"By 1995.. 85% of all species of living animals will be extinct"

[Lauri]

Make it Earth Day, Every Day

To celebrate Earth Day, The Washington Policy Center has gone all retro on the subject by taking a flashback to 1970. Get your love beads and Jefferson Airplane albums out.

John Barnes blogs about it here.

"By 1985...air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by one half" - Life magazine, January 1970

 

“...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind," biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

 

By 1995, "...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

 

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

 

The world will be "...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age," Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

 

We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

 

Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction," The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.

 

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.

 

Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

 

It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

 

By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine," Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970."

 

Far out man.

Posted by DonWard at April 22, 2008 08:52 AM

 

 

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010580.html

[Rebel Yell]

There is a difference in weather and climate.  Just going on ahead and getting that out of the way.  30 years from now, we'll be heaving the same thread about Man Made Global Warming.  And TNO will be telling us that the climate is getting warmer, it's the weather that is staying the same.  Like the economy, it's all cyclical.

[Lauri]

i keep seeing headlines about 'the coming ice age' ... so, who knows. either way, mankind has survived all of it obviously.

[Airwolf]

You would think that with everything the Earth has had thrown at it that life on this planet would be a footnote and not something to enjoy and marvel at. If this planet and all that it holds can go through all the changes it has with Volcanos and Eathquakes and Meteor strikes then nothing that man could do even with nukes is going to do more then change the geology and the weather patterns.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do the basic conservation stuff byut this Gloal warming crap is all a lie. This planet has been going through changes ever since it came to be and it will keep on changing. We can't stop it or start it. 

[Lauri]

Air, dead on...

its amazing we have survived all of Earth's natural cycles to date.. but we have. granted, its not easy with earthquakes and tornadoes, tsunamis, flooding and viruses, etc.

[Lauri]

and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. 

[Randy]

i keep seeing headlines about 'the coming ice age' ... so, who knows. either way, mankind has survived all of it obviously.

Eventually one day they'll be right.

[Chris_]

and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago.  :popcorn:

Well, here I am and I say no such thing.  Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process.  Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable.  That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable.  Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data.  AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.

I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off.  But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.

[Lauri]

and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. 

Well, here I am and I say no such thing.  Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process.  Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable.  That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable.  Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data.  AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.

I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off.  But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.

it doesnt throw me off; your selective use of when science works and when it doesnt is just entertaining

[Chris_]

You would think that with everything the Earth has had thrown at it that life on this planet would be a footnote and not something to enjoy and marvel at. If this planet and all that it holds can go through all the changes it has with Volcanos and Eathquakes and Meteor strikes then nothing that man could do even with nukes is going to do more then change the geology and the weather patterns.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do the basic conservation stuff byut this Gloal warming crap is all a lie. This planet has been going through changes ever since it came to be and it will keep on changing. We can't stop it or start it. 

Yes, conservation is a good idea and should be encouraged.  No one likes pollution and to extend the resources we have makes good sense.  But I don't want it done at the point of a gun and be told I will be taxed for political hysterical pseudo-science.

[Chris_]

and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago.  :popcorn:

Well, here I am and I say no such thing.  Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process.  Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable.  That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable.  Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data.  AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.

I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off.  But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.

it doesnt throw me off; your selective use of when science works and when it doesnt is just entertaining :-)

Please show somewhere where I have been selective in my use of science. The fact that you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it selective.

[Lauri]

and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. 

Well, here I am and I say no such thing.  Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process.  Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable.  That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable.  Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data.  AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.

I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off.  But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.

it doesnt throw me off; your selective use of when science works and when it doesnt is just entertaining

Please show somewhere where I have been selective in my use of science.

well, in just two threads that ive been in thus far... in one about Ben Stein's movie you were vehement in your denial that God and Science cannot, should not and will never be linked to one another. End. Of. Story.

but yet, climatology is so infantile in its theory that it cannot be considered a science yet.

either science solves a problem or it doesnt.

it appears that science doesnt prove much of anything, that isnt subject to change down the road when more information is gained. but yet, you already know that science can never prove or disprove God. I just find the contortions interesting.. that's all.

