For Climategate & Penn State Professor Michael Mann’s Full article go here.
Mann: “Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.”
Climate Depot Response to Mann: “But you want so-called ‘solutions’ from the EPA and the United Nations now! And these proposed ‘solutions’ would not impact the climate even if you believe your claims.
Mann: “Reducing global carbon emissions should be understood as an extremely well-advised planetary insurance policy. Indeed, Americans take out fire insurance on their homes for levels of risk that pale in comparison to those associated with dangerous and irreversible climate change.”
Climate Depot Response to Mann: “Would anyone purchase fire insurance on their home with a huge up-front premium but virtually no payout if their home burned down? Only those who answer YES to such an “insurance” policy would like the “climate” regulations “deal” offered by Congress, the EPA, and the UN. If we actually did face a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the U.S. Congress or the United Nations to save us, we would all be DOOMED. The UN’s Paris climate agreement and EPA regulations can’t control the climate University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has noted, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate, if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
Mann claims Ehrlich’s failed predictions were not wrong! “To illustrate that point, he cites the Harvard environmental scientist Daniel Schrag (a friend of mine), who said in 2013 that ‘Ehrlich wasn’t wrong in ’68; he’s just wrong today.’ But Schrag has acknowledged the extent to which technological innovation has so far prevented Ehrlich’s predictions from materializing. He was pointing out that the only thing Ehrlich got wrong was the time-frame during which his predictions would play out, and that the connections Ehrlich identified between unhindered consumption and environmental damage still hold.”
Climate Depot’s Ehrlich rebuttal here: “Ehrlich predicted the U.S. would not be around in 1994, but it still was. If the U.S. ceases to exist in 200 years, I guess Ehrlich supporters can claim he was right – he just had the timing off!”
See: In 1974, Paul Ehrlich told the U.S. Senate he wouldn’t bet a nickel U.S. still around in 1994 – Ehrlich to U.S. Senate 1974: ‘If we have 20 years — which I wouldn’t put a nickel on — but if we have 20 years, we’re already 10 years too late in starting to do something about it.’ – ‘One of the big problems is how do you generate a feeling of urgency…’
PAUL EHRLICH BOMBS AGAIN: ‘In the more than four decades since The Population Bomb was published, the number of people inhabiting the Earth has more than doubled, but the death and poverty rates have dropped, and life expectancy has increased. Not only are we feeding more people than ever before, we’re doing it with less land’ – Meet the old ‘consensus’, the same as the new ‘consensus’ — we’re all doomed! ‘Fears of overpopulation and its effect on the Earth’s ability to sustain human life peaked in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when the scientific ‘consensus’ was that overpopulation would result in large-scale famines. Paul Ehrlich, in his book The Population Bomb — which predicted that ‘hundreds of millions of people will starve to death’ in the ‘70s — articulated many of these concerns. Ehrlich’s predictions proved false.’ ‘But Ehrlich did not learn his lesson: He is one of the scientists behind a statement titled, ;Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century,’ which was recently released by the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB) — a working group of natural and social scientists at Stanford University. The report argues that “the evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life-support systems is overwhelming” and that “human quality of life will suffer substantial degradation by the year 2050 if we continue on our current course.’
Population Bomb: How wrong was Paul Ehrlich? Predicted ‘substantial increase in the world death rate’ — But death rate dropped by more than one-third – In Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book Population Bomb, the third sentence reads: ‘ At this late date, nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…’ But according to the United Nations, the global crude death rate for:
For Michael Mann’s Full article go here.