Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
ah yes, the more you pay for knowledge the better that knowledge is ...
Doesn't appear to work for climate change
fred
No references as usual. Funny how, if you Google some of those quotes they only seem to exist in copies of that list.
Anyhow, some of those predictions were off base, but many more did not come to pass precisely because people took heed of the environmentalists' warning and passed, for example, Endangered Species, Clean Air and Clean Water legislation (now being stealthily dismantled in the US). Ehrlich was right about population growth, however in forecasting mass starvation he failed to foresee the advances that would continue to be made in agriculture, aka the Green Revolution.
The initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies, including high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, especially dwarf wheats and rices, in association with chemical fertilizers and agro-chemicals, and with controlled water-supply (usually involving irrigation) and new methods of cultivation, including mechanization. All of these together were seen as a 'package of practices' to supersede 'traditional' technology and to be adopted as a whole.[Both the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation were heavily involved in its initial development in Mexico. One key leader was Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution", who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. He is credited with saving over a billion people from starvation. The basic approach was the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
The truth is more complicated. Climate change won’t destroy the planet, although it will change the environment we’re accustomed to, in ways we can't predict and with possibly dire consequences. And weaponizing “failed predictions” of the past to justify leaving the climate problem to the market is deceptive. If we don't act because a previous prediction "failed," we face an array of human suffering, which will hit the poorest and disadvantaged the hardest.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-didnt-first-earth-days-predictions-come-true-its-complicated-180958820/
Phil Clarke
Much to our dismay, we now find that Einhorn, the self-styled hippie guru and alleged murderer of Holly Maddux, has been taking credit for initiating or organizing Earth Day. He is not telling the truth. A group of very dedicated young people worked very hard to organize Earth Day, but Einhorn was not one of them. In fact, Einhorn was asked to leave several meetings of the organizing committee that he attempted to disrupt. He was not welcome there, nor did he contribute in any material way to the committee’s activities.Einhorn, given a small role on the stage at Earth Day, grabbed the microphone and refused to give up the podium for 30 minutes, thinking he would get some free television publicity. We just waited until he had completed his “act” and then got on to the serious business at hand:
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/04/22/ira-einhorn-not-founder-earth-day/
Phil Clarke
Radical Rodent. Everything you just wrote is wrong.So, Mr Clarke (Apr 9, 2020 at 3:11 PM), what you are saying is that, with higher latitudes and altitudes warming, the arable lands therein will still not be able to support farming? With an earlier spring and later autumn, the growing season is not increased?
However, you are right about the hurricanes; the data I was quoting was those that made landfall in the USA, which have reduced. As for tornadoes, there is still not enough information to judge whether or not there is any significant change.
As for drought and flood, this is the closest I can find with what might be termed “unbiased facts” available [source]. As can be seen, deaths by drought and flooding have plummeted over the past century, so no increase in “disasters”, there, then.
Radical Rodent
Climate change won’t destroy the planet, although it will change the environment we’re accustomed to…Which is… what, precisely? What exact “environment” is it that we're accustomed to?
….in ways we can't predict and with possibly dire consequences.… and possibly enormously beneficial consequences, as have been the results, so far, since the little ice age.
Talk about loading your comments — sheesh!
Radical Rodent
Not sure the residents of New South Wales would agree with your 'enormously beneficial'.
I just meant that, after decades of extraordinary growth in crop yields, in the last few years yields in some important crops have actually started to fall - see my first link to PLOS ONE.
Phil Clarke
Earth Day co-founder written out of history after composting his girlfriend
He was an easy one to throw under the bus. But why just him? Why not Ehrlich? Or Carson? Or Mann (whoops, I think he has been by his peers - see: A Disgrace to the Profession. A pity that the mass media won't follow their lead. )
Anyway, Ira Einhorn, now deceased - your contributions to Earth Day have been challenged every since your conviction.. You see, killing your on-side girlfriend is not currently approved of by the Left, so don't expect much from your erstwhile chums. Cold-blooded murder of people designated as enemies of the revolution is still OK though, so it partly depends on how the victims have been labelled. For example, Che Guevara still appears on t-shirts of young socialists despite his gruesome history as Castro's chief butcher. And if the victims are poor people in far away countries that doesn't matter to the Left much anyway (unless it cab be used to bash 'capitalism') - see the harm caused by the US condemning DDT for example, or more recently by many decisions affecting developing countries based on climate scares(see Eco Imperialism for many examples.
