13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At the dawn of the Progressive era, it was a commonly held scientific belief that blacks were inferior.

And before, so it seems you dont have much of a point about progressivism. But, thanks to progressivism and scientific enlightenment, that bigotry has been tamped down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,

He's on a roll...….

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

A stupid question, since we are talking about more time going forward than since the first plant was built, and many more plants. It's literally the topic of discussion, ya troll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

A stupid question, since we are talking about more time going forward than since the first plant was built, and many more plants. It's literally the topic of discussion, ya troll.

So that would be zero. Thanks!

You don't think Fukushima was destroyed by the earthquake, do you?

 

[justoffal]

It mught be a good time to reiterate something:

When past scientific consensus has changed, it changed due to more evidence, itself broight to light by science.

No, never has scientific consensus been formed or overturned based on a bunch of cackling, bad political actors.

So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?

Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,

This is your argument?

Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.

Jo

In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.

Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.

WE created it, we can fix it.

Quit acting like it just nature.

In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.

It's been much warmer in the last million years, why didn't the polar bears go extinct then?

Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.

How many new nuke plants should we build?​

How long ago???? In the past, these changes took centuries & allowed animals to adapt.

If we don't want to build plants that could ill thousands when a earthquake hits and creates waste that taken ten thousand years to become safe, we don't want green energy,. I get it. We have 15 fukushima style nuclear plants along a major fault line in the central US.

In the past, these changes took centuries & allowed animals to adapt.

I agree, they didn't go extinct when the climate was much, much warmer.

If we don't want to build plants that could ill thousands when a earthquake hits

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

We have 15 fukushima style nuclear plants along a major fault line in the central US

We have plants that are going to lose power to the coolant pumps and then get their generators flooded?
You have a list?

Unfortunately there are numerous catastrophic events throughout Earth's history that have caused INSTANT change to global parameters. Meteor crater looks to be about 50,000 years old.... Not very long ago.

It's most likely caused a period of up to ten years of drastic temperature drops and total Crop failure. It's just one of dozens.

Jo

 

[Votto]

At the dawn of the Progressive era, it was a commonly held scientific belief that blacks were inferior.

And before, so it seems you dont have much of a point about progressivism. But, thanks to progressivism and scientific enlightenment, that bigotry has been tamped down.

Segregation anyone?

Progressives are now supporting reverse segregation, to keep out whitey

Do Colleges Actually Welcome Segregation on Campus?

 

[justoffal]

"Perhaps.... So it's every breath you exhale."

This is dedinitely one of the most idiotic denier talking points. What kind of liar can say this with a straight face, and think he is adding insight or revelation to the discussion? What kind of fool would imply that scientists don't consider this? Embarrassing.

Climatologists are indeed foolish people despite their degrees. They seriously underestimated volcanoes.... To name only one.

Jo

 

[Votto]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,

The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

Einstien and company just laughed at him. Why? Cuz he was a priest and amateur scientist, but mostly because he was a priest.

Also, a woman came up with the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen. She was then laughed at. Why? Cuz she was a stupid woman. She was brow beat so bad she recanted, much like how people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe recanted to save their lives back in the day.

So as we can see, we all have bias, and politics ruins everything.

But now we have a Left wing Pope spending all his time talking about the evils of building walls. Meanwhile, the official church doctrine on abortion is that it is mass genocide, yet the Catholic church is as quiet about it as they were during the Holocaust.

Why? You guessed it, politics.

 

[otto105]

You read these posts from the climate- consumed. How does one even navigate life thinking all the time that a house is about to drop out of the sky on your head?

They’re houses in the sky?

 

[justoffal]

So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?

Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,

This is your argument?

Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.

Jo

In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.

Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.

WE created it, we can fix it.

Quit acting like it just nature.

In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.

It's been much warmer in the last million years, why didn't the polar bears go extinct then?

Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.

How many new nuke plants should we build?​

Cause and effect is always present. Is it anthropogenic? Perhaps.... So it's every breath you exhale.

