• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Idiotic Environmental Predictions

Sandokan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
5,250
Reaction score
763
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Idiotic Environmental Predictions
Walter E. Williams: Idiotic Environmental Predictions

Walter E. Williams / @WE_Williams / October 09, 2019

https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/191009_ClimateDoom-1250x650.jpg
A rainbow forms behind giant windmills near rain-soaked Interstate 10 Dec. 17, 2002, near Palm Springs, California. (Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.” Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity?

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
Click link above for full article.
Excellent article by Walter E. Williams summarizing the fail environmental predictions. The actual environmental movement led by the ‘Progressives/Regressive’ with the disguise to save humankind, is a tool to advance the socialist agenda. This movement can be compare to a watermelon, ‘green on the outside and red inside.” Green is the new red.
 
The pollution from the nickel mines in Moa, Holguin cause blindness. Massive pollution comes from those mines, but the leftists can't see it!

Excellent article by Walter E. Williams summarizing the fail environmental predictions. The actual environmental movement led by the ‘Progressives/Regressive’ with the disguise to save humankind, is a tool to advance the socialist agenda. This movement can be compare to a watermelon, ‘green on the outside and red inside.” Green is the new red.
 
You can't make this stuff up:

Plant physiology will be major contributor to future river flooding - NSF
By hoarding water underground, vegetation will help saturate soil, boosting rain runoff

"Plants get more water-efficient and leak less underground soil moisture through their
pores in a carbon-rich atmosphere," said study co-author Mike Pritchard of UCI. "Add
this up over billions of leaves in very sunlit, leafy places, especially the tropics, and it
means there is a bunch more soil moisture stored up underground, so much so that
climate models predict rainfall events will saturate the ground and more rain will run
into rivers.
"​

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency...Wikipedia
I really don't want to believe that my tax dollars are supporting this sort of nonsense.
This is the sort of stuff I expect from some looney tune left-wing think tank.
 
You can't make this stuff up:

Plant physiology will be major contributor to future river flooding - NSF
By hoarding water underground, vegetation will help saturate soil, boosting rain runoff

"Plants get more water-efficient and leak less underground soil moisture through their
pores in a carbon-rich atmosphere," said study co-author Mike Pritchard of UCI. "Add
this up over billions of leaves in very sunlit, leafy places, especially the tropics, and it
means there is a bunch more soil moisture stored up underground, so much so that
climate models predict rainfall events will saturate the ground and more rain will run
into rivers.
"​

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency...Wikipedia
I really don't want to believe that my tax dollars are supporting this sort of nonsense.
This is the sort of stuff I expect from some looney tune left-wing think tank.
The assumption is silly from the start, lots of leafy green plants, vastly increase the surface area of a given acre of land.
More surface area, means more surface tension to hold water.
The plants are constantly transpiring, and drawing water from the ground, leaving space for the rainwater to
re saturate the soil. Anyone who has had one of those old majestic oak trees in their yard, knows
they transpire several hundred gallons of water a day, and the soil shrinks around them.
 
The assumption is silly from the start, lots of leafy green plants, vastly increase the surface area of a given acre of land.
More surface area, means more surface tension to hold water.
The plants are constantly transpiring, and drawing water from the ground, leaving space for the rainwater to
re saturate the soil. Anyone who has had one of those old majestic oak trees in their yard, knows
they transpire several hundred gallons of water a day, and the soil shrinks around them.

Mostly the National Science Foundation doesn't deserve more than terse response along the lines of "B.S."
 
You can't make this stuff up:
Plant physiology will be major contributor to future river flooding - NSF
By hoarding water underground, vegetation will help saturate soil, boosting rain runoff

"Plants get more water-efficient and leak less underground soil moisture through their
pores in a carbon-rich atmosphere," said study co-author Mike Pritchard of UCI. "Add
this up over billions of leaves in very sunlit, leafy places, especially the tropics, and it
means there is a bunch more soil moisture stored up underground, so much so that
climate models predict rainfall events will saturate the ground and more rain will run
into rivers.
"​

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency...Wikipedia
I really don't want to believe that my tax dollars are supporting this sort of nonsense.
This is the sort of stuff I expect from some looney tune left-wing think tank.

Well they gotta keep that money flowing into their programs so they can retain their jobs, and the only way to keep it up is via hyperbole.
 
I mean if your source for a prediction is a journalist, I really don't know what to tell you. You got what you paid for.
 
