History Of Environmentalist Warnings

[ironmonk]

[b]1885[/b]
• 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 about Kansas and Texas.
[b]1939[/b]
• the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years
o What actions should President Roosevelt have taken?
[b]1949[/b]
• the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
[b]1968[/b]
• Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
• Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million.
• Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
o What steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
[b]1969[/b]
• The first Earth Day celebration, in 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."
[b]1970[/b]
• Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them."
• "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." - George Wald, Harvard University biologist
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
• Environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death
o What kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
[b]1972 [/b]Report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would
• run out of gold by 1981
• run out of mercury and silver by 1985
• run out of tin by 1987
• petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992
[b]1974[/b]
• the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.
o According to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply
[b]1975[/b]
• The Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."


[b]What makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?[/b]

[b]FACTS:[/b]
• Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
o Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.
• Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output.
• Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Adapted from: [url="http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/year_63813___article.html/earth_predictions.html"]http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/ye...redictions.html[/url]
By Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]• Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
o Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.[/quote]
Not relevant to the topic of abnormal warming. No one disputes that water vapor has more of an effect or whether or not we need the greenhouse effect. The problem is too much greenhouse gas. Converting carbon from biomass into gas causes too much heat to be held in the atmosphere which isn't a good thing because it harms the balances in ecosystems that depend on temperature. It also messes with the air cycles around the equator as well as ocean currents, both of which are responsible for the weather patterns on Earth.

[quote]• Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output.[/quote]
No one disputes that slight orbital changes effect global temperature. But it's an observable fact that we add CO2 to the atmosphere that would not normally be there.

[quote]• Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.[/quote]
The conversion of carbon in the environment between solid and gas is a natural occurance. However, by burning fossil fuels, we accelerate the process and offset the balance that exists in the carbon cycle. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than plants to properly capture it and it's due to the fact that we've burned so much organic material in the form of fossil fuels.

You are right to be concerned about alarmism but you need to brush up on your science.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1528997' date='May 14 2008, 11:54 PM']Not relevant to the topic of abnormal warming. No one disputes that water vapor has more of an effect or whether or not we need the greenhouse effect. The problem is too much greenhouse gas. Converting carbon from biomass into gas causes too much heat to be held in the atmosphere which isn't a good thing because it harms the balances in ecosystems that depend on temperature. It also messes with the air cycles around the equator as well as ocean currents, both of which are responsible for the weather patterns on Earth.
No one disputes that slight orbital changes effect global temperature. But it's an observable fact that we add CO2 to the atmosphere that would not normally be there.
The conversion of carbon in the environment between solid and gas is a natural occurance. However, by burning fossil fuels, we accelerate the process and offset the balance that exists in the carbon cycle. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than plants to properly capture it and it's due to the fact that we've burned so much organic material in the form of fossil fuels.

You are right to be concerned about alarmism but you need to brush up on your science.[/quote]

You are wrong. My science is sound... you need to brush up on your research skills and critical thinking. You need to research your sources and their sources... then look at their reasoning.

We have no effect on temp. The world is not going to keep warming. It will cool... then guess what... it'll warm again. The cycles appear to be about 80-100 years apart.

End of story.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1529009' date='May 14 2008, 09:08 PM']You are wrong. My science is sound... you need to brush up on your research skills and critical thinking. You need to research your sources and their sources... then look at their reasoning.

We have no effect on temp. The world is not going to keep warming. It will cool... then guess what... it'll warm again. The cycles appear to be about 80-100 years apart.

End of story.[/quote]
I'm sorry, you didn't actually provide any science. You copy and pasted an article.

If you want to go in depth about actual scientific fact, have at it. If you just want to be dogmatic about something you appear to know little about, then please don't be so rude about it. Just because you say something is so doesnt mean it is. You of all people ought to know this.

P.S. Nothing that I stated was scientifically wrong. If you want to claim it is, PROVE IT.

Edited May 15, 2008 by fidei defensor

[mommas_boy]

Please, both of you, cite [b]scientific[/b] sources. This means reports in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

While I'm sure (or at least hope) that Walter Williams did his research in order to produce that article, his article is still a secondary source (at best) done by an economist (and not a climatologist) that doesn't cite his sources.

Fidei, same goes for you. Scrounge up some primary sources from peer-reviewed journals.

The more that either one of you try to flesh out your own points without the benefit of research, the less productive this thread will be, and the more uncharitable it will become. I'm not talking about reviews of literature or the opinions of others, I'm talking about actual experiments. Go.

I want a clean match, nothing below the belt. DING DING DING!

Edited May 15, 2008 by mommas_boy

[CatherineM]

I wonder what the guy who said that all those people in America were going to starve to death thinks about the obesity epidemic.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1529100' date='May 14 2008, 11:13 PM']I wonder what the guy who said that all those people in America were going to starve to death thinks about the obesity epidemic.[/quote]


[img]http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/images/be/violet/violet6.jpg[/img]

[Galloglasses]

Could be worse.

