They always forget their previous scare stories, and move on to the next one.
Alar, acid rain, ozone, overpopulation, famine, and now global warming has brought on many many scare stories of its own. People aren't going to know what snow is.
Apparently it does.
For example do you remember the 2010 BP gulf oil spill (AKA The Macondo blowout) that Environmentalists claimed would kill 97% of sea life in the gulf & possibly make the whole Caribbean sea a dead zone for centuries into the future?
If you do remember that event from 3 years past then you have a far longer memory than 97% of environmentalists.
The typical envirowhaco has a very tentative association with reality that makes them deaf & blind to any data that doesn't fit into the imaginary world they've created inside their own tiny little closed minds.
97% seems to be the most popular made up number in this category.
Oh, oh... FACTS. The enemy of alarmists.
Actually I think most people quickly forget the past so it's not just a problem with alarmists. I have friends who believe the "End times are upon us" because "things are really bad in the world now". Yeah, because the Bubonic plague, Mongul wars, Crusades, the Russian Civil war, World War 1 and 2 and other mass slaughters weren't really that bad.
I hear the same type of bluster from people about the weather now. "We had a few bad storms in the past, but it was never like this." I honestly can't remember the weather being any worse or better from when I was a kid.
It figures Antarcticice would try to defend Ehlich. Ehrlich was proved wrong time after time. Alarmists have the same mindset as Ehrlich, the same neurosis, that humans are bad and the cause of all problems. They see resources as running out etc. This is who alarmists are. It explains everything about them. That is why they have amnesia about their past failed predictions. If you listen to them, they saved the world from Alar, ozone, DDT, global cooling, global warming to gigantic breasts filled with silicon. Most of us can sort through garbage and learn when Chicken Little predictions fail over and over again but others can't, apparently.
First this is not a scientific article, it is an opinion! Second, regardless of the predictions made in the 50s and 50s and 70s, the advent of AGW was around 1979 You might as well be talking about the time of the dinosaurs There will indeed be crop shortages regardless of this stupid article. The first problem will be the price, making grains unavailable to much of the Asia and African continents
In th 30s and 40s the US had a pandemic of bed bugs. With the beginning of WWII DDT was used on soldiers to control bed bugs, head lice and other critters. Although proven to be a carcinogen, in power form, it was much less dangerous because of reduced osmosis
Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" brought the danger of pesticides to the public's attention, which led to the DDT ban. Although the US banned DDT, it is still widely used in many countries. In fact, it has been in the last couple of years there has been talk of a worldwide ban. There are many pesticides still in use which cause cancer
http://www.co2science.org/education/repo...
"The present study addresses this deficiency by providing a quantitative estimate of the direct
monetary benefits conferred by atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global
crop production. The results indicate that the annual total monetary value of this benefit grew
from $18.5 billion in 1961 to over $140 billion by 2011, amounting to a total sum of $3.2 trillion
over the 50-year period 1961-2011. Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality
forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production
between now and 2050."
Stop the CO2 now! I hate CO2 enrichment! It's helping to feed the populations too well. We can't have that now can we?
From your link : " ... In case you're wondering what happened with that battle to feed humanity, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization has some useful figures on its website. In 1968, the year Mr. Ehrlich's book first appeared, Asia produced 46,321,114 tons of maize and 439,579,934 of cereals. By 2011, the respective figures had risen to 270,316,205, up 484%, and 1,289,633,254, up 193%.
It's the same story nearly everywhere else one looks. In Africa, maize production was up 247% between 1968 and 2011, while production of so-called primary vegetables has risen 319%; in South America, it's 308% and 199%. Meanwhile, the world's population rose to just under seven billion from about 3.7 billion, an increase of about 90%. It is predicted to rise by another 33% by 2050. ..."
All because of a rise in temperature of less than 0.5C and a modest CO2 increase?
Additionally :
Looks like the fish are doing well also : http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/nature/po...
So much bullshit ......so little time....
" Exhibit C was the effort to ban DDT without adequate substitutes to stop the spread of malaria, which kills nearly 900,000 people," this ill informed crap is constantly regurgitated by lazy journalists and their non thinking readers ....such as Kano.
The problem with DDT was its off label use - instead of it being use to control mosquitoes with highly targeted spraying & impregnated paints & netting it was used in USA (& flowed elsewhere) as a broadacre insecticide......for which it was never intended. And guess what - its not actually banned but is still in use : for highly targeted spraying & impregnated paints & netting. The main problem is :
(i) Toxicity - it would not pass current tox requirements
(ii) Adaptation - the insects have acquired resistance to it
Just so I understand the logic of the denier industry : as the book "The Population Bomb" contained opinions that were found to be erroneous , that makes all climate science fraudulent. Did I get that correct ....it is as stupid a point as it seems?
Please pass it on to the rest of the chorus line
EDIT They why did the article make up lies about DDT to justify it silly premises? As I said : so much bullshit , so little time
O.K. you don't like JJ's point (although deniers often try to drag DDT into these anti science rants)
The article mentions population and the theories of Ehrlich another popular denier talking point, at the time Ehrlich penned these theories he was in fact correct based on the data he had at the time, he didn't see the increase in crop yields made possible with the introduction of new fertilisers and the introduction of new plant species developed to be more hardy.
Of course pull your head out of these engineered denier stories and most modern agriculture scientists don't think Ehrlich was wrong just a little early we have again caught up with our food production ability the long term effects of the very fertilisers that pushed production up are at their limits. Such denier claims like the link you provide here try to pin this back to the original work of Malthus, a rather pointless effort given how far back Malthus penned his work, of course at the time he wrote this 1798 he didn't foresee the developments to come with things like the train and powered ships instead of sail, based on the evidence he had at the time he also was in a way correct, changes outside his field lead to an ability to bring food in in much greater volumes to London and feed it's population which had as he said out striped it's local food production.
While deniers try to drag in Ehrlich's theory penned in the 60's they also fail to count on the fall in our population growth rate the figures Ehrlich had at the time, showed a growth rate that had boomed since just after 1900 and at the time he put his theory forward was 2.2% soon after this global population growth rates fell back to ~1.2% had population continued to grow at the rate it had Ehrlich would probably now be remembered as quite correct. This has also played a part in Ehrlich's theory ending up being wrong, of course it became evident into the late 70's that population growth rate was falling and Ehrlich admitted that his theories was incorrect.
As an example of consequences of the move to new wheat crops many of the diverse different strains of wheat where lost and replaced by the new specialised breeds, but it's is now realised this has limited the diversity of world wheat crops, yes they give higher yields but less diversity means decease could have major effects, there is now an effort to try and find as many of these old diverse types of wheat (if they still exist).
Of course try and explain any of this to a denier and they usually launch of into one of their pet conspiracy theories about global euthanasia, rather than rational exchange about genuine population control, which in reality has come to much of the western world, because of improved medical, lifestyle and options for women, rather than orwellian fantasies.
You really want to talk about amnesia, how about the constant changing of denier theories to try and explain away AGW, one day it's the Sun, then Volcanoes, then it's not happening, then it is but it's natural cycles (whatever they are), then it's Al Gore, then it's scientists, then governments, then communists, then greens, then it's (insert today's theory) to push all that without seeming to remember the theory they pushed yesterday or the day before or last week or last month, seems a common denier trait and one they really don't want to ever talk about.
Sort of like once being a fisherman then a 30 year worker in a power plant.
Or for that matter pretending to live in a place just hit by the strongest cyclone to every make landfall, yet you seem not to have noticed that at all. I think you are the last one to be talking about amnesia.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303482504579177651057373802?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
