As we await the time when false prophets such as the fraud Bob Thiel will be rejected and injected into the lake of fire, let us take a walk into the past and examine another type of false prophet….
I have no doubt a few of our reader think the science on climate change is settled. The truth is, science is never settled. Consensus is not science. Consensus is the business of politics. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Paul Ehrlich, false prophet.
Paul R. Ehrlich, the wacky Stanford University professor best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, has been more wrong, more often, than any other when it comes to secular false prophets.
To be proven wrong time after time is apparently a important qualification for rogue professors in order to remain relevant. Of course it helps if your predictions are about catastrophes to come (5-10 years from now) which inevitably garners badly needed attention for this so called “professor.”
Doomsday predictions are the bread and butter of government researchers. Many of these ‘climate scientists’ depend on government grants to support themselves.
This time the doom approaching is because humans have started the sixth mass extinction event.
Paul Ehrlich “Perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell.”
Steve Mosher “I can hardly imagine a more derogatory description of the human family than comparing it to a cancer cell.”
Let’s take a look at all the wild forecasts that Ehrlich has made:
1968 “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970’s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate …”
1968 “India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”
1969 “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”
1969 He predicted that by the end of the century the population of the US would be under 20 million, and our life expectancy would be around 40 years – due not to starvation, but to pesticides.
RODNEY AND OTAMATEA TIMES, WAITEMATA AND KAIPARA GAZETTE, 14 AUGUST 1912
1970 “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”
1970 “When you reach a point where you realize further efforts will be futile, you may as well look after yourself and your friends and enjoy what little time you have left. That point for me is 1972.”
Actually, this retardation of science could become an existential threat in and of itself. In biology, an organism which ceases to grow is said to be in the process of dying. –Byker Bob
1970’s “The train of events leading to the dissolution of India as a viable nation is already in motion.” His solutions to the overpopulation crisis:
Dumping sterilizing agents into water supplies, allowing only selected people the privilege of reproduction, and performing mass “triage” of nations, between those who don’t need help such as North America, Europe, etc. Those nations who are beyond help like India, Sub-Saharan Africa, and much of Asia, he said would be hell on earth by the 1980’s.
1971 “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. …… I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
For over four decades this clown has made predictions about catastrophes due to famine, depletion of resources, disease, poisoning by pesticides, global warming and climate disruption. Every one of his predictions about the future has been, or is being proved wrong. His ability to look forward, even over short time periods is flawed.
Before the global warming alarm, it was “A Ice Age is Coming”
To combat the alleged man-made cooling, “experts” suggested all sorts of grandiose schemes, including some that in retrospect appear almost too comical to be real. “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects,” reported Newsweek in its 1975 article “The Cooling World,” which claimed that Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities. Some of the “more spectacular solutions” proposed by the cooling theorists at the time included “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers.”
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.
The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.
In the Bahamas, for example, according to the 2010 census, there was a major increase in population, going from around 300,000 in 2000 to more than 350,000 by 2010. The population of St. Lucia, meanwhile, grew by five percent during the same period. The Seychelles grew by about 10 percent. The Solomon Islands also witnessed a major population boom during that time frame, gaining another 100,000 people, or an increase of about 25 percent.
In China, meanwhile, the top six fastest growing cities were all within the areas highlighted by the UN as likely sources of “climate refugees.” Many of the fastest-growing U.S. cities were also within or close to “climate refugee” danger zones touted by the UN.
Rather than apologizing for its undisputable mistake after being first exposed by reporter Gavin Atkins at Asian Correspondent, the global body responded in typical alarmist fashion: with an Orwellian coverup seeking to erase all evidence of its ridiculous predictions. First, the UNEP took its “climate refugees” map down from the Web. That failed, of course, because the content was archived online prior to its disappearance down the UN “memory hole.
–The New American
Laughable, Jon. Readers: You may want to Google Guus Berkhout.. This is not serious science or research, it is propaganda from a former Shell Oil engineer. Only 10-12 of the 500 scientists are even credentialed in the field of climatology.
Recall BB that these environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. They never came true.
Americans believe in climate change because they are not only gullible but trusting that gov. does what’s best for them.
The problems I’ve found, Jon, in AGW discussions, are that:
1) People do not know how to research or discover information; They often use cut and paste informational links that make blatant political references to liberals or conservatives. That should be an immediate tipoff that one is looking at politically motivated materials as opposed to a science based, university quality white paper. We are dealing with a science-based phenomenon that has been made into a political one. If no politics were involved, we could come much closer to truth. The stakes are somewhat high, and the political rhetoric has proven to be a powerful modifier of public perception.
2) Science evolves, and corrects itself based on continuing observation. Rather than using the latest information, the politicians create a strawman argument by insisting on using antiquated and long-since revised models and timelines, as opposed to the latest and most current ones. They also do this with the earlier protocols, citing the original draconian restrictions, as opposed to the most current. That’s dirty pool.
3) People continue to cite a barrage of long-since dispelled alternative theories, as if they expect us to believe that these theories are new and just being heard for the first time. It is the rare person who constantly digests all of the incoming data and discussion, and has observed the history of the ongoing problems.
