http://www.diveheart.org/

Greeting from a Returning Diver and Volunteer Climate Change Activist

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Anthropogenic global warming catastrophe. Right.


Doomsday prognostications

________________________



The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.” Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity?

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

In 2000, David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness:

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.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “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.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970.

This time it’s not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, “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.”

There were grossly wild predictions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous energy claims, in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2017, there were about 2,459 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas in the United States. That’s enough to last us for nearly a century. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas worldwide.

Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.
 
Thank you for letting me know about this bill.
I will be fighting against it.

Keep your politics off Scubaboard. I hope you realize by now it is not welcome here.

Travel the world a bit and see real pollution. The US is not the problem.
 
Nothing will change until the likes if Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and hundreds of other Fortune 500 companies and Universities worldwide make it a daily dialog...get it out of and as far away from Govt as possible!
 
The earth has been coming out of the Ice Age for thousands of years. Did humans help it along, maybe a little in the grand scheme of things. Will the United States as a whole if it goes "green" change it all, more than likely not. The concepts circulating about electric cars, wind power, and solar are skewed beyond belief. So tell me where does that current come from to charge the batteries??? Let alone materials for making them! What is the carbon foot print to make a wind tower and if it collapses you now have a contaminated site due to the coolant-lubes in the turbine. And don't even get me going on solar panel materials needed to construct!! Yes we need more efficient ways, however Scuababoard is not the area to start! Take it elsewhere!!
 
First post and it isn't even about scuba, but to shill a political bill?

upload_2020-1-24_12-23-10.png
 
That would be apt if this bill had anything to do with creating a better world. In this case, climate change is just a buzz word that was chosen to help champion the bill among a certain demographic. Unless putting extra money in my pocket somehow improves the climate change situation... hey wait, I see an opportunity here. OF COURSE IT DOES!

I'll post my address in another thread, so you guys can donate directly. No reason to involve a middle man :wink:.

In all seriousness, I'd love to see some progress towards modifying the climate get done. This bill is a sham, and doesn't do anything to the climate. Maybe if there were a tax that was to be spent on some specific project(s) related to climate change could it possibly be valuable....that's a big maybe though, since most scientists freely admit that climate change is barely understood at all.
 
I'm all in favor of a carbon-tax. I realize that the rest of the developing world might not be part of this solution and that rankles some folks, but in my mind that's no reason to put our head in the sand and do nothing, or deny.deny.deny. While this does not do "anything" to the climate, it ups the cost of doing business with practices that are harmful to the climate. That is doing something in my mind by bringing carbon-neutral practices and sources in better range for competition with carbon emitting practices.
 
I'm all in favor of a carbon-tax. I realize that the rest of the developing world might not be part of this solution and that rankles some folks, but in my mind that's no reason to put our head in the sand and do nothing, or deny.deny.deny. While this does not do "anything" to the climate, it ups the cost of doing business with practices that are harmful to the climate. That is doing something in my mind by bringing carbon-neutral practices and sources in better range for competition with carbon emitting practices.


Every time you fill up with gas, I want you to hand out $1 to every person you see for the rest of the day

That’s all this bill is doing

This is essentially wealth redistribution in the guise of “helping the environment”......and its being done by taxing those that are “wealthy enough” to buy gas

They wrap it in this “green” bow so that gullible environment activists will think they are doing “something”...... even though this bill does absolutely nothing to help the environment

As with all things, you follow the money...... and if the money was going to the NPS, or to ocean clean up efforts, the. I would believe it’s well intentioned........ buuuuuuut it’s not
 

Back
Top Bottom