Death knell for AGW

Glacier

Electoral Member
Apr 24, 2015
360
0
16
Okanagan
Barbara Kay: It’s amazing anyone still takes Paul Ehrlich’s doomsday predictions seriously



I was quite unnerved this morning to read that a scientist had predicted the earth might be once again coming to an end in a “mass extinction event.” (There have been five previous cataclysmic events, which are described in the article.) “We are now,” according to this scientist, “moving into another one of these events that could easily, easily ruin the lives of everybody on the planet.”

My heart raced at the thought, but then I looked more closely and realized that the author of the prediction (the “easily, easily” was a clue I should have picked up on: if there is alarm to be spread, this scientist will spread it with a trowel) was none other than our old friend and monarch of the Kingdom of False Predictions, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich.

The name Ehrlich may be familiar to you as the author of the 1968 book, The Population Bomb (which he wrote with his wife Anne, who remained uncredited for a time), in which he — they — predicted the world would come to an end in the 1970s, when the planet’s population reached five billion, food inevitably ran out and we all starved to death.

And yet- whoo hoo! – here all seven billion of us are, with fewer starving people than ever before (mostly due to politics, not shortages) and obesity our principal food-related problem.


Or perhaps the name rings a bell because you remember something about a “bet” that Ehrlich made. That would be the 1980 wager between Ehrlich and economist Julian Simon, who found preposterous Ehrlich’s apocalyptic prophecies of economic doom resulting from over-population, in particular his over-the-top statement, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”


Simon predicted that human well-being would increase as a consequence of flexible markets, technological advances and man’s creative ingenuity in the face of adversity. He bet $10K that five non-government-controlled raw materials would not rise in ten years, Ehrlich that they would. Basically it was in miniature a gladiatorial combat between the respective champions of environmental pessimism and free-market optimism. Guess who lost. And he paid the $10K.

In November 2012, I heard Ehrlich speak, and later met him in a press conference, in Israel, where he was the keynote speaker at an international conference on desertification. Recording my impressions, I wrote:

Professor Ehrlich favours the dual stylistic approach of apocalypticism and cheap personal attack. Imagine a kind of grizzled, male version of Ann Coulter, but on the left – with the same ominously merry twinkle in the eye, but minus the wit. At one point during the 45-minute rant he’d travelled 36 hours from Australia to deliver (fat carbon footprint there!), he declared, “The fact is, the world is coming to an end.”

He also insisted fossil fuels and cars have to go if man is to survive, though he did allow that cars have one useful purpose: as a place for teenagers to make love. Oh dear: Superannuated 1968 humour for a petrified pundit.

As it turns out, Ehrlich is not only a genius at false predictions, he only critiques democracies for bringing the world to the edge of perdition. He said America is “the most over-populated country in the world” (China? India? Hello?) and Israel is “like a third-rate country” because it has the nerve to produce enough babies to keep its population growing. That ticked me off. As I wrote:



Awkward. This is a country founded on the ashes of six million murdered Jews. A more sensitive observer might reasonably conclude the Jews deserve a pass on the overpopulation file, at least until its numbers approach the pre-Holocaust era, and swallow his indignation. Is it really “unethical” of Israel, of all the countries in the world, to want larger families? Could it not be a reassuring sign of optimism and confidence in the future? Indeed, that was the question I put to him later in the press conference. No dice. Confidence in the future is at odds with the millenarian vision Professor Ehrlich commands us to share.

It is remarkable to me that anyone takes anything this clownish and to my eyes quite narcissistic man seriously. In fact, by now we should consider Paul Ehrlich’s academic’s doom-laden predictions near-guarantees that the world is going to be just tickety-boo. With friends like this anti-Cassandra, eco-warriors don’t need enemies.

Barbara Kay: It’s amazing anyone still takes Paul Ehrlich’s doomsday predictions seriously | National Post
 

Glacier

Electoral Member
Apr 24, 2015
360
0
16
Okanagan
The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested -- or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas.

For much of my life I have been a science writer. That means I eavesdrop on what’s going on in laboratories so I can tell interesting stories. It’s analogous to the way art critics write about art, but with a difference: we “science critics” rarely criticise. If we think a scientific paper is dumb, we just ignore it. There’s too much good stuff coming out of science to waste time knocking the bad stuff.
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
erm, isn't it a bit silly to dwell on what is at fault about the warming/cooling du jour? WOuldn't it be wiser just to accept what is happening and figure out how to minimize any human involvement in it? Almost inevitably, when humans try to change stuff intentionally, we screw something else up drastically.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,722
12,938
113
Low Earth Orbit
So much for the killer storm angle.

erm, isn't it a bit silly to dwell on what is at fault about the warming/cooling du jour? WOuldn't it be wiser just to accept what is happening and figure out how to minimize any human involvement in it? By far, when humans try to change stuff intentionally, we screw something else up drastically.

We are at average after pulling out of the coldest point in civilised man's history.

How did man do that?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,722
12,938
113
Low Earth Orbit
We are still shy of average if you want the nuts and bolts. That is fact you can take to the bank.

Hot air eh? Opposing and exposing the biggest scam in history is hot air?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
erm, isn't it a bit silly to dwell on what is at fault about the warming/cooling du jour? WOuldn't it be wiser just to accept what is happening and figure out how to minimize any human involvement in it? Almost inevitably, when humans try to change stuff intentionally, we screw something else up drastically.
Tell that to the AGCC crowd.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I don't bank on opinions. Sorry.

Yeah, hot air. This topic is plumb full of it and it comes from the news media, pseudoscientists, laymen, etc. Hot air everywhere.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,722
12,938
113
Low Earth Orbit
It's not opinion. Look it up.

Keywords for your search are Holocene, historic and temperature.

Have fun!

I just happen to be an "earth scientist". You?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
BS. People on both sides of the issue use stats.
Earth as stated. I've never heard of that particular science. I mean there is geology, meteorology, oceanography, etc. Earthasstatedography is a new one on me.

After the recent snowfall in Alberta is there still anyone that believes in the Globull warming scam?
Probably. I don't care one way or the other. Climates change, period.