The Vancouver Sun – May 11, 1982
h/t to “Ordinary Debater”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… saveenergy on What’s At Stake? willys36 on “The world began to end… Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Homophobic Gas Walter on Protecting Endangered Species Morgan Wright on Artificial Stupidity
I think we should retroactively give Kenya a few billion dollars because they were prophetic.
I like “world governments must take action now or face disaster”. Sounds familiar.
Notice how the resident trolls never try to explain away this type alarmism gone wild.
Of course they don’t!
They prefer to entangle everybody in a debate about ‘The science’, because that means we take our eyes off the ball of the real political consequences, some of which are already taking place.
Hoo-sticks, anyone?
The irony is that the organisations that care most about ecology seem to be the ones who understand it the least.
Poor data, poor methods, and complex systems driven by unknown forces.
It’s not that I don’t believe in disasters – history is full of genocides, plagues, famines – but I don’t see these people having anything useful to contribute.
They are useful if you want more Genocide, Plagues, and Famines.
LOL
that’s what the owning class is for!!
This one from 2007 is even better:
“Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012”
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
Unfortunately for them, the alarmists now have a track record regarding their Chicken Little predictions, including the infamous failed hockey stick.
When someone predicts the end of the world as a result of supernatural causes, people mock him as a religious nutcase. But if he predicts the end of the world as a result of natural causes, people applaud him as a scientist. And the difference is … ? Well, the religious person tries to “save” as many people as he can, while the “scientist” contends that we need to reduce the population in order to “save” the world. All things considered, the religious wacko seems less dangerous to society.
Thank you for posting this, Steve.
This is an important piece of evidence because predicts environmental calamity without pointing to a mechanism by which that calamity is supposed to come about. In 1982, the dangerous man-made global warming theory had not yet coalesced. But belief in environmental apocalypse was already quite mainstream. AGW theory is an artificially manufactured solution to a non-empirical question.
Current “consensus” AGW theory is, basically, an effort to scientifically buttress beliefs about nature and man’s impact on the planet that were already well established. Until this is widely understood (and corrected), I think climate science will resemble–both literally and metaphorically–Copernican astronomy in the late 16th and early 17th century. Literally, in that scientists have wrongly put CO2 in the center of their paradigm, creating confusion that has to be dealt with by resort to odd sub-theories (like epicycles). Metaphorically, in that the effort to preserve an existing paradigm has taken on the tone of a religious cause.