|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 20, 2023 22:36:07 GMT 12
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 [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 2. “We are in an environmental crisis that 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 [by 1980].” 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.” Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons. 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 78.6 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.’” Yes and lets not forget Kevin Rudd who said billions of dollars worth of Australian coastal property was at risk from sea level rise and then bought a $17 million dollar property literally right on the beach. You really have to wonder at the naivety of grown adults that keep falling for this BS |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 20, 2023 22:42:16 GMT 12
The only FAKE news is you "duckmaster" once again appearing to be an expert on all matters when there are no experts i just varying degrees of ignorance. Over and out. I understand that it might not be easy for you to come to terms with the fact that you have been deceived by false information, but rest assured that you are not alone in experiencing this unfortunate situation. Misinformation is a widespread problem that affects many people across the world. With the rise of social media and the internet, false information can spread quickly and easily, often without proper fact-checking. It's essential to be cautious and critically evaluate the sources of information we come across to avoid being misled by fake news and conspiracy theories. Studies have shown that misinformation can have serious consequences, ranging from harm to public health to social and political unrest. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, false information about the virus and vaccines has led to confusion, fear, and distrust in science and health experts. Similarly, the spread of misinformation about elections, political candidates, and policies can undermine democratic processes and sow division among communities. Recognizing and combating misinformation requires a collective effort from individuals, media outlets, and governments. We can start by educating ourselves on how to distinguish reliable sources of information from unreliable ones, fact-checking claims before sharing them, and promoting critical thinking and media literacy in our communities. By working together, we can mitigate the harmful effects of misinformation and promote a more informed and responsible society. While I don't profess to be knowledgeable about all topics, I am aware that there are many areas where I lack expertise. However, I am always eager to engage in constructive debates and discussions, without resorting to insults or other forms of verbal abuse. Such behavior is not only unnecessary but also hinders the free flow of communication and prevents us from learning from one another. I believe that respectful and open communication is key to fostering mutual understanding and finding common ground on issues that matter to us. Funny how all this misinformation has surfaced at exactly the same time as the loopy socialists started inacting very unpopular agendas at a pace never seen before. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 22:45:18 GMT 12
The only FAKE news is you "duckmaster" once again appearing to be an expert on all matters when there are no experts i just varying degrees of ignorance. Over and out. I understand that it might not be easy for you to come to terms with the fact that you have been deceived by false information, but rest assured that you are not alone in experiencing this unfortunate situation. Misinformation is a widespread problem that affects many people across the world. With the rise of social media and the internet, false information can spread quickly and easily, often without proper fact-checking. It's essential to be cautious and critically evaluate the sources of information we come across to avoid being misled by fake news and conspiracy theories. Studies have shown that misinformation can have serious consequences, ranging from harm to public health to social and political unrest. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, false information about the virus and vaccines has led to confusion, fear, and distrust in science and health experts. Similarly, the spread of misinformation about elections, political candidates, and policies can undermine democratic processes and sow division among communities. Recognizing and combating misinformation requires a collective effort from individuals, media outlets, and governments. We can start by educating ourselves on how to distinguish reliable sources of information from unreliable ones, fact-checking claims before sharing them, and promoting critical thinking and media literacy in our communities. By working together, we can mitigate the harmful effects of misinformation and promote a more informed and responsible society. While I don't profess to be knowledgeable about all topics, I am aware that there are many areas where I lack expertise. However, I am always eager to engage in constructive debates and discussions, without resorting to insults or other forms of verbal abuse. Such behavior is not only unnecessary but also hinders the free flow of communication and prevents us from learning from one another. I believe that respectful and open communication is key to fostering mutual understanding and finding common ground on issues that matter to us. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 22:48:00 GMT 12
Funny how all this misinformation has surfaced at exactly the same time as the loopy socialists started inacting very unpopular agendas at a pace never seen before. Actually misinformation has been around for as long as people have been talking to each other. Back in the day, rumors and false beliefs would spread by word of mouth, and later through books, newspapers, and radio. But now, with the internet and social media, it's easier than ever for fake news to go viral and reach a huge audience in a flash. The speed and convenience of sharing info online has made it way too easy for false information to get taken seriously. And since the internet allows people to stay anonymous, it's harder to identify where the fake news is coming from, and even harder to stop it from spreading. Overall, while misinformation is nothing new, the internet has made it way worse. It's more important than ever to double-check our sources and make sure we're not falling for any fake news! |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 21, 2023 9:31:45 GMT 12