Truly there is going to be a lot of history that will have to be re-written on the Left when the world emerges from the CO2 madness, and looks back in horror at all the excesses it led to.
In the meantime, here is the piece I took the headline for this comment from: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/20/earth-days-dark-side-789496388/
John Shade
A lame attempt at guilt-by-association was based on an urban myth, Einhorn was a self-promoting bit player, never an MC, much less a co-founder of the Earth Day organisation.
Oh, and the site you got your misinformation from is better known for spreading anti-Islam hate speech.
Not sure we want any lectures on moral poverty.….
Phil Clarke
Climate Science funding looking very weak. Must be something to do with the honesty of Climate Scientists.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/10/friday-funny-that-crushing-climatechange-moment-courtesy-of-coronavirus/
golf charlie
Well Phil, your ill-natured, ill-motivated comments are often easily refuted by following up the links you provide with them, but your last one stands alone an an example of hypocrisy within two sentences. You seem to lack any kind of self-awareness. And you waste our time and space here. So sad.
John Shade
Not sure the residents of New South Wales would agree with your 'enormously beneficial'.
Apr 10, 2020 at 4:44 PM Phil Clarke
Some of them are still a tad upset with Green Blob Climate Scientists, interfering with the traditional land management skills and wisdom.
golf charlie
Whatever.
Do you think, next time you link to a website of an organisation described by the SPLC as an anti-Muslim hate group, you could give us some warning? Not everyone shares your predelictions and may wish not to give such people traffic,
Thanks.
Phil Clarke
Mr Clarke (Apr 10, 2020 at 4:44 PM): you are starting to clutch at straws now – I did say “…possibly enormously beneficial consequences…” Naturally, you appear to have extrapolated that to encompass benefits to everyone, at all times; mind you, the people of New South Wales should be learning from their own past – the eucalyptus trees have been quite appositely described as “incinerators from hell, dressed up as trees”, and do have a long history in what they have done; fire is an integral part of their ecosystem, and we have just seen the results of that. Humans have, perhaps, helped to worsen the problem, with inhibiting fire in past years, as well as not removing (nor, as GC points out, even being allowed to take such mitigating measures) the build-up of combustible material that has occurred, so, no, you cannot claim that “climate change” has anything, at all, to do with it. Only the most political of scientists have upheld that ludicrous proposition.
As for Plos One:
Crop yields are projected to decrease under future climate conditions…[My bolding] Ri-i-i-ight…. So, no actual evidence to back that up, then, just “projections” and “recent research suggests…”?
And, now you put forward the SPLC as an organisation of integrity and probity…? While I cannot condone hatred of any kind, it is not difficult to understand why so many distrust, dislike and fear many followers of islam. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the warnings from Imam Tawhidi or Ayan Hirsi Ali.
Radical Rodent
Do you think, next time you link to a website of an organisation described by the SPLC as an anti-Muslim hate group, you could give us some warning? Not everyone shares your predelictions and may wish not to give such people traffic,
Thanks.
Apr 10, 2020 at 9:28 PM Phil Clarke
Do you think you could stop linking to websites run by the 97% lunatic majority of Climate Scientists? Some of them are not taking the prospects of a career change well, and the prospect of having to earn money by doing useful work is clouding their judgement even further.
Thanks.
golf charlie
John Shade, quite incredible that Obama had one of Ehrlich's Disciples as his top Science Advisor. I expect he believed in Mann's Hockey Stick.
: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving to Death During the Next Ten Years.”
Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably increased despite increases in population.
Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.
golf charlie
No, RR, the PLOS ONE article found an actual not projected decrease in crop yields. It was small, circa 1%, but the point is, absent climate change, yields should be increasing, as they have been for decades.
