Ehrlich nominated to Royal Society

[aubrey]

I've accused you of ignoring the crimes of Stalin et al when you've expressed support for communism, or argued that "rightwingers" have been worse.

I've never expressed support for Communism. What I said was that the US after the war were sanguine about it, in a way they were not with Nazism.

You've never gone on about however million dead it was, when I mention my being a socialist?

No. Talking of fallacies, that's called, in brief, a post hoc.

Yes you have, though I don't even need to mention socialism for you to do it. You were doing it a couple of weeks ago, straight after (or before) denying that you ever do it.

The thing is, asking for evidence about right wing involvement in AGW denial campaigns, and then saying that what I give you - right wing belief in unfettered industry, etc - isn't relevant?

No, it's not relevant in the least, even if you'd managed to support your juvenile characterisation. Are you really as clueless as to believe that the AGW lobby has reduced "industry", other than by inadvertently prolonging an economic recession? How has it? Give some evidence for your pontificating nonsense for once.

You deny that right wingers generally want to get reduce the regulation of industry? Things like H&S laws, restrictions on working hours and minimum wages? And, of course, anti AGW policies? I suppose you also deny that the Pope shits in the woods, or that the Western horizon rises to cover the sun.

And the point is, AGW campaigning hasn't done anything to "Reduce Industry" (or prolong the recession). Really, I don't see what you're so het up about. Your lot have won. You were bound to: you had all the power on your side, really.

As Kenneth Williams said, what's the bloody point?

Desperate, desperate.

I gave you what you asked for, so what is the bloody point?

Ok - everyone who doesn't agree with you is thick, or lying, or maybe even evil.

Petulant, petulant. Don't sulk. Just make a reasoned argument, that's all that's required. And yes, watch out for your lying - that would indeed help.

Actually, you have said all that about people who disagree with you. And I don't lie. Unlike you, I do get things wrong sometimes - but Hey! Nobody's perfect. Except, you know...

[aubrey]

Marchesa: I wouldn't go on about people's looks, not if I had C Monckton on my side.

[marchesarosa]

This was taken in the era when Erlich was whining about the population bomb and how the overpopulated UK would die of starvation by year 2000.

Some record of mistakes, eh? The man clearly believes in his own powers of prophecy since he goes on making them - and sometimes they are contradictory!

I don't recall Lord Monckton sticking out his neck quite so egregiously about ANYTHING that was going to happen in the future. Monckton just sticks to demolishing the batty predictions of the IPCC's stable of activist climate "scientists" made on the basis of daft extrapolations from very incomplete knowledge.

Ehrich's record on prophecy is that so far he has not been right about ANYTHING - whether the coming ice age, the coming thermageddon or the population bomb. And STILL the Royal Society sees fit to embrace him? How have once mighty intellects fallen.

I think the singer Engelbert Humpedinck would be a more appropriate choice for the Royal Society to welcome to their club. At least he has delivered consistently over the decades and doesn't keep changing his tune!

[allman]

Mar 16, 2013 18:39:30 GMT marchesarosa said:

Could you ever take a man who looked like this seriously on a matter of science?



This was taken in the era when he was whining about the population bomb and how the overpopulated UK would die of starvation by year 2000.

Some record of mistakes, eh?

;D

[aubrey]

Monckton can't even get the present right:

Monkton: I'm a member of the House of Lords

House of Lords: No You're not

Monckton: I am, I really am

House of Lords: go away now, please

Or the Past:

Monckton: I was M Thatcher's special science adviser

Rest of the Staff at No 10: He hung about a bit, trying to look important, but he didn't do anything. Thatcher never mentioned him in her autobiography, though she might have forgot.

[aubrey]

Actually, Scientists can be bad at prediction.

Like the bloke who said that, one day, every major city in the US would have a telephone: and that would be enough. Or the fellow who said that he could see no use for computers in the home. And the idea that electricity from Nuclear generators would be so cheap that it wouldn't be worth sending out bills: what happened to that one?

Govts are pretty bad as well; they don't really have to plan further ahead than 4 years, but they usually even get that wrong.