Funny how all this misinformation has surfaced at exactly the same time as the loopy socialists started inacting very unpopular agendas at a pace never seen before. Actually misinformation has been around for as long as people have been talking to each other. Back in the day, rumors and false beliefs would spread by word of mouth, and later through books, newspapers, and radio. But now, with the internet and social media, it's easier than ever for fake news to go viral and reach a huge audience in a flash. The speed and convenience of sharing info online has made it way too easy for false information to get taken seriously. And since the internet allows people to stay anonymous, it's harder to identify where the fake news is coming from, and even harder to stop it from spreading. Overall, while misinformation is nothing new, the internet has made it way worse. It's more important than ever to double-check our sources and make sure we're not falling for any fake news! Ok you really do need to come clean and admit you are some sort of government bot programmed to regurgitate their propoganda. You know it and I know so just admit it! |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 21, 2023 10:14:08 GMT 12
Actually misinformation has been around for as long as people have been talking to each other. Back in the day, rumors and false beliefs would spread by word of mouth, and later through books, newspapers, and radio. But now, with the internet and social media, it's easier than ever for fake news to go viral and reach a huge audience in a flash. The speed and convenience of sharing info online has made it way too easy for false information to get taken seriously. And since the internet allows people to stay anonymous, it's harder to identify where the fake news is coming from, and even harder to stop it from spreading. Overall, while misinformation is nothing new, the internet has made it way worse. It's more important than ever to double-check our sources and make sure we're not falling for any fake news! Ok you really do need to come clean and admit you are some sort of government bot programmed to regurgitate their propoganda. You know it and I know so just admit it! I am afraid can't comply with that request Dave. I suggest you do some research into the earliest examples of misinformation, you'll discover that it has been going on for considerably longer than the same time as the loopy socialists started inacting very unpopular agendas at a pace never seen before.Here are some examples of early misinformation campaigns that date back to ancient times: In the Roman Empire, rulers used public events like games and festivals to spread their message and win over the people. Julius Caesar was famous for using propaganda to justify his military campaigns and present himself as a strong and fair leader. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the Catholic Church used propaganda to discredit the Protestant leaders and their beliefs. They wrote books and pamphlets that attacked the Protestants and even made up fake stories and documents to make them look bad. In World War I, governments on both sides of the conflict used propaganda to rally support for the war effort. They made posters, films, and other media to paint the enemy as evil and drum up patriotic fervor. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a propaganda battle to promote their respective ideologies and discredit the other side. They used radio broadcasts, films, and other media to spread their message and influence public opinion. These are just a few examples of how misinformation has been used throughout history to shape people's beliefs and attitudes. It's not a new phenomenon, but with the rise of social media and the internet, it's become easier than ever to spread false information and manipulate public opinion. And there's definitely a bunch of people out there trying to spread lies and misinformation about climate change. You know, the whole "it's not real" or "it's not caused by humans" kind of thing. It's pretty frustrating, to be honest, because there's so much scientific evidence supporting the reality of climate change and its impacts. But these folks cherry-pick data, promote conspiracy theories, and use other shady tactics to try to downplay or deny the severity of the problem. And the worst part is that this misinformation can be pretty effective in convincing people that climate change isn't a big deal. That can lead to a lack of action and urgency to address the issue, which can have serious consequences for the environment and our well-being. So, it's really important that we all take a critical look at the sources of information we come across and make sure we're getting our facts from reputable sources. And we can also do our part to combat misinformation by educating ourselves and others about the reality of climate change and promoting policies and practices that will help us address this global issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Feb 21, 2023 10:44:56 GMT 12
So Governments, being the no.1 source of propaganda and bullshit, puts the credibility of their (dis)information well down the list.
I'm happy to go with your advice on that duck.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 21, 2023 10:52:03 GMT 12
Ok you really do need to come clean and admit you are some sort of government bot programmed to regurgitate their propoganda. You know it and I know so just admit it! I am afraid can't comply with that request Dave. I suggest you do some research into the earliest examples of misinformation, you'll discover that it has been going on for considerably longer than the same time as the loopy socialists started inacting very unpopular agendas at a pace never seen before.Here are some examples of early misinformation campaigns that date back to ancient times: In the Roman Empire, rulers used public events like games and festivals to spread their message and win over the people. Julius Caesar was famous for using propaganda to justify his military campaigns and present himself as a strong and fair leader. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the Catholic Church used propaganda to discredit the Protestant leaders and their beliefs. They wrote books and pamphlets that attacked the Protestants and even made up fake stories and documents to make them look bad. In World War I, governments on both sides of the conflict used propaganda to rally support for the war effort. They made posters, films, and other media to paint the enemy as evil and drum up patriotic fervor. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a propaganda battle to promote their respective ideologies and discredit the other side. They used radio broadcasts, films, and other media to spread their message and influence public opinion. These are just a few examples of how misinformation has been used throughout history to shape people's beliefs and attitudes. It's not a new phenomenon, but with the rise of social media and the internet, it's become easier than ever to spread false information and manipulate public opinion. And there's definitely a bunch of people out there trying to spread lies and misinformation about climate change. You know, the whole "it's not real" or "it's not caused by humans" kind of thing. It's pretty frustrating, to be honest, because there's so much scientific evidence supporting the reality of climate change and its impacts. But these folks cherry-pick data, promote conspiracy theories, and use other shady tactics to try to downplay or deny the severity of the problem. And the worst part is that this misinformation can be pretty effective in convincing people that climate change isn't a big deal. That can lead to a lack of action and urgency to address the issue, which can have serious consequences for the environment and our well-being. So, it's really important that we all take a critical look at the sources of information we come across and make sure we're getting our facts from reputable sources. And we can also do our part to combat misinformation by educating ourselves and others about the reality of climate change and promoting policies and practices that will help us address this global issue. Holey crap! If there were awards for the most indoctrinated citizen you would need a very big mantle piece! Are you going to apply for a job when the government starts setting up re-education camps? |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 21, 2023 11:44:38 GMT 12