Phil Clarke
Sorry, Mr Clarke, but you only have to read the early parts of that article to see that it is utter bunkum, e.g.: “Since the 1970s, global surface temperature warmed at an average of 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade [9], a rate higher than any period since the industrial revolution.” As the rate in the late part of the 20th century was about the same as the rate in the earlier part of the twentieth century, that is obviously not a correct statement – especially as the rate so far during this century has been almost flat, with every indication that it is now declining.
Furthermore, it is continually talking about “project future yields” and “are predicted”, as well as “estimates”, though there is a brief burst of honesty: “…there are large uncertainties in both the modeled climate projections [5] and in the crop model parameters [6–8].”
Further down, they produce this: “Yields for all the dominant (non-tropical) crops in western and southern Europe decreased 6.3–21.2% because of climate change (Table 1, Fig 1)” Because of “climate change”? Or, perhaps, because of changing EU agricultural policy? Given the shenanigans within the EU, I would opt for the latter as the default position. These guys are in cloud-cuckoo land, else they would be looking at ALL possibilities of crop reduction in any particular area; perhaps they view the recent drastic crop yields in Syria as the fault of “climate change”.
Then you put your own foot in it: “… but the point is, absent climate change, yields should be increasing…” “Absent climate change”? Are you denying that climates have changed without human interference? You are aware that climates have been changing since the Earth was born, over 4 billion years ago, aren’t you? If you can acknowledge that, why can you not acknowledge that the present changes that we are witnessing could well have nothing, whatsoever, to do with humans? To date there has not been ONE drop of irrefutable evidence that the global climate is changing because of humans.
With the “distant time horizon”, of course, they have the benefit of no-one recalling this travesty of “science” to bring them to account. If warmth is “projected” to be so harmful to crop production, why do we bother with greenhouses? You really need to start reading your links with a far more critical (or even cynical) eye than you appear to be doing.
Radical Rodent
It may be possible to find short periods earlier in the century that match the modern rate of warming, but they will be considerably shorter and unlikely to be statistically significant.
the rate so far during this century has been almost flat, with every indication that it is now declining.
Au contraire, warming has continued. Globally, January 2020 was the warmest January ever recorded.
The PLOS ONE paper was an attribution study using regression analysis: Here, we constructed linear regression relationships using weather and reported crop data to assess the potential impact of observed climate change on the yields of the top ten global crops. A regression allows you to estimate how much of a change is due to another variable. So when they attribute the reduction in crop yield to climate change, that is exactly what they mean.
There's a substantial body of evidence that attributes climate change to the enhanced greenhouse effect, summarised in IPCC AR5 Chapter 10. This includes so-called 'fingerprint' studies. Each possible cause of the warming produces different pattern both spatially and temporally; by matching observed patterns with predicted we can attribute the warming with high confidence. Simple example: if increased solar radiation were the driver, the stratosphere would be warming, if greenhouse effect, the stratosphere is expected to cool, the latter has been observed.
Phil Clarke
There's a substantial body of evidence that attributes climate change to the enhanced greenhouse effect, summarised in IPCC AR5 Chapter 10. This includes so-called 'fingerprint' studies. Each possible cause of the warming produces different pattern both spatially and temporally; by matching observed patterns with predicted we can attribute the warming with high confidence. Simple example: if increased solar radiation were the driver, the stratosphere would be warming, if greenhouse effect, the stratosphere is expected to cool, the latter has been observed.
Apr 11, 2020 at 10:02 AM Phil Clarke
Still no evidence then. Just lots of things that may be "attributed" in the absence of evidence.
I think the UN is going to be losing US Funding for the IPCC. This may be attributed to the lack of evidence, and the world does have genuine problems that do need fixing.
golf charlie
Well, golf charlie, the climate system continues to behave as if the rising CO2 levels are of minor importance - just as it seems to have done throughout its history. But the zealots are not going to let go of their milch-cow without making every effort to squeeze it further. A bit like the SPLC, but on a much, much larger scale. Google 'SPLC scam' to see how that body grew fat, rich and sinister by means of mailshots alarming people about baddies threatening society (but for the noble efforts of the SPLC, please send a donation). Both profit from melodrama and hyperbole.