They ALL could've been right!

[beata_virgo_maria]

The founder of Greenpeace even admits man-caused (CO2) global warming is a scam. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a conservative agenda! (My source by the way is the DVD called [i]The great global warming swindle[/i] by the BBC, which again does not have a conservative agenda.) I highly recommend the DVD.

The thing that drives me crazy about global warming is the whole environmental movement is focused on something irrelevant, while other important environmental issues are ignored. One example is the fact that natural pollinators and bees native to North America are going extinct, which destroys native ecosystems. Not to mention hurts food crops, so this is definitely something that's drastically going to hurt people if they go extinct. (Anyway, I'll stop going off on a tangent!)

[Lounge Daddy]

That's a great article.

The scary thing is, unlike before, we have a lot of people all too willing to hand over a great deal of power to the government to fix anything--whether or not its even a real problem.

[quote name='beata_virgo_maria' post='1529702' date='May 15 2008, 04:01 PM']... [i]The great global warming swindle[/i] by the BBC, which again does not have a conservative agenda.) I highly recommend the DVD.[/quote]

That's a fantastic documentary!

Edited May 15, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='beata_virgo_maria' post='1529702' date='May 15 2008, 03:01 PM']The founder of Greenpeace even admits man-caused (CO2) global warming is a scam. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a conservative agenda! (My source by the way is the DVD called [i]The great global warming swindle[/i] by the BBC, which again does not have a conservative agenda.) I highly recommend the DVD.

The thing that drives me crazy about global warming is the whole environmental movement is focused on something irrelevant, while other important environmental issues are ignored. One example is the fact that natural pollinators and bees native to North America are going extinct, which destroys native ecosystems. Not to mention hurts food crops, so this is definitely something that's drastically going to hurt people if they go extinct. (Anyway, I'll stop going off on a tangent!)[/quote]

exactly. The environmental cause is important, but many people are hurting its reputability and hurting the environment by focusing on something that should by far not be one of our main concerns, while at the same time ignoring the things that are really causing problems.

Edited May 15, 2008 by goldenchild17

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='beata_virgo_maria' post='1529702' date='May 15 2008, 04:01 PM']The founder of Greenpeace even admits man-caused (CO2) global warming is a scam. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a conservative agenda! (My source by the way is the DVD called [i]The great global warming swindle[/i] by the BBC, which again does not have a conservative agenda.) I highly recommend the DVD.[/quote]

I'm not here to argue for or against. In fact, I am removing myself officially from that capacity in this thread. I don't have the time to really put forth the kind of effort that deserves, anyway.

Instead, I want to ask if there is any way that we could restrict supporting information to primary sources only (ie: reports of experiments performed and charts), rather than appealing to authority and opinion of a person or organization?

The problem with discussing the topic of global warming is that everybody has been taught something different: including myself, all of those present in this forum, and the authorities quoted above. This is odd in science, because we normally think that science is about data, which is always the same for a [b]given instance[/b] of an experiment. But this topic is so controversial that people aren't taught the data, they're taught people's [b]opinions[/b] instead of the data. The problem with opinions is that every scientist has them, and well, they're very often wrong. So, when this happens, people hear all of this "science" tossed around when it's really just contradicting opinions, and when it's wrong, they pull a Pontius Pilate and ask, "What is Truth?". This is bad. Very bad. Moral relativism. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

Please, if you feel the need to discuss, keep it to the data. I'm not saying that the founder of Greenpeace is wrong or right in his statement; I just want to know what studies are there that back it up.

But most of all, have fun guys.

Edited May 16, 2008 by mommas_boy

[CatherineM]

I don't believe in global warming, but I do believe we are facing a global climate change. I don't really care if it is man made or not. If it is man made, the only way we could fix it is to go back in time to the '50's and stop the development of the car culture. I think we should be focusing on adapting to climate change. Our ancestors had to many times, so we are capable of doing it, I just don't know if we have the will. I think the biggest things we are facing is a potential rise in sea levels, the thing going on with the bees, and shifting of agriculture. The next wars are going to be over food and water, not oil.

[ironmonk]

Please listen to all the other scientists and read all the other articles that the people making millions off the facade of "green" don't want you to know...

[url="http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html"]http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1529992' date='May 15 2008, 08:21 PM']Please listen to all the other scientists and read all the other articles that the people making millions off the facade of "green" don't want you to know...

[url="http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html"]http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html[/url]
God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]
Science has no secrets. If the theory is proven wrong, then so be it. But how about fostering some actual discussion rather than just insisting that you are right? I have nothing to lose by actually discussing it. I don't have an "agenda." I do, however, have a problem with your style of "debate" which mainly consists of belittling people and their ideas for the sake of absolute "truth" that only you know.