural gas by 1992.
In 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.
In 1975 the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Obviously all of these predictions were wrong, despite many of them having been issued by respectible scientists and scientific organizations (like the U.S. Geological Survey).
Why should I pay any more attention to today's environmentalist doomsayers who predict similarly dire results from Global Warming?
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 7, 2008 12:22:46 GMT -4
A lot of scientists and politicians don't understand economics and the power of pricing and substitutions to change supply and demand. Science frequently works on the premise that the actors in the equation cannot change behavior over the short run. A reasonable premise if you are dealing with many animals. Not so reasonable when dealing with human behavior, where we have a tremendous amount of evidence that humans do in fact change behavior in quickly response to price. Environmental alarmism however something that we can count on to be cheap to produce and have a unending supply.
On caveat in just listing studies, though. Some of these undoubtedly were restricted to current known supplies, thus establishing the need to alter the supply, rather than as a absolute projection of universal supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 7, 2008 19:40:05 GMT -4
A lot of scientists and politicians don't understand economics and the power of pricing and substitutions to change supply and demand. Ne'er have truer words been spoken! I suspect much of the apparent ignorance on the part of politicians is feigned, in order to pander. For example, I don't believe for one minute that the two politicians who cruised through my neighborhood a while back, campaigning for the highest office in the land, are nearly as stupid as they would appear from their professed economic policies. They're just being politicians, catering to an audience. I find it harder to rationalize the contempt for knowledge exhibited by so many scientists. For example, BAUT has a whole sub-forum devoted to ridiculing people who don't know anything about astronomy or physics, and yet you may read there on a daily basis economic theories at least as goofy as any of the junk science theories, often actively promoted by the same people who love to ridicule the junk scientists. It rather makes me think a world run by BAUT would be like the Soviet Union, but without the efficiency. Then I think of the scientists I've met IRL, they don't seem to be rabid, fire-breathing woo-woos at all. So I really hope it is just a matter of internet scientists vs. real-life scientists. But then again, the case cited here is one of real-life scientists  |
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 7, 2008 20:08:20 GMT -4
People make crazy claims all the time about all subjects. You manage to lump a whole bunch of things together (many of which are barely "environmental") and then speculate the Global Warming science is the same as the science or lack thereof in your list of crazy claims.
So -- get on with showing that Global Warming science is the same as any of the claims you list above.
|
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 7, 2008 20:09:32 GMT -4
Why do I have the feeling that you are going to get both of us banned by starting this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 7, 2008 22:23:31 GMT -4
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book The Doomsday Book said that Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they will, if permitted, be using all of them." Well, the last part of that one is pretty much true. If permitted, they would. Why should I pay any more attention to today's environmentalist doomsayers who predict similarly dire results from Global Warming? Well, you shouldn't accept them on faith or authority, any more than you should take a bunch of cherry-picked predictions that didn't turn out as evidence that all similar sounding predictions must be false. You should pay attention if they have evidence that their predictions are likely to be true. Up to you to decide what evidence you find convincing. I would reemphasize my support for echnaton's comments. Many predictions made are of the form "at the current rate of consumption, the world's known supplies of commodity X will be exhausted by year Y." Assuming they did the math right, such "predictions" are correct. The supply is hardly ever exhausted by year Y, because new supplies are discovered (and rising prices of scarce commodities encourage exploration and development of new supplies) and because consumption rates decline (also encouraged by rising prices); oftentimes, the people making such statements are clearly aware that both the supply and the demand side of the equation will change. People with somewhat less nuance may then pick up part of these statements and run with them, conveniently leaving out the assumptions. Not every example you cite falls into this category, though - Paul Ehrlich clearly believed that the shortages really would occur. Why do I have the feeling that you are going to get both of us banned by starting this thread? Now that would be quite an accomplishment. I haven't managed it yet, despite quite a bit of effort. People make crazy claims all the time about all subjects. Yes, cherry picking the most extreme statements made on a topic pretty much guarantees that they're going to be BS. The most extreme statements being made today about global warming are almost certainly BS. That doesn't, by itself, tell us that all claims about global warming are BS. |
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 8, 2008 10:03:08 GMT -4
It's just that LO has already locked a thread on the same topic....
