There’s an article in the New York Times pushing a something called “the five stages of climate grief” done by a professor at the University of Montana. This got me to thinking about the regular disaster forecasting that we see published in the media about what will happen due to climate change.
We’ve seen this sort of angst broadcast before, and it occurred to me that through history, a lot of “predictions of certainty” with roots in scientifically based forecasts have not come true. That being the case, here is the list I’ve compiled of famous quotes and consensus from “experts”.
Top Ten Science based predictions that didn’t come true:
10. “The earth’s crust does not move”– 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. See Plate Tectonics
9. “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project
8. “That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988
7. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
6. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
4. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).
3. “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.
2. “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.
1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?
So the next time you hear about worldwide crop failure, rising sea levels, species extinction, or “climate grief” you might want to remember that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true.
Anthony,
I looked at that 40% solar efficiency link you provided. That’s a good note-and-graphic of the technological progress.
You answered the question before I asked….that’s pretty darn good!
Thanks.
Jd
Also, Jay from Seattle,
Thanks for the links to the DDT references.
Jd
When I was readying Evan Jone’s last comments, I at first thought it was funny until I realized he/she is actually serious. I think we have a true believer on our hands. No point in trying to reason with these likes. Anyone who would equate drilling for a resource as raping and pillaging is probably too far gone to bring back to sanity.
More important than trying to win a debate with such zealots is to simply continuing to point out the dangers of environmental extremism. We have to get past debating a trace gas such as CO2 because that only furthers their cause.
Here is something else that everyone might find interesting (I have been studying this line of thinking when it comes to climate change and this not only seems reasonable, but unlike CO2 “XBox” modeling, much of the science actually seems to actually lines up.):
1. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4
2. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/08/25/russian_scientist_predicts_global_cooling/7556/
By the way John, you are welcome.
FYI
I am not saying the SunSpot data disproves or proves anything. It is just something interesting to add to the discussion.
Jeff in seattle & Evan Jones:
Gentlemen, thanks for your ‘remarks’. Jeff, please consider my previous posts before you ‘jump the gun’, and Evan, tongue-in-cheek only works if your attempt at ‘sarcasm’ & ‘irony’ is accurate. It ain’t.
For the rest, the oil oligarchy DOMINATES, and until we can disengage ourselves from these planet-sucking behemoths, we are as much of ‘the problem’ as we are ‘the solution’. Consider:: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/wbh_exxart.htm. This site is an indepth analysis of the Exxon oil spill legal ‘stalling tactics’…fifteen years after the fact. UNDERSTAND who and what we’re up against here.
Alternatively, consider this: ‘BAE reaches $12.7 billion jet deal with Saudi Arabia. – A record $12.7 billion export agreement for the Euro-fighter Typhoon Combat Jet has given a boost to Britain’s defence industry sending shares of BAE SYSTEMS PLC soaring yesterday. Saudi Arabia said late on Thursday it will take up to 72 jets from the multi-national Euro-fighter consortium which includes Airbus parent firm EAD SNV and ALENIA AERONAUTICA, and part of Italy’s FINMECCANICA SpA. Britain and Saudi Arabia agreed for the Gulf State to purchase the planes after signing an original deal in December of 2005. In single day trading, BA (London) rose from 9.5 pence to 369.5 pence.’ Reuters, 2007 .
Think about this, the Greed behind it, the WIll for Power, and the ramifications, short and long term. Ethics are an intergral part of HOW we live our lives. We CHOOSE.
While we can measure “Forcing” for various properties of compounds such as CO2
No we can’t. CO2 simply does not do what global warming theory claims it does. This was proven over a hundred years ago.
Second point which is nearly as annoying: Scientists have been measuring atmospheric CO2 for 200 years, but global warming proponents choose to use highly unreliable ice core proxies even when they disagree with actual measurements. (Tree rings aren’t a much better proxy–they are more indicative of drought conditions than in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.)
Canadada, no one wants to use oil forever. Actually, we know that we logically can’t. But it is funny you mention CHOOSING to do things or not. You know, maybe you should tell that to the socialists who think that this whole thing is the way to get government control over industry and peoples lives? Just a thought. After all, big brother is coming for your thermostat in California, they’ve taken my light bulb, and they are going to make us ride lighter, death trap cars. I can CHOOSE to be harmful to the environment, afterall, so the only logical way to protect the environment from me is to take away my right to make that CHOICE.
Again, my response is to give it up. You aren’t doing so, I noticed. Go live in a cave with no electricity, running water, etc. You can sit here and bleat about it all you want, but seeking power and financial freedom is human nature. Put your money where your mouth is, get your goat, and go to the wilderness.
