Raj, some of the things mentioned in there as "whoppers" are facts.
Like, okay, most of the other statements are way over the top. But others were massive underestimates. The total of the article is that it's more interested in owning the libs by cherry-picking sources than engaging any analysis relating to facts.
I mean seriously, I'm sure I could find some great quotes from 1970 about how great the Vietnam War was going by at least two Republicans. I could write it up to some blog and we could all laugh about how stupid all Republicans are. But it wouldn't represent fact any more than this article did.
My thesis adviser was working for General Motors' Physics Division back in the 1970s, a job that came with a healthy skepticism of anthropocentric global warming. But she came around to the consensus view, many years before I knew her. She also had us read papers from climate change skeptics -- the ones doing real science, anyway. In fact, she had written some of these type of papers. But the skeptical papers tend to be very limited in scope, perhaps proposing a negative feedback mechanism, or limited to a region or application. When looked at with other results, you realized that while it was good science and maybe "things won't be that bad", that the overall change in net radiative forcing needed an urgent response nonetheless.
that article Wrote: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.”
Wikipedia Wrote:The World Health Organization estimated in 2014 that every year air pollution causes the premature death of some 7 million people worldwide.[2] Studies published in March 2019 indicated that the number may be around 8.8 million.
the article, again Wrote:“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.So seriously, what do we call the clusterfuck in Syria if not a famine? People couldn't grow food, the politics deteriorated, and half the country up and left.
Like, okay, most of the other statements are way over the top. But others were massive underestimates. The total of the article is that it's more interested in owning the libs by cherry-picking sources than engaging any analysis relating to facts.
I mean seriously, I'm sure I could find some great quotes from 1970 about how great the Vietnam War was going by at least two Republicans. I could write it up to some blog and we could all laugh about how stupid all Republicans are. But it wouldn't represent fact any more than this article did.
My thesis adviser was working for General Motors' Physics Division back in the 1970s, a job that came with a healthy skepticism of anthropocentric global warming. But she came around to the consensus view, many years before I knew her. She also had us read papers from climate change skeptics -- the ones doing real science, anyway. In fact, she had written some of these type of papers. But the skeptical papers tend to be very limited in scope, perhaps proposing a negative feedback mechanism, or limited to a region or application. When looked at with other results, you realized that while it was good science and maybe "things won't be that bad", that the overall change in net radiative forcing needed an urgent response nonetheless.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto