Click to get your own widget

Thursday, August 04, 2011

"Green, "Environmentalist" Scare Stories that Didn't Happen

   This idea is ripped off from John Brignall's "warmlist" of things blamed on global warming. Here are a list of environmental world catastrophe stories, which have been used by the ecofascists to gain power and/or money, which have turned out to be untrue:

DDT; No lower threshold of radiation damage; nuclear China syndrome; global cooling; peak oil for the 1970s,; mass famine deaths; 65 million Americans to starve to death in the 1980s; Limits to Growth report's authors projected that, at the exponential growth rates they expected to occur, known world supplies of zinc, gold, tin, copper, oil, and natural gas would be completely exhausted in 1992.; overpopulation; non-existence of England by 2000; smog to kill 300,000 in 1973 in NY & LA;  The oceans and the Great Lakes were dying; impending great famines would be seen on television starting in 1975; the death rate would quickly increase due to pollution; and rising prices of increasingly-scarce raw materials would lead to a reversal in the past centuries’ progress in the standard of living: chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten to become more expensive (the Simon Ehrlich bet); mass extinction of 75/80% of all species by 1995; pollution caused cancers reducing life expectancy to 42 and drop US population to 22.6 million;  Chernobyl death toll 1/2 million;(actually 56): death of all sea life by 1979; acid rain, nuclear winter, CFC's destroying ozone layer by 2000 and will continue doing so for 50 years; food irradiation killer"Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in Genetically Modified Foods." all remarkably unspecified even by the normal standards of such scares; global warming 0.5 C increase per decadeY2K, peak oil before 2000; Netherlands under water by 2007; peak uranium in the 1980s;,deforestation; global cooling as the result of global warming; 10 warming catastrophes in Australia in 2008; warming and cooling scares since 1895;


----------------------
 By comparison here is a list of such stories from them which were fully true
-

-----------------------
  This is a work in progress and if anybody can provide links to other examples, on either side, I will add them.

Labels: , ,


Comments:
Neil, it would be more visually effective if your list was set out as one item per line and not a block of text that is hard to read and see the individual points.
 
Here are seven questions that no climate so-called “skeptic” has been able to answer. If they were to answer them honestly they would be forced to admit that their entire anti-science jihad is corrupt:

1. Do you agree with Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer’s statements that anthropogenic global warming is undeniable?

2. Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has increased ocean acidification, hastening the destruction of marine ecosystems with long term negative consequences for seafood production?
3. Do you accept that the National Academy of Sciences, and subsequent peer reviewed literature, have affirmed the fundamental conclusions of the “Hockey Stick” temperature reconstructions presented Mann and his colleagues?

4. Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the denialist side, such as Steven McIntyre’s claim that the National Academy of Sciences supported his critique of Mann, or Wegmann’s critique of Mann being shown to be plagiarism and fraud, are examples of denailist “voodoo”?

5. Do you accept that there are a number of carbon-based fuel conservation solutions and alternative energy sources that are both affordable and will have to be undertaken eventually anyway as fossil fuel reserves are depleted?

6. Do you accept that denialist fraud (Such as Wegman’s or McIntyre’s) detracts from the credibility of the entire denialist movement?

7. Of the alleged "skeptics" - can you name 2 climate specialists, who have no track record of fossil fuel industry support, who deny the scientific consensus regarding global warming outlined by the IPCC?
 
The Anonymous here appears to be "Skip" from "Scienceblogs". A possible adult who claims to be a have published "peer reviewed" climate alarmism in "the finest journals" and has been one of those to respond to my 7 climate questions, which if alarmism were true could easily be answered factually, with ad homs and obscenity.

I must admit, in my naivety, to have been quite shocked to find most "Scienceblogs" sites, which claim to be serious science discussion board not even attempting sientific discusion and resorting purely to ad homs obscenity & censorship.

Nonetheless I will not return his obscenities with the same but will answer, even though in boilerplating this abusive comment he has managed not to put it on actuallt relevent threads.

1 - I would require links showing if they did say this, if they said it would be serious and the context. I certainly do not consider measurable anthropogenic warming to be "undeniable".

2 - There appears to be a tiny move towards not ocean "acidification" but to ph neutrality by alarmists. This may well be limited to only the small areas measured. The ocean naturally varies considerabkly more than this "change". There is no evidence this produces long term reductions in seafood production. If anything neutrality should do the opposite.

3 - Certainly. The NAS benefits from government patronage and as the continous failure to answer my Q 7 shows, while government funded "scientists" support alarmism not a single real independent scientist cann be named who does. It is to be expected that the NAS (& the Royal Society in Britain) would support this government funded fraud.

4 - No I don't and you have, as normal with ecofascists, not attempted to produce any evidence for the assertion.

5 - Absolutely not. Windmillery and the rest of the renewable stuff is both horrendously expensive and does not work. The alleged threat of "peak oil" is so far over the horizon that it is now at an infinite distance.

6 - This is simply a repeat of Q4. You made no attempt to substantiate your allegations there and haven't here. I regret this is clearly an acceptable substitue for facts among ecofascist "scientists".

7 - Stephen McIntyre, Fred Singer - I have named them before on "scienceblogs" and nobody made any attempt to provide evidence to back up the claim. By comparison you and all the other alarmists have repeatedly been unable to name 1 warming alarmist who is not paid by the state.
 
And not one single honest answer to the seven questions. This is obviously the best that an obscene, lying, thieving Nazi animal anti-science jihadist such as Neil Craig can manage.

So we are in agreement then that there are no climate specialists without a connection to fossil fuel who dispute the IPCC. Thank you for that admission.
 
Anyone can see that as a "peer reviewded" alarmist "scientist" published in "the finest journals" this is the standard of honesty to which you and your peers aspire.

Not only is your allegation of an admission demonstrably a lie but you still have refused to present any evidence in support of your blanket claim of being bought. Or indeed of any part of your overall claims.

On such lies is the entire "environmental" movement based.
 
And now the anti-science Nazi Brown Shirt has resorted to censorship.

This proves that the so-called "skeptical" book-burning fact-hating jihad is full of fearful liars whose only response to dissent is to try to kill it.

Just remember, the first ones Hitler disposed of when he came to power were the Brown Shirts.

And still no honest answers to any of the 7 questions.

Thus is the way of fascists.
 
Quite obviously I have not censored the lies of this alleged and indeed probably eminent climate "scientist" published in "the finest journals".

That he is so published and eminent while also being so obviously both dishonest and stupid says more about the entire movement, including the IPCC, CRU etc, than I could.
 
So now you are admitting that you are a censoring lying Nazi Brown Shirt?

Good, now we can move on to your other lies, such as King's non-statement about Antarctica. Are you also admitting that was a lie?

I don't know who you think I am, but the only stupid person posting here is the one who has admitted that he

(a) censors
(b) lied about King
(c) has never read a research article in his life.
(d) Only got 80 votes in his laughable bid for election in Scottish Parliament.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.