Live data from Hacker News

Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

blogs.scientificamerican.com

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#11
post #9

Much as I agree that fossil fuel burning is a horrendous thing that has sent us on a life-threatening trajectory, I also think this narrative is overly simplified. The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. Doubting if Thomas Mann will be the person to do that though. To be clear, climate science has come a long way and has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that…

> The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. I am not sure what you mean by "more humble approach". We do NOTHING.

Hear hear. The idea that only if scientists had been less vocal, less advocating about the implications of their research, we might have done something is asinine.

It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police.

We've now started making a serious effort at de-carbonization. Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not too late.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#12
post #4

A good thing would be to see the graph up to today - am I right that the article only shows the graph from 20 years ago and then some affirmation of the validity of that artefact? If so does anyone have a link to the picture up to 2018?

NASA has one up to 2017. It does not look pretty. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Thank you - perfect.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#13
post #11
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. I am not sure what you mean by "more humble approach". We do NOTHING.

Hear hear. The idea that only if scientists had been less vocal, less advocating about the implications of their research, we might have done something is asinine. It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. We've now started making a serious effort at de-carbonization. Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not…

It's too late for many animal species and people living in certain areas. We've already passed that marker. Not too late for humanity as a whole.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#14

Much as I agree that fossil fuel burning is a horrendous thing that has sent us on a life-threatening trajectory, I also think this narrative is overly simplified. The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. Doubting if Thomas Mann will be the person to do that though. To be clear, climate science has come a long way and has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that…

Climate science is absolutely "a fight between science and self-interested industry".

The general scientific principle, that higher levels of CO2 in the air increases Earth's temperature, is supported by both evidence and theory.

The fossil fuel industries have been hiding, obfuscating, and denying this for the past 30 years.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#15
post #7

Looks like the disgraced Michael Mann is trying to save his discredited hockey stick graph. People need to know that this graph couldn't be defended when challenged in the Supreme court of British Columbia. I never thought this graph would ever again see the light of day.

Please stop trying to get us all killed by denying climate change. Thanks!

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#16
post #11
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. I am not sure what you mean by "more humble approach". We do NOTHING.

Hear hear. The idea that only if scientists had been less vocal, less advocating about the implications of their research, we might have done something is asinine. It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. We've now started making a serious effort at de-carbonization. Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not…

> Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not too late.

While I agree with you, I am not sure I would count that as an action. It's more like "humbly" watching market and natural forces duking it out, and hoping that the former wins, all the while making the latter stronger.

I know there are many individuals who do act, and I didn't mean that comment to include them. But sadly, the idea that we should restrict our energy usage has not entered public consciousness very much.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#17
So the history of climate change goes something like: confusion about overall sign in the 1960's, mounting evidence for warming due to CO_2 in 1970's, consensus about overall warming caused by human CO_2 emission in the eighties, and then clarifying in the details since then.

The fact that there still isn't mainstream discussion about how society must change, but rather eternal growth society is still the default target across the globe is depressing and gives confidence that we are going to see substantial civilisation collapse in the future.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#18

So the history of climate change goes something like: confusion about overall sign in the 1960's, mounting evidence for warming due to CO_2 in 1970's, consensus about overall warming caused by human CO_2 emission in the eighties, and then clarifying in the details since then. The fact that there still isn't mainstream discussion about how society must change, but rather eternal growth society is still the default tar…

I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s. Past mistakes matter because people generally won't trust the naysayers when they've been proven wrong so obviously that grade school children won't trust them.

From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples-of-the-sp... >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 issue of 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 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. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

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.”

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#19

So the history of climate change goes something like: confusion about overall sign in the 1960's, mounting evidence for warming due to CO_2 in 1970's, consensus about overall warming caused by human CO_2 emission in the eighties, and then clarifying in the details since then. The fact that there still isn't mainstream discussion about how society must change, but rather eternal growth society is still the default tar…

I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s. Past mistakes matter because people generally won't trust the naysayers when they've been proven wrong so obviously that grade school children won't trust them. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples-of-the-sp... >Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) s…

A large number of those are of the form "If X continues, bad thing Y will happen", and they are being called wrong predictions because bad thing Y did not happen. But Y did not happen because X did not continue, either because we purposefully stopped X from continuing partly to avoid Y, or something replaced X for other reasons unrelated to Y and the new X did not have the properties that could lead to Y.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#20

So the history of climate change goes something like: confusion about overall sign in the 1960's, mounting evidence for warming due to CO_2 in 1970's, consensus about overall warming caused by human CO_2 emission in the eighties, and then clarifying in the details since then. The fact that there still isn't mainstream discussion about how society must change, but rather eternal growth society is still the default tar…

I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s. Past mistakes matter because people generally won't trust the naysayers when they've been proven wrong so obviously that grade school children won't trust them. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples-of-the-sp... >Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) s…

Can you give me a citation for your first quote (from George Ward). Although it seems to show up on a lot of self-described "climate skeptic" pages, I can't seem to find any legitimate source for it. It shows up in wikipedia as well, but the citation there just leads to the same tangled mess of "climate skeptic" pages that all seem to cite each other.

I'm really curious if George Wald said this at all, and if he did, what specifically he was talking about. Nuclear proliferation was another of his areas of activism, for example.

Post reply on HN