Jo

Where is this extra CO2 coming from?

There's no extra co2....only stored and released.


Jo

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,

The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

Einstien and company just laughed at him. Why? Cuz he was a priest and amateur scientist, but mostly because he was a priest.

Also, a woman came up with the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen. She was then laughed at. Why? Cuz she was a stupid woman. She was brow beat so bad she recanted, much like how people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe recanted to save their lives back in the day.

So as we can see, we all have bias, and politics ruins everything.

But now we have a Left wing Pope spending all his time talking about the evils of building walls. Meanwhile, the official church doctrine on abortion is that it is mass genocide, yet the Catholic church is as quiet about it as they were during the Holocaust.

Why? You guessed it, politics.

and thats relevant to fault lines why???

 

[Votto]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,

The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

Einstien and company just laughed at him. Why? Cuz he was a priest and amateur scientist, but mostly because he was a priest.

Also, a woman came up with the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen. She was then laughed at. Why? Cuz she was a stupid woman. She was brow beat so bad she recanted, much like how people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe recanted to save their lives back in the day.

So as we can see, we all have bias, and politics ruins everything.

But now we have a Left wing Pope spending all his time talking about the evils of building walls. Meanwhile, the official church doctrine on abortion is that it is mass genocide, yet the Catholic church is as quiet about it as they were during the Holocaust.

Why? You guessed it, politics.

and thats relevant to fault lines why???

The world in which scientists operate is extremely political, just like everywhere else.

That means the truth about things can and have been hidden or manufactured, all do to being PC.

In fact, Einstein had to change his formula for relativity in order to make the PC view of the nature of the universe as static and eternal work mathematically.

He later said it was his biggest blunder.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.

For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.

So, the point of the thread seems to be:

1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome

2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.

Wrong. Global cooling turned out to be a miscalculation.
Acid rain is still with us. It’s just not as politically convenient for marxists as AGW is because acid rain is too geographically isolated.

Acid Rain was dealt with. Under George HW Bush, a cap & trade systemn wad put in place to rec=duce the types of emissions that used it.

That cap trade system remains in effect today.

Nothing like outing yet another stupid Trumptard,

No, it’s still around but politically passé.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

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….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 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.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

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.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

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.”​

There is a basic difference between Science and Faith. Science continues to test it's theories, and makes revisions; Faith has gone on for many thousands of years, untested and unchanged.

 

[Votto]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

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….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 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.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

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.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

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.”​

There is a basic difference between Science and Faith. Science continues to test it's theories, and makes revisions; Faith has gone on for many thousands of years, untested and unchanged.

Lies.

It seems to me that religion changes a good bit as well. Just look at how they used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe, or that you could buy your way out of purgatory.

These views were later done away with once the interpretation of scripture was held under better scrutiny.

 

[otto105]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,

The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

Einstien and company just laughed at him. Why? Cuz he was a priest and amateur scientist, but mostly because he was a priest.

Also, a woman came up with the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen. She was then laughed at. Why? Cuz she was a stupid woman. She was brow beat so bad she recanted, much like how people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe recanted to save their lives back in the day.

So as we can see, we all have bias, and politics ruins everything.

But now we have a Left wing Pope spending all his time talking about the evils of building walls. Meanwhile, the official church doctrine on abortion is that it is mass genocide, yet the Catholic church is as quiet about it as they were during the Holocaust.

Why? You guessed it, politics.

and thats relevant to fault lines why???

The world in which scientists operate is extremely political, just like everywhere else.

That means the truth about things can and have been hidden or manufactured, all do to being PC.

In fact, Einstein had to change his formula for relativity in order to make the PC view of the nature of the universe as static and eternal work mathematically.

He later said it was his biggest blunder.

Dude, WTF are you freaking posting about in regard to PC? PC as you know it wasn’t even a term until the 1980’s.

Before that it was established religion that forced scientists to heel.

 

[justoffal]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,

The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

Einstien and company just laughed at him. Why? Cuz he was a priest and amateur scientist, but mostly because he was a priest.

