Interesting article. I’m not someone who doesn’t believe human activities aren’t impacting the climate, but this article makes the point that many predictions are just that, predictions, some far off the mark.
Some of the predictions that so-called experts believed would occur within three decades, we are going on nearly five decades since and none of these predictions have come true:
**The end of civilization within three decades
Hundreds of millions will starve
Gas masks will be required in cities
****The world’s oil will run out
Yep, all of that was taught in public schools during the 1970’s and several other ridiculous perspectives that were deemed credible because most were not aware that the scientific community had traded their credibility for taxpayer dollars and a political agenda.
People are finally starting to understand what is going on, hopefully the backlash will eradicate all public funding of scientific research so the word “Science” can regain the respect it deserves.
I remember seeing a movie - well, part of it anyway - on TV that “predicted” a time when we would all have to live underground because the pollution would be so bad on the surface. It was supposed to be a dream, I think a man fell asleep at the wheel, and ran off the road, no injuries, he just lay - or sat - there dreaming. And “criminal” justice was handed out by the doctors - medical doctors, that is. Which happened, I guess, when someone suggested it might be safe to live on the surface again. And the punishment was always execution. Anyway, at the end, the man wakes up from his dream and drives off, and the camera zeroes in on the car’s exhaust. . .
The OP is kind enough to point out ideas that make those that share Liberal ideologies look silly, but it wouldn’t be difficult to find those of the Conservative persuasion that have done the same (I’ll spare you examples).
The fact is that humans in general have a terrible habit of overestimating their enemies and the dangers they face. The media tends to amplify those fears and has lead to a lot of very silly prognostication from those across the political and ideological spectrum.
There was, however, mass agreement with Malthusian models of earth’s resources and their eventual exhaustion; leading to sky rocketing prices and mass starvation.
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” - Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
And he may have been right to an extent, if not for the Green Revolution.
The oil depletion prediction, was premised on the assumption that we’d be land locked and not able to drill out in the ocean. Nor did we expect to stumble upon huge reserves in Russia, where they’d searched for decades and came up with zilch. It also rested on us not improving fuel economy in cars. Cars get about 3x the mileage over what they did in the 70s.
Had those three things remained true, we would have had a major global shortage in the past ten years. The mid-to-late 2000s were when this was expected to occur.
Absolutely False, ocean drilling was a improving technique in the 1970’s and there was NO reason to think it would become non viable. There were also MANY voices in the 1970’s who called BS on peak oil, they said that there was far more oil yet untapped than had been pulled so far in the history of oil extraction.
They were also called “deniers” and they also were NOT government funded “scientists”; in other words they stood nothing to gain financially by producing the “results” that politicians found convenient.
We “expected” to find oil everywhere if the “We” are the people who don’t listen to hack, religious freaks who pretend that they are “scientists” to get government grant money.
But yeah, you guys all thought this was a surprise.
Utterly ridiculous, the United States consumes FAR MORE oil than we did in the 1970’s and Nations like China and India have experienced growth numbers in those living above the poverty line and able to afford energy at a pace that has been many times greater than anything the 1970’s prognosticators ever imagined.
“Conservation” has played zero role in these failed predictions, 100 percent of the reason these predictions failed is because they were made with no respect for legitimate science and a purely political/religious motive; just like all the global warming hacks today.
I just wanted that to appear by itself to exemplify why we are no closer today at restoring integrity to our scientific institutions than we were 40 years ago, I have no doubt that you believe this based on blind faith and the priests in your religion are showing no signs of repentance.
I can still remember back in the 70’s when they had “experts” who looked like they were barely out of high school tell us we should be paying $8 a gallon for gas because of the dwindling supply of oil. Now we have politicians who have been pushing alternative energy and electric cars now worried that they are losing revenue off the sale of gas so they want not only a gas tax on each gallon but a mileage tax for using that gas. It is and was all about money. Stories of tankers sitting off shore and gas stations not in use with full tanks of gas just waiting till they got the price up. The sugar industry tried it as well as the wood industry as did the coffee industry. There were shortages till they got the price up.
Ah memories. This brings up a story about a tanker coming to refill tanks and the story goes that this tanker filled the tanks of four stations all claiming to have their own form of gas different than the rest
Molton-salt nuclear reactors seems to me to be the best for large scale energy production. They can burn up waste made from old reactors, they are small (few meters tall) and in the event there is a major accident the accident will trigger the events that bring it to a halt, no human interaction necessary.
Agreed, and it’s the fear of nuclear that prevents much advancement. Molten-Salt reactors address many of the fears, but say “nuclear” and most people hear Chernobyl, Love Canal, 3 Mile Island and Fukashima.
Here is another link with many more examples of scientists talking about the cooling trend:
1970s Global Cooling Scare
William Connolly is not a credible source as he was stripped of administrative status at Wikipedia, for erasing well supported evidence of many scientists indeed talking about a cooling world and into the future at the time.
A new report calls William Connolly a liar,when he claims that only 7 papers were published showing that there is a global cooling ongoing back in the 1970’s.It is actually over 285 papers,as shown in this link to, No Tricks Zone,
**Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’
By Kenneth Richard on 13. September 2016
Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.
It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.
The media isn’t science. I’ve pointed out over and over again, that while I agree it was discussed a lot, it wasn’t accepted by the body of science that is qualified to make those sorts of predictions.
It’s hard to believe that a cover on Newsweek, Time or The Daily Mail can be held up as evidence to a point when people want to believe something, but when you hold up the same kinds of media to something you disagree with, you’d just dismiss it.
Go back to the source, you’ll find that of the people that made qualified statements with respect to long term cooling, NO ONE predicted anything like an “Ice Age” was imminent. That was the media.
There are some “Al Gore” type statements like *If *A happens, B will result. If the polar caps melt, sea level will rise 20’. No one was predicting that the Icecaps would melt in the net 1000 years, so while technically true, very misleading.
> From the “EARTH ENERGY EXPERlMENT (E3) PROJECT NASA CONTRACT NAS 1-1 1871” - Page 5
> “Sellers (1973) has developed a climate model which quantitatively relates particulate loading to surface temperature. He has shown that an increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age.”
That may or may not be true, but like the Al Gore statement was anyone actually predicting an increase in particulates by a factor of 4.0?
I could go through all the papers cited and point out these inconsistencies.
The paper funded by Congress mentions an “Ice Age”, but actually predicts “slight warming” through the year 2000, which was the period it was designed to study…The critique of the paper points out that there was a lot of previously published information that wasn’t taken into account, seemingly negating the findings of the paper.
It is OBVIOUS that you didn’t look through the links,since many climate researchers of the 1970’s, were specifically saying there is global cooling going on,and some were saying they think this is evidence of going right into the new ice age.