You can't make this stuff up:

Plant physiology will be major contributor to future river flooding - NSF
By hoarding water underground, vegetation will help saturate soil, boosting rain runoff

"Plants get more water-efficient and leak less underground soil moisture through their
pores in a carbon-rich atmosphere," said study co-author Mike Pritchard of UCI. "Add
this up over billions of leaves in very sunlit, leafy places, especially the tropics, and it
means there is a bunch more soil moisture stored up underground, so much so that
climate models predict rainfall events will saturate the ground and more rain will run
into rivers.
"​

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency...Wikipedia
I really don't want to believe that my tax dollars are supporting this sort of nonsense.
This is the sort of stuff I expect from some looney tune left-wing think tank.

And your research into plant biological responses to changing CO2 levels vis a vis water retention showed what?
 
I mean if your source for a prediction is a journalist, I really don't know what to tell you. You got what you paid for.

From the article:

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

...

In 2000, David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

...

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

...


Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

...

in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.


Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
 
And your research into plant biological responses to changing CO2 levels vis a vis water retention showed what?

I don't need to do my own research on that topic, it's rather well known.
After all the way the paleontologists determine the CO2 concentration of
ancient atmospheres is to count the stomata on the underside of fossil
leaves.
 
In the last 50 years none of their predictions have come to pass. But the indoctrination by the Lefties of millions of young people in the school system have deceive them to believe this nonsense. Most of these predictions have come from the Left, with the object to scare people and adopt their socialist agenda. As Williams says “And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.”
 
Basic Science For Climate Scientists

Tony Heller

This video is a 20 minute course to teach climate scientists the basic science which many of them choose not to understand.


Very interesting and well documented video by Tony Heller in a calm and rational presentation of facts. Peer review are dishonest in the interpretation of the actual results. They have replace scientific method with pseudoscience. They exaggerate the global warming claims and do not refute the findings of experts in climatology with rigorous scientific results.
 
Very interesting and well documented video by Tony Heller in a calm and rational presentation of facts. Peer review are dishonest in the interpretation of the actual results. They have replace scientific method with pseudoscience. They exaggerate the global warming claims and do not refute the findings of experts in climatology with rigorous scientific results.

Another fool who doesn't understand what peer review is :roll:
 
Another fool who doesn't understand what peer review is :roll:
You are somewhat correct, peer review does not validate a concept, but mostly checks if the math is correct
based on the input assumptions.
 
You are somewhat correct, peer review does not validate a concept, but mostly checks if the math is correct
based on the input assumptions.

You too seem to have an odd idea of what peer review is. It's not just a case of checking the math; rather it's a matter of checking that the paper is based on objective methods and that the conclusions are justified by the results. A paper that relied on unsubstantiated assumptions would be immediately rejected as invalid, for example. That's why papers have references!

Obviously peer review, like any human activity, is not infallible, but it does a reasonable job of weeding out papers that are not based on the scientific method.
 
You too seem to have an odd idea of what peer review is. It's not just a case of checking the math; rather it's a matter of checking that the paper is based on objective methods and that the conclusions are justified by the results. A paper that relied on unsubstantiated assumptions would be immediately rejected as invalid, for example. That's why papers have references!

Obviously peer review, like any human activity, is not infallible, but it does a reasonable job of weeding out papers that are not based on the scientific method.
So that why all those bad papers get through peer review and are recalled?
No they are mostly checking that the concepts are plausible "IF" the assumptions used in the paper are correct.
An Example might be Hansen, et al 1997,
Where he assumes that the feedbacks from a doubling of CO2, would be equal to a 2% increase in solar output.
The idea that the assumption has any basis in reality is not checked, but rather the math is checked, "IF" the assumption is correct.
 
Excellent article by Walter E. Williams summarizing the fail environmental predictions. The actual environmental movement led by the ‘Progressives/Regressive’ with the disguise to save humankind, is a tool to advance the socialist agenda. This movement can be compare to a watermelon, ‘green on the outside and red inside.” Green is the new red.

We are really in trouble concerning the prediction of earth warming when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere determines the temperature and not the thermometer determining the temperature.
 
So that why all those bad papers get through peer review and are recalled?
No they are mostly checking that the concepts are plausible "IF" the assumptions used in the paper are correct.
An Example might be Hansen, et al 1997,
Where he assumes that the feedbacks from a doubling of CO2, would be equal to a 2% increase in solar output.
The idea that the assumption has any basis in reality is not checked, but rather the math is checked, "IF" the assumption is correct.

No, Hansen does not simply assume without justification that the feedbacks from a doubling of CO2 would be equal to a 2% increase in solar output. Any such assumptions would have to be substantiated by research or reference to previous work, or the paper would not pass peer review. It is simply nonsense to claim that papers can be based on assumptions that are not grounded in reality.

Checking the math is a very minor component of peer review. It is the overall plausibility of the paper that is validated by peer review.
 
We are really in trouble concerning the prediction of earth warming when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere determines the temperature and not the thermometer determining the temperature.

The thermometer measures temperature; it doesn't determine temperature.
 
Back
Top Bottom