Jay, Evan’s dissertation was totally tongue in cheek, as I understood it.
“When I was readying Evan Jone’s last comments, I at first thought it was funny until I realized he/she is actually serious.”
He. Yes and Yes. BUT . . .
“I think we have a true believer on our hands. No point in trying to reason with these likes. Anyone who would equate drilling for a resource as raping and pillaging is probably too far gone to bring back to sanity.”
I “truly believe” you have my sentiments exactly backwards. Note the quotation marks. I was not making the rape allegation, I was merely quoting it.
A closer observation of what followed will reveal a passionate (and truly believed) defense of oil in general and the Internal Combustion Engine in particular.
Folks who (wrongheadedly) consider the IC engine a horror
1.) fail to take note of what it replaced (raw coal, wood-burning, and the horse), and
2.) fail to consider the wealth, health, and wonderful potential it has produced.
Hey Canadada,
You’re onto the gist of the matter as far as this Yank goes. Two of the most ominous things spoken by our leaders are “Beware the Military Industrial Complex”, and “I’m the Decider”. They are related; go figure. That and “Eliminating Evil from the Earth”…and…well, It all kinda starts making disconcerting sense.
And Andrew; you’re statement exemplifies the conundrum perfectly. Free Will works in the long-run only with lots of responsibility and self-control, which doesn’t seem to be the case with humanity in general and the U.S. in particular.
Free will should not translate to, “I can ruin it if I want to”. The world has rapidly become a shrinking place, and that kind of short-sighted selfishnes applied to the global landscape is nothing but self destructive.
It’s the same as the timber industry cutting down all but 10% of old-growth, refusing to downsize mills to reajust production, shipping milling overseas, and then blaming owls and environmentalists for a flagging old-growth timber economy. Or perhaps the California Sardine fleet arguing with the scientists of the time (undoubtedly they would have been labeled “environmentalist” had the word been invented), while the fishermen completely eliminated the source of their own income (same thing happened to the Cod Fishery and now the Swordfish fishery, and…). Pretty sad really. The list can be constructed.
So while I will never go live in a cave, and I enjoy midnight reading, e-mail, my pickup and cold beer, I’ll be darned to suggest that if left to the free-will of each individual, we’ll have the wisdom to make the whole thing work. History says very differently. No laws or regulations are needed! ahhh, yahh. Are you suggesting otherwise?
The most vigorous, fastest growing, independent, self-determined cell in the entire human body is a cancer cell. Indeed, this beauty of freedom, and self-determination works and expresses itself without regard for larger relationships (it seems to have forgotten something). By ignoring it’s role in the entire system and looking out only for itself and its own kind, it usurpes the energy and materials required by the entire system; it also short-circuits “natural” energy pathways, creating toxins for the larger body as a result. Importantly too, it spreads its ethos to organs/cells elsewhere in the system, making them behave its way. And most importanty, in the end, it’s offspring completely ruin the system that created and supported it. A cancer cell ignores the code of larger conduct. It does really well for itself though, for a while at least. The analogy just might work.
Ahh, free-will…
And for anyone who completely writes off “environmentalism” as fringe lunacy, I suggest spending a few years in a country that “benefitted” from industrial development without those pesky environmental laws/regulations. Bet you won’t last too long!
If you believe it’s important to clean up after your dog if it “accidented” in your living room, maybe you’re an environmentalist too! Everything beyond that might just be a level of understanding.
In the words of Ishi (“The Last California Indian”), “You seek the knowledge of Gods, but have the wisdom of little children.”
Jd
A reconstruction:
Two Cheers for Oil! And a third and most hearty hurrah for the IC Engine.
i. What the IC engine replaced was worse for the environment than the IC engine.
ii. The IC engine produced the wealth that has (mostly) put paid the Great Tragedies of history: Hunger and Poverty. Still a WIP.
iii. The Third Word needs to modernize (and use more oil). Their efforts to do so are to be encouraged.
iv. Oil produced the wealth that made environmentalism possible in the first place. No environmental cleanup project can occur without the use of the IC engine.
v. Oil has produced the wealth and power that will ultimately enable us to move beyond oil.
A deconstruction:
This Jones person is obviously an enabler of evil capitalist forces/propaganda and would be gladly be in the pay of Big Oil.
And I am. And I would!
Joe,
I should have clearified measuring “Forcing” for compounds such as CO2. By measuring “Forcing” of CO2, I meant that we could measure the light absorbtion properties of CO2 or any other compound/gas. Here is kind of an example: http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
Sorry for the confussion.