[Chris_]

well, in just two threads that ive been in thus far... in one about Ben Stein's movie you were vehement in your denial that God and Science cannot, should not and will never be linked to one another. End. Of. Story.

That is not selective.  It is true.  That has to do with the NATURE of science.  There is no place in any branch of science for faith.  It a structural argument, not a conclusionary argument.

but yet, climatology is so infantile in its theory that it cannot be considered a science yet.

Again, I speak from knowledge within the scientific community.  The conclusions of AGW researchers are being met with increasing skepticism within the scientific community. But nowhere in the AGW debate does anyone say "and here God (or an ID) stepped in." 

either science solves a problem or it doesnt.

Then all problems would be solved. This doesn't even make sense.

it appears that science doesnt prove much of anything, that isnt subject to change down the road when more information is gained. but yet, you already know that science can never prove or disprove God. I just find the contortions interesting.. that's all.

You continue to misconstrue my arguments.  And if science doesn't prove anything then how in the hell are you posting topics to a message board?  There are no contortions, just a fundamental knowledge of how science works.  Which you clearly lack.

Your arguments from ignorance don't really have much heft.  You should quit while you are not too far behind.

[Lauri]

"if science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting topics on a message board?"


uh, what?

and ive got a few degrees myself, i dont lack for education. i just dont buy that science answers all of our questions with no room for change. i also dont buy that science and faith cannot intermingle and just because you think it cant, well, we can just agree to disagree.

[Lord Undies]

Most of the eviro-weenies I know, the ones who take the hand wringing and gloom and doom too the extreme, as if every bit of phony bullshit they spout is 100% gospel, have little or no belief in God.  I suppose this makes sense because you cannot worship two Gods.

Since there is no belief in God in the Church of the Environment, there is no afterlife, so what difference does it make if the earth explodes tomorrow?  All memory of earth will vanish.  It will be as if earth and the life it nourishes never existed.  It simply won't matter.  So what's the point?  What are we living for and why are we trying to preserve life's environment?

Wouldn't it be better if we all returned to the state of consciousness we enjoyed before we were born.  That is to say, a perpetual state of nothing.  There would never be an unhappy moment for anyone again.

So, let's party like it's 2099 and to hell with the earth.  The sooner it is all over with, the happier we will all be.  We just won't know it.

[Chris_]

"if science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting topics on a message board?"


uh, what?

and ive got a few degrees myself, i dont lack for education. i just dont buy that science answers all of our questions with no room for change. i also dont buy that science and faith cannot intermingle and just because you think it cant, well, we can just agree to disagree.

In the physical realm, science is the only tool we have to answer questions.  And it isn't my "opinion" that science and faith can't intermingle -- IN THE SCIENCE REALM.  It is a cold, hard fact that cannot be rebutted. To tell children (for example) that ID or Creationism are "alternative theories" is misinformation and dangerous.

In the philosophical realm, OTOH, sure, faith and science can mix all people want.

And if you are educated you should know that.

[Chris_]

Most of the eviro-weenies I know, the ones who take the hand wringing and gloom and doom too the extreme, as if every bit of phony bullshit they spout is 100% gospel, have little or no belief in God.  I suppose this makes sense because you cannot worship two Gods.

Since there is no belief in God in the Church of the Environment, there is no afterlife, so what difference does it make if the earth explodes tomorrow?  All memory of earth will vanish.  It will be as if earth and the life it nourishes never existed.  It simply won't matter.  So what's the point?  What are we living for and why are we trying to preserve life's environment?

Wouldn't it be better if we all returned to the state of consciousness we enjoyed before we were born.  That is to say, a perpetual state of nothing.  There would never be an unhappy moment for anyone again.

So, let's party like it's 2099 and to hell with the earth.  The sooner it is all over with, the happier we will all be.  We just won't know it.

LOL -- you expose them quite well.  Of course, we know the real answer is that they have latched onto AGW as a way to control people.

[Lauri]

it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?

my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.

[Chris_]

it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?

my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.

I don't know what you mean by statements like that. 

Science has specific parameters that define what it is.  I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever.  I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot.  It is a simple question of definition.

