Ma Nature vs. The Least Educated

[mark francis]

.​

"Paul Ralph Ehrlich is an American biologist best known for his pessimistic—and wildly inaccurate predictions and warnings about the consequences of population growth and limited resources.

Ehrlich became well known for the controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb which he co-authored with his wife, Anne H. Ehrlich, in which they famously—and erroneously—stated that "in the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Among the solutions suggested in that book was population control, including "various forms of coercion" such as eliminating "tax benefits for having additional children," to be used if voluntary methods were to fail, as well as letting "hopeless" countries like India starve to death. Highlighting Ehrlich's failed predictions, American journalist Jonathan V. Last has called The Population Bomb "one of the most spectacularly foolish books ever published".

.
View attachment 5103
.​

Nobody should blindly accept the claims of human scientists no matter how well esteemed or how well supported by others who rubberstamp the claims. Here is an example of a well-meaning scientist with the most impeccable credentials who was completely wrong in his deductions from data:

Brown University Department of Geological Scientists
December 3, 1972
Letter addressed to:
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

"... Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man's interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace. ..."

George J. Mukla
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

Let's assume this letter did not inspire President Nixon to do something stupid as so many more modern scientific prognostications have inspired so many more recent presidents to foolish responses.

 

[mark francis]

Nobody should blindly accept the claims of human scientists no matter how well esteemed or how well supported by others who rubberstamp the claims. Here is an example of a well-meaning scientist with the most impeccable credentials who was completely wrong in his deductions from data:

Brown University Department of Geological Scientists
December 3, 1972
Letter addressed to:
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

"... Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man's interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace. ..."

George J. Mukla
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

Let's assume this letter did not inspire President Nixon to do something stupid as so many more modern scientific prognostications have inspired so many more recent presidents to foolish responses.

Putting aside the scientific consensus opinions of 50 years ago, modern global warming propagandists insist their global warming assumptions are based on more than a century of data collection. How could that be true since a mere 50 years ago scientists were claiming decades of data showed the earth was on the verge of catastrophic cooling?

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

 

[pjmret]

Putting aside the scientific consensus opinions of 50 years ago, modern global warming propagandists insist their global warming assumptions are based on more than a century of data collection. How could that be true since a mere 50 years ago scientists were claiming decades of data showed the earth was on the verge of catastrophic cooling?

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

Global cooling was not a scientific consensus ***** lol
Unless you can prove it was

 

[pjmret]

Nobody should blindly accept the claims of human scientists no matter how well esteemed or how well supported by others who rubberstamp the claims. Here is an example of a well-meaning scientist with the most impeccable credentials who was completely wrong in his deductions from data:

Brown University Department of Geological Scientists
December 3, 1972
Letter addressed to:
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

"... Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man's interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace. ..."

George J. Mukla
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

Let's assume this letter did not inspire President Nixon to do something stupid as so many more modern scientific prognostications have inspired so many more recent presidents to foolish responses.

You blindly hate any you don't like lol

 

[mark francis]

Global cooling was not a scientific consensus ***** lol
Unless you can prove it was

Don't be stupid. Scientists all over the world were promoting and parroting global cooling alarmism long before they converted to mob acceptance and propagation of foolishly derived global warming alarmism.

 

[pjmret]

Don't be stupid. Scientists all over the world were promoting and parroting global cooling alarmism long before they converted to mob acceptance and propagation of foolishly derived global warming alarmism.

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.


You are a ***** lol

 

[mark francis]

You blindly hate any you don't like lol

I didn't invent the badly interpreted data or write the badly concluded scientific letter, some acclaimed scientist from some acclaimed school did his own research and drew his own erroneous conclusions and then sent a letter expressing his opinionated views to President Nixon as if his views were settled scientific facts, just as modern warming alarmists do today.

 

[pjmret]

Don't be stupid. Scientists all over the world were promoting and parroting global cooling alarmism long before they converted to mob acceptance and propagation of foolishly derived global warming alarmism.

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effec

***** lol

 

[mark francis]

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

If no data was ever collected before modern major organizations were established to look at weather patterns, then why did cooling proponents claim decades of data led to the inescapable conclusion that the earth was cooling? And why did more recent warming propagandists claim data collection dating back more than a century proves the earth is warming? They cannot have it both ways.

 

[mark francis]

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effec

***** lol

"Conjecture" is an excellent and most appropriate word to describe the thousands of claims made concerning the future of the weather, whether the predictions forecast a future cooling disaster or an alarming warming trend.

 

[pjmret]

I didn't invent the badly interpreted data or write the badly concluded scientific letter, some acclaimed scientist from some acclaimed school did his own research and drew his own erroneous conclusions and then sent a letter expressing his opinionated views to President Nixon as if his views were settled scientific facts, just as modern warming alarmists do today.

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

***** lol

 

[pjmret]

If no data was ever collected before modern major organizations were established to look at weather patterns, then why did cooling proponents claim decades of data led to the inescapable conclusion that the earth was cooling? And why did more recent warming propagandists claim data collection dating back more than a century proves the earth is warming? They cannot have it both ways.

Data was collected ***** lol

 

[pjmret]

"Conjecture" is an excellent and most appropriate word to describe the thousands of claims made concerning the future of the weather, whether the predictions forecast a future cooling disaster or an alarming warming trend.

Nope lol *****

 

[pjmret]

I didn't invent the badly interpreted data or write the badly concluded scientific letter, some acclaimed scientist from some acclaimed school did his own research and drew his own erroneous conclusions and then sent a letter expressing his opinionated views to President Nixon as if his views were settled scientific facts, just as modern warming alarmists do today.

Science ***** lol

 

[mark francis]

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

No, global warming is a myth.

Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need? | Climate crisis | The Guardian
There’s no such thing as climate change, Northampton has always looked like this. Photograph: Alamy
Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?

Many people just refuse to accept the facts that surround them, even if we saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent
Dean Burnett
@garwboy
Tue 25 Nov 2014 04.17 EST

Climate change is a myth. We all know this, deep down. Some of you reading this may have been taken in by the fear-mongering governments or corrupt scientists so have been brainwashed into thinking climate change is a real thing that “threatens all of humanity” or some other nonsense, but it’s just that: nonsense. When you look closely at it, the so-called evidence for climate change, or “global warming” or “warmageddon” or “planetary death spiral” or whatever they’re calling it these days, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.