Andrew: FYI, the power outages in California were primarily generated by wily Wall Street traders shorting supply/demand, not some mythical band of ‘socialists’, if that was what you were suggesting … I don’t understand much of the rest of your post. We have not had much ‘choice’ concerning energy needs for decades because the ‘marketplace’ is dominated by the oil/big business oligarchy. duh.
Jeff in Seattle: Get a grip. This is a ‘free forum discussion’, and you don’t have to insult people to ‘make your point’ whatever that is…what IS it by the way?
Anyway, leaving this now. Hopefully, some picked up something on route … Good day boys. And gals, if any other dame is reading this out there … this is YOUR future too. GET INVOLVED.
Canadada, What I said had nothing to do with rolling blackouts. If you didn’t understand the rest of my post, your didn’t understand any of it. The “mythical band of socialists” is very real, however:
http://nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/08/news/top_stories/1_02_261_7_08.txt
They want to control your thermostat.
You know, Roads certainly doesn’t seem to think so mythical band of Oil Barons and Wall Street Traders is keeping him from switching to wind power. What could be the reason for that?
But your gone now, so who cares.
Canadada,
Your thinking is rather simple minded. If you don’t believe there are environmental extremist, then you are truly the “Denier”. Noone has ever argued that we don’t need certain rules when it comes to our natural resources. It is just when the “yes, extremist” with a cause start making thinks up (yes lieing) to get there way (like spoiled brats) that you become become fringe element “Socialist”. Your suggestion that quote, “we have not had much ‘choice’ concerning engery needs for decades because the ‘marketplace’ is dominated by the oil/big busiess oligarchy” is, for simplicities sake, stupid. Energy independence is the real problem and not altenative sources. The alternative sources will take care of themselves if allowed. The wako extremist environmentalist are truely against everything. Like has been said earlier, even if environmetalist do find a solution to alternative energy on thier own, if we give them a few years, they will have problems with their ownn solution. Energy independency, as far as America is concerned, has more to do with energy independence from other nations and not just from the ‘evil’ oil companies as you suggest. You know this, but you don’t care. It doesn’t fit with your religion, huh I mean political training. Why can’t you get past these simple thoughts? Oil is not evil. Capitalism is not evil. Drilling for a resource is not evil. Companies big or small are not evil. Capitalism = Freedom Socialism = Slavery Got it? Is there corruption in a free society? Of coarse, but I will take freedom with a few laws to balance it all out any day.
We have enough untapped oil on our soil and off our coast to last a long time. Will it run out? Of coarse it will, but not for a long, long time. We will adjust when the time is right and true science/innovation is allowed to flurish. In the mean time, lets make sure that the taps are turned on so that we don’t have to keep kissing Sadi Arabia’s a** every time they slow down production.
Final and most important thought: Environmental extremism is dangerous, and should be the real focus of our next election and not some trace gas (CO2). CO2 is not the cause of global warming or any real climate change. Any simple minded person can figure this out. This is all about environmental extremism and their crusade against capitalism or big business (oil companies) or freedom, whichever you want to inject.
Canadadadada, when did I insult anyone?
All I said was that if you really believe that Human industrial activity is going to destroy us all, then you are part of the problem by continuing to utilize the evil military industrial complex. Biting the hand that feeds, clothes, and heals you isn’t a good idea, really. I merely said that you must not really believe it since you haven’t given up your industrial ways.
As for environmentalism, yes there are a lot of extremists out there who simply make stuff up to further their agenda. Like the whole DDT scam, GM foods, CO2, etc. Even one of the founders of Greenpeace left because they had gone way off message. Many of the founders of these other movements have stated publicly that the death of the human race is the only solution. Yet you don’t see them volunteering to go first. Therefore they’re all hypocrites, and you appear to be one too. If that’s an insult, so be it, prove me wrong.
Here are a bunch of quotes from the extremist leaders and how they really think. Thanks to Steve Milloy:
Ok, I’ll take the bait …
Andrew, aka ‘timetochooseagain’, and Scott. Please excuse my stupidity and ignorance. We simple minds have trouble interpreting inventive grammar, poor syntax, and self-righteous inflammatory ‘arguments’ … Lets try again, for clarity and mutual Self-improvement, ok?
1. An oil oligarchy dominates the energy ‘business’. Agreed?
2. Alternative energy generating venues can’t REALLY get off the ground, en masse, until the dominating oligarchy is ‘defeated’. Agreed?