Also, a woman came up with the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen. She was then laughed at. Why? Cuz she was a stupid woman. She was brow beat so bad she recanted, much like how people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe recanted to save their lives back in the day.

So as we can see, we all have bias, and politics ruins everything.

But now we have a Left wing Pope spending all his time talking about the evils of building walls. Meanwhile, the official church doctrine on abortion is that it is mass genocide, yet the Catholic church is as quiet about it as they were during the Holocaust.

Why? You guessed it, politics.

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

 

[Votto]

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,

The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

Einstien and company just laughed at him. Why? Cuz he was a priest and amateur scientist, but mostly because he was a priest.

Also, a woman came up with the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen. She was then laughed at. Why? Cuz she was a stupid woman. She was brow beat so bad she recanted, much like how people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe recanted to save their lives back in the day.

So as we can see, we all have bias, and politics ruins everything.

But now we have a Left wing Pope spending all his time talking about the evils of building walls. Meanwhile, the official church doctrine on abortion is that it is mass genocide, yet the Catholic church is as quiet about it as they were during the Holocaust.

Why? You guessed it, politics.

and thats relevant to fault lines why???

The world in which scientists operate is extremely political, just like everywhere else.

That means the truth about things can and have been hidden or manufactured, all do to being PC.

In fact, Einstein had to change his formula for relativity in order to make the PC view of the nature of the universe as static and eternal work mathematically.

He later said it was his biggest blunder.

Dude, WTF are you freaking posting about in regard to PC? PC as you know it wasn’t even a term until the 1980’s.

Before that it was established religion that forced scientists to heel.

After Einstein made a name for himself, he had a reputation to protect.

This meant being weary about challenging established beliefs within the scientific community.

He was being PC when confronted with the Big Bang theory and laughed at it.

PC has always been there, even if the term had not yet been created.

 

[james bond]

First of all, Earth Day was not about CO2 emissions. It was about smog & particulates and that air pollution along with poilution in our waters. Those predctions did not come true because action was taken & pollution greatly reduced.

Ozone predictions did not come true because action wass taken. Things were banned.

Acid rain predictions did not come trie because we adaopted a cap & trade on SO2 remissions & stopped it.

This "global cooling" bullshit in the 70's was a report by one scientisty whose work was debunked by his peers.

The Arctic Ice cap is shrinking.

Seas are rising.

The oil supply is based on recoverable oil. As the price of oil goes up, more oil is considered recoverable. In 1909, our drilling methods would have had very little oiul recoverable. That said, there is a finite supply of oil, to think otherwise is stupid.

It is really stupid to have a fit about a prediction coming true, if that prediction was a warning & steps taken to address it.

We have taken some steps on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. To go back to take a prediction made before this effort & think that prediction was wrong is just plain stupid.

Its like you weighing 300 pounds in 1990 & I tell, you that you could die young and then you lose 100 pounds & tell me 20 years later that my prediction was wrong because you are still alive.

You people are just ignorant & uneducated & have no logic. All you do is sit around listening to people paid to dupe you & you all dupe so well.

More idiotic lies by a messed up liar. None of your predictions have come true. You are worse than that Norman guy on Bates Motel haha.

Earth Day was about helping trees and recycling paper. Did you do anything? I helped mulch trees and donated my paper for free shredding.

The ozone hole is large as ever and getting larger even though ozone depleting substances were reduced to zero (Montreal Protocol). The belief is now that the ozone layer is controlled by natural factors. This shows President Donald Trump was right to back out of the Paris Treaty against CO2. Talk about "faith-based" science and believing in the CO2 spaghetti monster. It's all a scary fairy tale based on trends that aren't there. And reducing CO2 will help save us by magic.

Sea levels are not rising due to the Archimedes Principle. We aren't getting rising seas due to land runoff. The Grace satellites tell us that.

Anyway, you should take your own advice. No need to respond. We'll figure it out when you did it and celebrate.