I pointed out several times in the other thread that there are NO relevant scientific bodies in the world that deny global warming is real and that it is being caused by humans. Sure, that's an appeal to authority -- but unless Jason wants to provide some kind of factual reason that I should take his word over that of climate scientists, I'm going to go with the scientists.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 8, 2008 10:08:35 GMT -4
The topic isn't the problem, it's the way you two tend to interact with each other that causes problems. If you can discuss it without insulting each other or becoming hostile then that's fine, go right ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 8, 2008 10:16:13 GMT -4
I honestly don't think we insult each other. I think Jason would back me up on this. We continued the other discussion for several rounds of personal messages. Sure we're testy, but Jason has never called me anything disrespectful.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 8, 2008 13:45:49 GMT -4
I honestly don't think we insult each other. I think Jason would back me up on this. We continued the other discussion for several rounds of personal messages. Sure we're testy, but Jason has never called me anything disrespectful. Thank you. I would agree that though we get somewhat heated we don't cross the line into insults. If wdmundt just called me names or repeatedly stated he would ignore any replies I might write then I wouldn't bother trying to debate him any longer. Some of our discussions do seem to degenerate into repeating the same points, and that's why I thought the last thread on global warming was locked - because we stopped covering new territory and were effectively at an impass.. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 8, 2008 13:52:31 GMT -4
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book The Doomsday Book said that Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they will, if permitted, be using all of them." Well, the last part of that one is pretty much true. If permitted, they would. I disagree. Americans are a generous and generally fair-minded people, and wouldn't take everything without providing what they feel is fair compensation, or aid where it is needed. That attitude prevents us from consuming everything. Which is the problem, because no one seems to be able to show me evidence that humans are causing global warming or that human activity can somehow mitigate it. I can come up with dozens of examples that seem to prove that the climate is changing, but nothing that proves the causal link to human behavior. Which raises the question of "why even make such a statement at all?" If you know that you are only making a statement about current conditions that will all change by the time of your prediction then why bother? Unfortunately I don't have the original quotes here to see them in context, so I can't verify whether the statements were made with this understanding that other supplies might be found or not. If you really want to get banned there is a sure-fire way - just start throwing profanity and insults around. |
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 17:48:43 GMT -4
I disagree. Americans are a generous and generally fair-minded people, and wouldn't take everything without providing what they feel is fair compensation, or aid where it is needed. That attitude prevents us from consuming everything. And I disagree with your disagreement  I think the evidence is clear, not just from the US, but worldwide - when the price is low, consumption is high. The reason people in the US (and in fact people everywhere) do not consume incredible quantities of resources is because it is costly for them to do so. When it is not costly, people consume a lot. For example, fuel subsidies in Iran - the country with the third largest oil supplies in the world will soon become a net importer of energy, if it has not already. Energy is heavily subsidized, so it is cheap, and people use it very wastefully. In the US, gasoline consumption is lower than last year. Is this because the price is higher, or is it because Americans came to some collective ethical decision that they ought to use less oil, so there will be more oil available for the other people in the world? Americans generous and fair-minded? Like most people, some of the time, in some circumstances. Which is the problem, because no one seems to be able to show me evidence that humans are causing global warming or that human activity can somehow mitigate it. I can come up with dozens of examples that seem to prove that the climate is changing, but nothing that proves the causal link to human behavior. OK, so do we agree then that the proof or lack thereof for human-caused global warming is in the evidence (or absence) thereof, not in whether Paul Ehrlich's predictions of food shortages came true or not? Which raises the question of "why even make such a statement at all?" If you know that you are only making a statement about current conditions that will all change by the time of your prediction then why bother? I can think of all kinds of reasons to make such statements. I used to make statements like some of these myself in a job I had some years back. Consumption of a commodity is occurring at such and such a rate, there is this much of it known to exist, how long the supply will last is a simple division problem. We used to do things like this all the time, trying to forecast prices and production levels, changes in demand induced by price, etc. I have made statements along the lines of "At the current rate of consumption, the world's known supply of X will be exhausted in 25 years. However, new supplies have been discovered at the average rate of Z per year during the last decade, and price pressure in the coming years will result in intensified development as previously uneconomical sources begin to be tapped. Furthermore, at a price of K, it will be more economical for industry L to substitute commodity M in their production process, moderating the demand for commodity X." I wonder if any of those mutated into, "Khrushchev's Other Shoe predicts a global collapse of civilization in 25 years when the world supply of commodity X runs out." Unfortunately I don't have the original quotes here to see them in context, so I can't verify whether the statements were made with this understanding that other supplies might be found or not. My guess would be that there are some of each. Paul Ehrlich, at least, was pretty clear that he was forecasting an actual shortage, not a hypothetical shortage based on hypothetical (and unrealistic) assumptions that neither supply nor demand would change in response to changes in prices. I don't know if the other specific quotes you have provided fall into the same category, but if they don't, I imagine you wouldn't have difficulty finding others that do. But in any event, these quotes are cherry-picked - is it reasonable to find the goofiest proclamations made on a certain front, and argue that all other statements from that front must be equally goofy? I'm sure I can find some pretty goofy quotes by people who share your position on global warming if I look hard enough. That does not discredit people who take your position. I'll keep that in mind |
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 17:49:36 GMT -4
It's just that LO has already locked a thread on the same topic.... Ah, got it. So, Jason likes to play with fire? |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 8, 2008 18:02:54 GMT -4
And I disagree with your disagreement So who is consistantly more generous than America? Yes, of course it is. Pointing out false predictions is a way of establishing that the current alarmism of people like Ted Turner predicting global warming will make us all be cannibals in 10 years is nothing new or remarkable, and therefore despite the bigger and flashier presentation it's still the pronouncements of a person with an agenda rather than facts. And there is a certain entertainment value to pointing out the ridiculousness. Like the man who believed Nessie had been killed by global warming. Am I arguing that? |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 8, 2008 18:03:34 GMT -4
It's just that LO has already locked a thread on the same topic.... Ah, got it. So, Jason likes to play with fire? Well my favorite subjects on this forum have been religion and politics, so I guess so. |
|
I think the evidence is clear, not just from the US, but worldwide - when the price is low, consumption is high. The reason people in the US (and in fact people everywhere) do not consume incredible quantities of resources is because it is costly for them to do so. When it is not costly, people consume a lot. For example, fuel subsidies in Iran - the country with the third largest oil supplies in the world will soon become a net importer of energy, if it has not already. Energy is heavily subsidized, so it is cheap, and people use it very wastefully. In the US, gasoline consumption is lower than last year. Is this because the price is higher, or is it because Americans came to some collective ethical decision that they ought to use less oil, so there will be more oil available for the other people in the world?