Category: Uncategorized

April Fools!

April Fools!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Joe Public

 

Well, they were not published on April 1st. but they might just as well have been.

Just some of the ludicrous, eco-scares from down the years.

For instance, here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

 

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

http://ift.tt/1rnjaCb

 

Then in 2004, the Pentagon was warning that climate change will destroy us, as the Guardian reported:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

 

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office – and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism – said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.

‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

http://ift.tt/2gC8LOQ

 

The following year, the Guardian was also warning us that there would be 50m environmental refugees by end of decade:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations."

http://ift.tt/2gB0sFX

 

With predictions like that, even Peter Wadhams looks slightly sane!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

March 31, 2017 at 10:30PM

Will Major North Sea Discovery Revive UK Oil Industry?

Will Major North Sea Discovery Revive UK Oil Industry?

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

On March 27, Hurricane Energy, a small-cap energy company based in the UK, announced a major oil discovery near the Shetland Islands, a discovery that is being described as one of the largest in UK waters this century.

hurricne-locations

Hurricane drilled the “Halifax Well” near its existing Lancaster oil field, and the results were very positive for Hurricane. The hydrocarbon column stretches over 1 kilometer in depth and it could hold enough oil to make it “the largest undeveloped discovery on the UK Continental Shelf.”

The massive discovery is likely to spark interest from much larger drillers. Royal Dutch Shell and BP recently won exploration licenses in the areas not far from the discovery. Hurricane Energy’s find raises questions about the possibility of a revival in the fortunes in the UK waters and even the North Sea, which has declined in both importance and production for the better part of two decades.

Declines in the UK Continental Shelf

Producing oil in the rough waters in the UK Continental Shelf and the North Sea is expensive. The oil fields are mature and have been in decline for years, making ongoing operations costlier and less attractive. The UK’s oil production peaked in 1999 at roughly 3 million barrels per day (mbd), falling to about 1 mbd today.

The collapse of oil prices beginning in mid-2014 was an enormous blow to the North Sea and its surrounding areas, hitting the industry harder than elsewhere. In a global market in which investment dollars have become increasingly scarce, the North Sea and UK offshore production have struggled to compete against cheap oil in the Middle East, lower risk and short-cycle U.S. shale, and even expensive offshore oil fields in relatively less explored places like South America, West Africa or the Eastern Mediterranean, where the upside potential is much larger.

Recent metrics have not looked good. Companies that produce in UK waters have seen ballooning debt positions, according to Oil & Gas UK, an industry trade group. Total expenditure on the UK Continental Shelf has fallen for several years, down from £26.6 billion in 2014 to £19 billion in 2016. Greenfield development is also down, with only one project moving forward last year compared to five in 2015. Brownfield development does not appear much better, with the number of projects approved falling to five last year, compared to ten in 2015. The decline in investment has led to the loss of 120,000 jobs. Ultimately, rising debt for companies in the UK could delay any new investment resulting from a rebound in prices.

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union adds additional challenges for the oil industry, according to Oil & Gas UK. The withdrawal from the EU will be a distraction for an industry struggling to find its footing; the industry could also lose influence over policy development in Brussels; political uncertainty may deter investment; and the loss of access to the EU common market could make the procurement of goods and services trickier, depending on the outcome of future trade negotiations between the UK and the EU. All of that will occur before another potential referendum on Scottish independence, which could raise sovereignty questions regarding North Sea oil fields.

A North Sea rebound?

But there are signs that the UK oil industry is turning a corner. The cost to produce a barrel of oil in the UK’s waters has plunged by nearly half since 2014, falling from $29.30 per barrel to $16 per barrel by 2016. As a result of these efficiency gains, “there has not been a widespread rush to cease production on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) as may have otherwise been expected,” Oil & Gas UK said in its 2016 Economic Report.

Moreover, oil drillers are squeezing more oil out of existing fields. In 2015, output jumped by 10.4 percent, the first increase in over 15 years. The trend continued into last year, with production up 5.7 percent in the first half of the year compared to the same period in 2015.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 31, 2017 at 09:25PM

Is the regionality of the little ice-age proof against CO2 warming?

Is the regionality of the little ice-age proof against CO2 warming?

via Scottish Sceptic
http://ift.tt/1wv5Sjx

Reading the official mouthpiece of the Greenblob (wikipedia) I read: The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming. “Little Ice … Continue reading →

via Scottish Sceptic http://ift.tt/1wv5Sjx

March 31, 2017 at 09:10PM

Experts call for ‘Red Teams’ to challenge UN climate science panel 

Experts call for ‘Red Teams’ to challenge UN climate science panel 

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

Image credit: NASA

Basing all government climate research funding on one narrow theory was never a smart policy.
H/T GWPF

Prominent scientists operating outside the scientific consensus on climate change urged Congress on Wednesday to fund “red teams” to investigate “natural” causes of global warming and challenge the findings of the United Nations’ climate science panel.

The suggestion for a counter-investigative science force – or red team approach – was presented in prepared testimony by scientists known for questioning the influence of human activity on global warming.

It comes at a time when President Donald Trump and other members of the administration have expressed doubt about the accepted science of climate change, and are considering drastic cuts to federal funding for scientific research.

A main mission of red teams would be to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, including the work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports are widely considered the authority on climate science.

“One way to aid Congress in understanding more of the climate issue than what is produced by biased ‘official’ panels of the climate establishment is to organize and fund credible ‘red teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise,” said witness John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, in his prepared testimony. “I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate.”

Wednesday’s hearing, which focused on “the scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” is the latest in a series of recent House science committee hearings to challenge the existence or seriousness of climate change.

In their prepared testimonies Wednesday, witnesses called by the committee’s Republican majority suggested that organizations such as the IPCC present a biased view of climate change, and do not represent the views of the entire scientific community. They argued that policymakers would benefit from assembling groups of experts to conduct assessments that challenge the accepted climate narrative.

“A scientist’s job is to continually challenge his/her own biases and ask ‘How could I be wrong?’” Judith Curry, professor emeritus at Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said in her own testimony.

“Playing ‘devil’s advocate’ helps a scientist examine how their conclusions might be misguided and how they might be wrong. Overcoming one’s own biases is difficult; an external devil’s advocate can play a useful role in questioning and criticizing the logic of the argument.” Curry also suggested that red teams or similar panels presenting diverse opinions on climate change could take on this role.

Red teams are special groups designed to improve an organization’s performance by assuming the role of a rival, challenger or devil’s advocate. They have sometimes been used by agencies such as the CIA and the Defense Department to help test out security operations or military tactics by assuming the role of enemies, hackers or foreign governments.

Full report: Experts Call For The Creation Of ‘Red Teams’ To Challenge UN Climate Science Panel | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

March 31, 2017 at 08:51PM