John Shade
"A bit like the SPLC, but on a much, much larger scale. Google 'SPLC scam' to see how that body grew fat, rich and sinister by means of mailshots alarming people about baddies threatening society (but for the noble efforts of the SPLC, please send a donation). Both profit from melodrama and hyperbole.
Apr 11, 2020 at 10:43 AM John Shade
Thank you, obviously an unpleasant place to work, dominated by untrustworthy people. I expect they believe in Mann's Hockey Stick, but only when the money is lavish enough.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
"Leadership upheaval amid harassment allegations
In March 2019, the SPLC fired founder Morris Dees for undisclosed reasons and removed his bio from its website. In a statement regarding the firing, the SPLC announced it would be bringing in an "outside organization to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices."[36][37][38]
Following the dismissal, a letter signed by two dozen SPLC employees was sent to management, expressing concern that "allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism threaten the moral authority of this organization and our integrity along with it."[39] One former employee wrote that the "unchecked power of lavishly compensated white men at the top" of the SPLC contributed to a culture which made black and female employees the targets of harassment. "
golf charlie
As the strange inability of the resident Fred (Fred Who?) fans to actually enumerate his recent contributions to the sum of human knowledge continues, at least we can console ourselves with the recognition that the great man of integrity finally dispelled the myth that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (sometimes two)...
From: "S. Fred Singer"
Subject: NIPCC -- 2nd Edition
Date: January 25, 2009 8:19:22 PM CST
To: info@sepp.org
Cc: **redacted to protect the guilty **Attachments: 2 Attachments, 135.4 KB
Dear FriendsWe are readying a 2nd updated and slightly expanded edition of the NIPCC Summary, to be published in March/April 2008
Pls read the attached Preface and consider adding yr name as a contributor/reviewer (We are blurring the disitnction on purpose to provide deniability to some who are concerned about repercussions)
I hope you will accept this invitation and send me BY JANUARY 31 a 2-3-line bio-sketch, along the model shown on page 29 of the NIPCC report Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
Thank you -- and best wishes for 2009!
Fred
NIPCC participants are invited to a dinner on March 9 in NY City during the Heartland Conference and to a dinner on April 23 (or 24) during the EGU General Assembly in Vienna. I am to present an invited paper in Session GD10 (see attached abstract)
************************************************************
S. Fred Singer, PhD, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project . .
http :// www.sepp.org
**************
Phil Clarke
The potato-heads in the Club of Rome found computer models of the end of the world so convincing they used them to create quite a political scarestorm back in the 1970s (Limits to Growth etc). The schemers of the CO2 Scare didn't miss that trick and used computer models also for propaganda, as devices to impress and persuade, and indeed panic, the political/chattering class leaders in the decades that followed.
The trick is to act as if the models were evidence instead of being just illustrations of hypotheses, and not very good hypotheses at that. There's a good post just up at WUWT pointing out the shortcomings of climate models and those who lean on them. Extract:
'Real scientists don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world data, evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t tweak their models after comparing predictions to actual subsequent observations, to make it look like the models “got it right.” They don’t “lose” or hide data and computer codes, restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who asks inconvenient questions or criticizes their claims or models. Climate modelers have done all of this – and more.'
John Shade
"As the strange inability of the resident Fred (Fred Who?) fans to actually enumerate his recent contributions to the sum of human knowledge continues, at least we can console ourselves with the recognition that the great man of integrity finally dispelled the myth that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (sometimes two)...
Apr 11, 2020 at 10:33 PM Phil Clarke"
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
Was it 175 attempts to prove Mann's Hockey Stick at taxpayer's expense?
How much has Hansen cost US Taxpayers?
The Policing Cost to UK Taxpayers for COP 26 in Glasgow was going to be £200 million.
golf charlie
With another anniversary of the fatuous Earth Day coming up in a couple of weeks or so, readers might like to bear in mind the failed forecasts current at the time of the first Day in 1970: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/22/seven-earth-day-predictions-that-failed-spectacularly/
And reflect on the moral qualities of that first Day's master of ceremonies, now deceased:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/04/earth-day-founder-dies-prison-after-composting-daniel-greenfield/