More scientists stating the obvious

[DodgyAgent]

Just pointing out its not just the left that "exert collectivist policies and control on the rest of us".

Since when has a CUK thread remained on track?

It is the left that do not like the concepts of individual freedom and responsibility

[pjclarke]

...oh yes tiny





Wood Bioenergy: Green Land Grabs for Renewable Energy

I think tiny is not the word I would use. I think the term "deforestation on a massive scale" would be more appropriate.

Most environmentalists are playing this down, as they prefer mass scale deforestation to burning fossil fuels.

Well, its good to see concern about deforestation, which is bad news for any reason. But the fact remains that the forest lost for biofuels is a small fraction of the 50,000 square miles cleared annually.

And you simply made it up about environmentalists playing it down.

[EternalOptimist]

Earth has entered sixth mass extinction, warn scientists - Telegraph

Humans are responsible for so many species dying out that we are now in a sixth mass extinction, Stanford University has warned

Only solution is less humans. Maybe we could start with killing all the scientists who peddle these pseudo-religious obvious statements.

Paul Erlich ???

How anyone can take that eejit seriously is beyond me. here are some of his gems


'In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death' - Erlich 1968

'by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million. The problems in the US would be relatively minor compared to those in the rest of the world' - Erlich 1968

'By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.' - Erlich 1971

'I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever.' - Erlich 1968

The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021

.....and there is lots, lots more


The guy is a typical Green. a malthusian

[pjclarke]

Paul Erlich ???

The guy is a typical Green. a malthusian

Quote-Mine and Copy-And-Paste FAIL. Erlich is not an author of Limits to Growth.

If you think an ad-hominem attack against one of six distinguished co-authors, now in his eighties largely based on a scenario-based book he wrote in his thirties is going to make the problem go away, you're taking optimism to delusional levels. If anything the study seems conservative.

https://woods.stanford.edu/news-even...xtinction-here

[shaunbhoy]

so erasing mankind to preserve nature (even hypothetically as Morrissey means it) is a contradiction.

I think that erasing Morrissey would be a good start. Dreary Manc twunt!!!

[BlasterBates]

Quote-Mine and Copy-And-Paste FAIL. Erlich is not an author of Limits to Growth.

If you think an ad-hominem attack against one of six distinguished co-authors, now in his eighties largely based on a scenario-based book he wrote in his thirties is going to make the problem go away, you're taking optimism to delusional levels. If anything the study seems conservative.

https://woods.stanford.edu/news-even...xtinction-here

...and of course you don't indulge in personal attacks when you disagree with a scientist.

You just stick to the facts.

[pjclarke]

...and of course you don't indulge in personal attacks when you disagree with a scientist.

You just stick to the facts.

Most of the time, problem is, a lot of the time the 'scientists' cited by the inactivists tend to be

1. Aging, retired and disowned by their erstwhile colleagues.

2. Nuts

I'm thinking Easterbrook, Plimer, Nils-Axel Morner .....

But I always try to provide evidence of point 2, based on their loony claims ...

[BlasterBates]

Most of the time, problem is, a lot of the time the 'scientists' cited by the inactivists tend to be

1. Aging, retired and disowned by their erstwhile colleagues.

2. Nuts

I'm thinking Easterbrook, Plimer, Nils-Axel Morner .....

But I always try to provide evidence of point 2, based on their loony claims ...

At least he wasn't a target of an investigation.

Climategate, need we say more?

[pjclarke]

At least he wasn't a target of an investigation.

Climategate, need we say more?

Well, I think perhaps you should, unless 'no smoke without fire' nod nod wink wink is the full extent of your argument?

[DodgyAgent]

Quote-Mine and Copy-And-Paste FAIL. Erlich is not an author of Limits to Growth.

If you think an ad-hominem attack against one of six distinguished co-authors, now in his eighties largely based on a scenario-based book he wrote in his thirties is going to make the problem go away, you're taking optimism to delusional levels. If anything the study seems conservative.

https://woods.stanford.edu/news-even...xtinction-here

I think he borrowed the trick from you