Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
Cold. Ruthless. Not suffering foolishness easily. I like it.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
lol, well, we know alarmists regard books as tombs of truth, so perhaps that will satisfy Ed.
I gave him this….
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
Great find. A huge heap of historical and scientific ignorance.
First, Malthus didn’t predict the end of humanity. He made a carefully reasoned pitch that carrying capacity, then known to apply to wildlife in managed forests in Britain, also applies to humans. He was right.
It was a stunning application of obvious facts. It’s still true. If population growth trajectories push beyond carrying capacity, there will be a population collapse caused by starvation. If other factors intervene, there will be slower growth, or no growth, and continued prosperity (reaching prosperity with no-growth human population is difficult in most capitalist models — we haven’t perfected it yet — but hypothetically attainable when most costs are accurately calculated; the alternative is to give up, and that’s not appealing to anyone).
Malthus’s mathematics were solid. What Julian Simon generally failed to account for was sentient beings paying attention to the clues, and acting to avert catastrophe. Or, history intervening with war.
That failure to account for science, policy and history, and the capability of humans to learn and act well, if not always wisely, mars Julian Simon’s otherwise entertaining work. For example, he assumes that dirty air disasters were averted because scientists were wrong, without realizing that clean air in Los Angeles is the result of scientists having been right, and convincing policy makers to act to stop the disaster.
Ehrlich wasn’t playing fortune teller in the 1960s and 1970s, or now. He was raising the alarm about dangers, trying to get action.
He succeeded. Plus, new technologies, new policies, and a greater general awareness of humanity’s location and role in natural affairs, allowed widespread aversion of great catastrophe.
Oh, except for Bengla Desh, Darfur, Biafra, the Sahel, the Aral Sea, the fisheries off of North America, the disappearance of pollinating bees in huge parts of China, the genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, China, Bosnia, and several other disasters aided and abetted by stupid human policies.
Now we face another great environmental crisis, the poisoning of our atmosphere with greenhouse gases. There are a few who take the Alfred E. Neuman position, “What? Me Worry?” History shows that position to be worse than being accused of forecasting disaster and being wrong.
Ehrlich knows less about Ehrlich than Ed does.
I note that the word “starvation” does not appear in that piece, nor especially anything like ‘we inaccurately predicted 65 million starving Americans.’
Yes, Paul Ehrlich exists. That doesn’t mean he said what Steve claimed about 65 million starving, nor does it mean the snark about Ehrlich’s accuracy in predictions is verified.
Maurizio knows less about Ehrlich than . . . well, we know you never bothered to read the writings you now critique. Have you ever read anything by Ehrlich, Maurizio?
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
And yet he still wants to be paid from the current economic system.
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
And yet he hasn’t killed himself yet. He’s so greedy that he wants to live to old age.
The cause of Globull Warming:
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.“
– UN Agenda 21
If he had said “redevelop” you’d not complain, I’ll wager.
You should read Ehrlich’s definition and descriptions of “de-development.” You might do well to study what you pretend to criticize, to understand what it is he is saying, before you misspeak.
This illustrates a big problem with listening to scientists talking outside their area of expertise. For are more recent example (and more spectacular, IMHO) see here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/aaargh_physicists.php
Hansen discussing energy policy is a somewhat lesser example, although a lot of economists believe that a carbon tax is a better approach than cap-n-trade because it is less prone to funny business.
This xkcd classic shows the phenomena for physicists at least:
http://www.xkcd.com/793/
Rattus – only problem is, Ehrlich is not a scientist talking outside his area of expertise. He’s a recognized leader in his field, and has received plenty of awards in that respect.
Well in the first quote he was talking about nuclear technology. The second touched on a lot of issues (AFAIK, the article didn’t give much context) only one of which, ecosystem degradation, touched of his area of study.
Yeah. Ehrlich is a population biologist. We shoudln’t listen to Goddard’s complaints about the experts. It’s outside Goddard’s realm of expertise.
Conference on Climate in Perth, Western Australia by CSIRO and others, presentations listed in PDF and more:
Greenhouse 2011…and it’s not about horticulture
http://pindanpost.com/2011/04/30/greenhouse2011…t-horticulture/ ?
Wiser heads may know some of these presenters, but I only know a couple. It looks like some funny business, including from Ove whats-is-name.
[snip Over the top]
I feel like we have already won the battle, us Global Warming Skeptics, so why am I still shooting fish in a barrel? I am lead to your site several times a day since you are listed in my various newsfeeds.
I recently looked at a Obama birth certificate or two. Those people are whack-job idiots!!! Smart enough as people, but utterly no street smarts, common sense or scientific (critical) training.
Yet these Global Warmists loop *me* into that fray? Ugh. Whatever. Those people were never loved as kids. Likely that’s genetic. Abuse runs in families. It’s carved in DNA.
“I recently looked at a Obama birth certificate SITES or two.”