(HOW and by WHOM is not on the table at the mo … )
3. This is a ‘political issue’. Agreed?
How’s that for starters? Is there any common ground here or are ‘we’ just meant to rant and rave until we kinda feel better, and like, IN CONTROL?
P.S. JOHN D. … Thanks for picking up the ball back there by the way, appreciated it and well said. Was starting to think o’my’gosh, what is GOING ON here? What are ‘they’ REALLY ‘wanting’ & ‘demanding’? Was beginning to think I was the lone wolf in the wilderness here, metaphorically speaking. Was thinking later that maybe on a ‘primal level’ it has something to do with MEN feeling the NEED to both ‘protect’ and CONTROL their turf etc., you know, a basic bubbling up of all that brute testosterone ‘territorial crap’…
At core, for those who DO know the difference –
We are Caretakers of the Planet, not ‘its’ MASTER.
“1. An oil oligarchy dominates the energy ‘business’. Agreed?
2. Alternative energy generating venues can’t REALLY get off the ground, en masse, until the dominating oligarchy is ‘defeated’. Agreed?
(HOW and by WHOM is not on the table at the mo … )
3. This is a ‘political issue’. Agreed?”
Yes, No, and No.
Andrew,
1. ok, phew, we agree. Currently, approximately 90% of our consumable energy comes from non-renewable fossil fuels, (about 1/3 each from petrolem, coal and natural gas.) That leaves just 10% for ‘alternatives’ to ‘penetrate’ the existing ‘regulated’ global market …
2 & 3.
What we are needing is exploitable energy so that we can continue to power civilization. ( … call it what you will … )
There are several ‘alternative solutions’ in the works to do so:
1) biodiesel from ethanol or vegetable oils (including hemp) – [curious side-bar: did you know that during World War II, Henry Ford developed a car that could run on hemp-based fuel ??? ] –
2) combustible gases like methyl hydrates (methane) hydrocarbons and hydrogen.
3) nuclear fission also exists, as does
4) nuclear fusion and
5) cold (nuclear) fusion.
Unfortunately some of these above ‘solutions’ come with unsustainable planetary ‘costs’ that have not been sufficiently addressed, yet.
6) Solar energy,
7)wind and/or
8)wave energy are increasingly drawing attention and investment. The greatest ‘liability’ from these latter initiatives is constancy and ‘location’. Last but not least,
9)geothermal and/or
10)ground heat are largely ‘untapped’ resources.
Three things are needed to further develop these alternative ‘energy’ possibilities for greater integration: KNOW-HOW (aka SCIENCE), WILLPOWER and MONEY. Other issues must naturally be addressed on route: regulatory standardization and the development of a dependable infrastructure with equitable distribution for ‘all'(ie. no more rolling black outs highjacked by financiers…). By necessity, in America anyway, this demands a delicate balance of power between ‘big government’ and ‘big business’. The only way these two will play nice with each other is if they both can serve each other’s self interest. That is to say, governments want to stay in power and investment capital wants to realize profit. (Note our current predicament with the ‘oil oligarchy’ … ) Cue: ‘Joe Public’, ie. WE, the PEOPLE. In a FUNCTIONING democracy we have the OPPORTUNITY to vote for CHANGE. We can vote for those who are seeking a place in government to provide REAL opportunities for alternative energy development and integration. We CAN apply ‘pressure’. We CAN be heard. The money will follow.
In conclusion, my friend, this IS a VERY Political issue.
(See: http://www.rationallink.org/energy.htm for further analysis/support data for/of ‘alternatives’. And vote. )
Canadada,
I am through agruing with people like you. I have found that it only furthers your cause which is dangerous. Your mind is closed, and I am not interested in trying to open it. My only goal is to point out the dangers of environmental extremism so that others will not fall in the same trap. However, thank you for proving my point that the myth about “Global Warming” is all about leftist ideology and not about CO2 at all (another lie to add to the list).
As far as taking the bait, I think you are trying to bait me with the silly, leading questions. Since, like I said earlier, it only furthers the extremist’s cause while not adding to the discussion logically, I think I’ll pass.
p.s. Sorry about having to use the words such as “stupid”; however since Al Gore has spat in everyones face by telling everyone the debate is over, your side should expect what is coming to you.
Ok folks, lets say your finals and wrap this up.
I’m growing weary of this “irresitable force meets immovable object” debate.
Comments will be closed on this thread at noon tomorrow. Thank you all for participating.
-Anthony
FYI,
When I say that it only furthers your cause, I don’t mean that your arguments are so valid that they prove anything. What I mean is that in politics, it does not matter if you are right or wrong as long as you have a cause you will peel off at least some votes.