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.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 assumption is silly from the start, lots of leafy green plants, vastly increase the surface area of a given acre of land.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.
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.
There's gotta be an easier way to advance socialism.
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.
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.
Climate change is not an economic question. It's physics.
Climate change is not an economic question. It's physics.
And your research into plant biological responses to changing CO2 levels vis a vis water retention showed what?
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.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.
You are somewhat correct, peer review does not validate a concept, but mostly checks if the math is correctAnother 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.
So that why all those bad papers get through peer review and are recalled?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.
There's gotta be an easier way to advance socialism.
Why must a prediction be attached to a political ideology?lol. right wing predictions are worse.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?