For life to exist, there is a set of constants. Mankind has reached a point of saturation in which we are actually altering some of those constants, and this is measurable, scientific fact not subject to political rhetoric.
Yeah, Jon, I try to be, although it is very difficult to keep up with all the information. There is no political party for people like me. Both try to make you check your brains at the door.
Here’s what I came up with back in the ’80s: America is like a pole tethered with guy wires. If it starts to list, you have to compensate by tightening one of the guy wires. You want the pole standing straight. The parties are those guy wires. When one gets a little too much pull, you have to vote them out, and vote the other one in. The problem last election was that the most radical candidates from either side ended up being the front runners, so I had no candidate to vote for.
On the AGW issue, you have one party that only listens to the scientists its members paid for, so they don’t even believe it exists. The other party is trying to promote it as an extreme emergency for which all manner of radical changes must be implimented, or it’s all over in 4-5 decades. That party also uses it as a scare tactic to support its entire agenda.
The man on the street reads apologetics. That’s where he gets his opinions. The materials he does read openly trash the opposite party. Any paper that cites liberals or conservatives is not a serious scientific study, it’s propaganda. Somehow, that goes over most peoples’ heads.
I am, at my core, a hot rodder and a biker. Normally and naturally, I would have to deny global climate change. Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that, yes, it’s happening and we’re causing it.
Actually, the biggest man made problem is the floating garbage patch in the ocean. Climate change is constant and certain because of sun spot activity.
Everything is about cycles, because throughout history one would look to understand the world around him. This is no different except it is a political tool to enslave men.
1968 “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970’s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate …”
1970 “When you reach a point where you realize further efforts will be futile, you may as well look after yourself and your friends and enjoy what little time you have left. That point for me is 1972.”
1970’s “The train of events leading to the dissolution of India as a viable nation is already in motion.” His solutions to the overpopulation crisis:
There is no climate crisis.
https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-press-briefing-no-climate-emergency.pdf
Laughable, Jon. Readers: You may want to Google Guus Berkhout.. This is not serious science or research, it is propaganda from a former Shell Oil engineer. Only 10-12 of the 500 scientists are even credentialed in the field of climatology.
BB
What stands out among all of this is this lawsuit:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html
Recall BB that these environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. They never came true.
Americans believe in climate change because they are not only gullible but trusting that gov. does what’s best for them.
The problems I’ve found, Jon, in AGW discussions, are that:
1) People do not know how to research or discover information; They often use cut and paste informational links that make blatant political references to liberals or conservatives. That should be an immediate tipoff that one is looking at politically motivated materials as opposed to a science based, university quality white paper. We are dealing with a science-based phenomenon that has been made into a political one. If no politics were involved, we could come much closer to truth. The stakes are somewhat high, and the political rhetoric has proven to be a powerful modifier of public perception.
2) Science evolves, and corrects itself based on continuing observation. Rather than using the latest information, the politicians create a strawman argument by insisting on using antiquated and long-since revised models and timelines, as opposed to the latest and most current ones. They also do this with the earlier protocols, citing the original draconian restrictions, as opposed to the most current. That’s dirty pool.
3) People continue to cite a barrage of long-since dispelled alternative theories, as if they expect us to believe that these theories are new and just being heard for the first time. It is the rare person who constantly digests all of the incoming data and discussion, and has observed the history of the ongoing problems.
For life to exist, there is a set of constants. Mankind has reached a point of saturation in which we are actually altering some of those constants, and this is measurable, scientific fact not subject to political rhetoric.
BB
Science evolves, and corrects itself based on continuing observation.
I agree BB. It is all about the politics of the time.
> It is the rare person who constantly digests all of the incoming data and discussion, and has observed the history of the ongoing problems.<
Are you such a person?
Yeah, Jon, I try to be, although it is very difficult to keep up with all the information. There is no political party for people like me. Both try to make you check your brains at the door.
Here’s what I came up with back in the ’80s: America is like a pole tethered with guy wires. If it starts to list, you have to compensate by tightening one of the guy wires. You want the pole standing straight. The parties are those guy wires. When one gets a little too much pull, you have to vote them out, and vote the other one in. The problem last election was that the most radical candidates from either side ended up being the front runners, so I had no candidate to vote for.
On the AGW issue, you have one party that only listens to the scientists its members paid for, so they don’t even believe it exists. The other party is trying to promote it as an extreme emergency for which all manner of radical changes must be implimented, or it’s all over in 4-5 decades. That party also uses it as a scare tactic to support its entire agenda.
The man on the street reads apologetics. That’s where he gets his opinions. The materials he does read openly trash the opposite party. Any paper that cites liberals or conservatives is not a serious scientific study, it’s propaganda. Somehow, that goes over most peoples’ heads.
I am, at my core, a hot rodder and a biker. Normally and naturally, I would have to deny global climate change. Unfortunately, there is too much evidence that, yes, it’s happening and we’re causing it.
BB
You sound like myself. A political atheist.
Actually, the biggest man made problem is the floating garbage patch in the ocean. Climate change is constant and certain because of sun spot activity.
Everything is about cycles, because throughout history one would look to understand the world around him. This is no different except it is a political tool to enslave men.