You accused me of being inconsistent.  I clarified that I have been 100% consistent and explained how so. Why does this bother you so?

[CactusCarlos]

Science has specific parameters that define what it is.  I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever.  I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot.  It is a simple question of definition.

Actually, it is more than that.  Ponder this quote for a moment:

Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying.  -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Imagine for a moment that you are a car salesman and I am a person looking to buy a car.  It doesn't matter if the car you're selling is the most reliable, fastest, economical, etc car available - most times your presentation of those facts will make all the difference.  If you're trying to sell a car from a position of arrogance, you're going to go home hungry most nights. 

I followed that thread about Ben Stein's movie somewhat closely as it was interesting to me.  It appeared that you were saying some very compelling things but everytime I read one of your posts that quote from Emerson above came to me. 

If none of what I'm saying matters to you, then just ignore my post and carry on. 

[The Night Owl]

Pop Quiz:

1. What do the quotes in the WPC article prove?

2. What do all but one of the quotes have in common?

[Lauri]

it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?

my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.

I don't know what you mean by statements like that. 

Science has specific parameters that define what it is.  I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever.  I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot.  It is a simple question of definition.

You accused me of being inconsistent.  I clarified that I have been 100% consistent and explained how so. Why does this bother you so?

in another post in this very thread you stated, and i quote: "If science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting on a message board?"

i dont find your posts all that consistent, especially statements like that up above.

does it mean that science created text and words? or science created a message board? hmm.. its a quandry. 

but like i said, it doesnt bother me.. i find it entertaining. people with rock solid beliefs are easy to bug.

[Lauri]

Science has specific parameters that define what it is.  I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever.  I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot.  It is a simple question of definition.

Actually, it is more than that.  Ponder this quote for a moment:

Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying.  -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Imagine for a moment that you are a car salesman and I am a person looking to buy a car.  It doesn't matter if the car you're selling is the most reliable, fastest, economical, etc car available - most times your presentation of those facts will make all the difference.  If you're trying to sell a car from a position of arrogance, you're going to go home hungry most nights. 

I followed that thread about Ben Stein's movie somewhat closely as it was interesting to me.  It appeared that you were saying some very compelling things but everytime I read one of your posts that quote from Emerson above came to me. 

If none of what I'm saying matters to you, then just ignore my post and carry on. 

*finally* somebody gets it


*thank you*

[Chris_]

Science has specific parameters that define what it is.  I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever.  I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot.  It is a simple question of definition.

Actually, it is more than that.  Ponder this quote for a moment:

Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying.  -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Imagine for a moment that you are a car salesman and I am a person looking to buy a car.  It doesn't matter if the car you're selling is the most reliable, fastest, economical, etc car available - most times your presentation of those facts will make all the difference.  If you're trying to sell a car from a position of arrogance, you're going to go home hungry most nights. 

I followed that thread about Ben Stein's movie somewhat closely as it was interesting to me.  It appeared that you were saying some very compelling things but everytime I read one of your posts that quote from Emerson above came to me. 

If none of what I'm saying matters to you, then just ignore my post and carry on. 

It matters, but it doesn't make sense.  I am not "selling" anything.  I am providing education.  I am an advocate for information over superstition. I do not, nor shall I ever apologize for being a zealot against willful ignorance.

[Chris_]

it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?

my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.

I don't know what you mean by statements like that. 

Science has specific parameters that define what it is.  I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever.  I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot.  It is a simple question of definition.

You accused me of being inconsistent.  I clarified that I have been 100% consistent and explained how so. Why does this bother you so?

in another post in this very thread you stated, and i quote: "If science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting on a message board?"

i dont find your posts all that consistent, especially statements like that up above.

does it mean that science created text and words? or science created a message board? hmm.. its a quandry.  :popcorn:

but like i said, it doesnt bother me.. i find it entertaining. people with rock solid beliefs are easy to bug. :-)

You have yet to point out an inconsistency.  And my point was the physical existence of the board -- a result of science.

And if one doesn't have a rock solid belief in science as opposed to religion as the only tool we have to understand and alter the physical world, then one is a Luddite.