[aubrey]

I've explained to you several times before - Lawson's group is not anti AGW.

Actually, what Lawson does is a fairly well-established rhetorical trick; he claims just to be asking questions, as a way of "Getting at the Truth," though what he's really doing is muddying the water, and planting his own ideas. Politicians have always done it; it gives them the room to say, if they need to, that they never said that.

[marchesarosa]

Some of Britain's leading scientists are in revolt, according to the Sunday Times.

It says they're angry that Prince Andrew has been elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society, despite an over-colourful past and the lack of a scientific background.

Some question the wisdom of close links to the Royals, saying it shows a lack of discrimination, which can only harm the Society's reputation. But for many, the objection is to the voting system which was used.

The ballot paper only had a space to vote "Yes", so more than a thousand people abstained and Prince Andrew was elected with just 11% of the vote. The Royal Society has accepted that its system does need to be brought up to date.

Radio 4 news 5 May 2013

[marchesarosa]

And the same goes for all the other, what can be loosely termed, "elections" of fellows. You can either vote YES or abstain - very democratic, I must say! This is how the RS has become such a hotbed of the politially correct and of climate alarmists and that's how intellectual trash like Ehrlich, whose entire career has been based on one false alarm after another, has been welcomed into the bosom of the great and the good (not).



Courtesy of Josh
bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/8/its-voting-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it-josh-220.html

[ncsonde]

May 6, 2013 15:24:36 GMT marchesarosa said:

intellectual trash like Erlich, whose entire career has been based one false alarm after another

An accurate description - that should be on his gravestone.

[marchesarosa]

Paging Paul Ehrlich: UN Predicts Record-Setting Grain Harvest…7% More Than Last Year!





By P Gosselin on 15. Juli 2013

Remember Paul Ehrlich’s prophesy of doom and gloom back in 1970 when he predicted rising global population (then 4 billion) would lead to mass global starvation already by the 1980s. Today more than 40 years later the planet has a population of over 7 billion and experts are warning of another global menace: obesity.

"The online German RP writes:

According estimates of the UN Agricultural Organization, the global grain production will reach a record high with 2.5 billion tonnes. That means an increase of 7% over a year earlier. Wheat production will increase by almost 7% to a high of 700 million tonnes. Therefore it will be able to more than offset the drop of last year.”

Rice production also has not withered away, rising 2%, the RP writes.

So what about all the bad climate change that was supposed to have a massively negative impact on crops? All silly Ehrlich-type scare stories as usual. Agricultural output continues its overall climb. There’s even food to burn in millions of cars!

notrickszone.com/2013/07/15/paging-paul-ehrlich-un-predicts-record-setting-grain-harvest-7-more-than-last-years/

[marchesarosa]

Ehrlich and the Royal Society should have a read of this!

THE AGE OF PLENTY – FORGET THE DOOM-MONGERS

Date: 20/07/13 IEEE Spectrum

There’s a surging current of alarm that we’re headed for a food doomsday by 2050—that the world’s food-producing capacity will crash before population peaks at 10 billion. Don’t you believe it! Smart technology and better management policies will let us feed the hungry hordes to midcentury and beyond.

We think of things like nuclear submarines and luxury cars as emblems of technological sophistication. But turn your attention now to an ordinary local supermarket in any developed country. It probably stocks 15 000 to 50 000 different products, including items like organic red quinoa and Tahitian vanilla beans.

In the produce section are about 100 different kinds of fruits and a like number of vegetables. The packaged food section has snacks that are scientifically formulated to trigger addictive responses while retaining their freshness for months, if not years. And it’s all ridiculously cheap: A typical family in a developed country spends less than 15 percent of its disposable income on food.

We are rich in food beyond all prior dreams, and yet there’s a swelling chorus of worry that we are headed for catastrophe, as population growth and climate change threaten food security.

That anxiety is misplaced. It’s true that we need new technologies to grow more and better food using fewer chemicals and less land, water, energy, labor, and capital, while causing less damage to the environment. But as we show in this issue, it’s also a fact that those technologies are now being developed, tested, or applied all over the world.

Read on...

spectrum.ieee.org/static/the-age-of-plenty