I am afraid can't comply with that request Dave. I suggest you do some research into the earliest examples of misinformation, you'll discover that it has been going on for considerably longer than the same time as the loopy socialists started inacting very unpopular agendas at a pace never seen before.Here are some examples of early misinformation campaigns that date back to ancient times: In the Roman Empire, rulers used public events like games and festivals to spread their message and win over the people. Julius Caesar was famous for using propaganda to justify his military campaigns and present himself as a strong and fair leader. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the Catholic Church used propaganda to discredit the Protestant leaders and their beliefs. They wrote books and pamphlets that attacked the Protestants and even made up fake stories and documents to make them look bad. In World War I, governments on both sides of the conflict used propaganda to rally support for the war effort. They made posters, films, and other media to paint the enemy as evil and drum up patriotic fervor. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a propaganda battle to promote their respective ideologies and discredit the other side. They used radio broadcasts, films, and other media to spread their message and influence public opinion. These are just a few examples of how misinformation has been used throughout history to shape people's beliefs and attitudes. It's not a new phenomenon, but with the rise of social media and the internet, it's become easier than ever to spread false information and manipulate public opinion. And there's definitely a bunch of people out there trying to spread lies and misinformation about climate change. You know, the whole "it's not real" or "it's not caused by humans" kind of thing. It's pretty frustrating, to be honest, because there's so much scientific evidence supporting the reality of climate change and its impacts. But these folks cherry-pick data, promote conspiracy theories, and use other shady tactics to try to downplay or deny the severity of the problem. And the worst part is that this misinformation can be pretty effective in convincing people that climate change isn't a big deal. That can lead to a lack of action and urgency to address the issue, which can have serious consequences for the environment and our well-being. So, it's really important that we all take a critical look at the sources of information we come across and make sure we're getting our facts from reputable sources. And we can also do our part to combat misinformation by educating ourselves and others about the reality of climate change and promoting policies and practices that will help us address this global issue. Holey crap! If there were awards for the most indoctrinated citizen you would need a very big mantle piece! Are you going to apply for a job when the government starts setting up re-education camps? Am I correct to assume that you mean "holy crap" instead of "holey crap"? The difference between "holey crap" and "holy crap" is that "holy crap" is a common expression used to show surprise or shock, while "holey crap" just describes something that has a lot of holes. "Holey crap" isn't used to express emotions like "holy crap" is, and you probably won't hear it very often in conversation. So, they're pretty different phrases in terms of their meaning and how they're used. Re-education camps are a serious violation of human rights, as they involve government-sponsored brainwashing to control people's beliefs and behavior. It's important for all individuals to stand up against such practices and defend their rights and freedoms. It's understandable to feel concerned about potential violations of human rights, particularly when surrounded by conspiracy theories. However, it's important to recognize that in countries like New Zealand, with strong systems of government, the likelihood of re-education camps being introduced is highly unlikely. New Zealand has a robust constitution and legal framework that prioritizes individual rights and freedoms, making it highly unlikely that such a violation would occur. That being said, it's always important to stay informed and remain vigilant in the protection of our fundamental human rights. As individuals, we must advocate for ourselves and others, and always be ready to speak out against any potential threat to our freedoms. To answer your question directly, if re-education camps were introduced in New Zealand I would most certainly be shouting from the rooftops and doing anything I could to have them shut down. |
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Feb 21, 2023 11:54:04 GMT 12
Think about this at your Reeducation Camp. If NZ banned all fossil fuels, stopped flying, shipping, cows/sheep farting and returned NZ to pre european it would not make 1 iota of difference to any climate related event or affect co2 ppm. NZ under leftie/greenie influence is committing the population back to the dark ages for absolutely no reason
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 21, 2023 12:08:10 GMT 12
Think about this at your Reeducation Camp. If NZ banned all fossil fuels, stopped flying, shipping, cows/sheep farting and returned NZ to pre european it would not make 1 iota of difference to any climate related event or affect co2 ppm. NZ under leftie/greenie influence is committing the population back to the dark ages for absolutely no reason I can understand your skepticism about the effectiveness of some of the proposed solutions for climate change. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that taking steps towards a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly society can have a positive impact on our planet in the long run. And while it may not be a complete solution, it's better to do something than nothing at all, right? Plus, there are some exciting and innovative solutions being developed all the time, so who knows what we might be capable of achieving in the future. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Feb 21, 2023 13:41:41 GMT 12
I'm not sceptical ! It simply is not happening for the reasons given by 'scientists'. It's a natural cycle of events being exploited to control and tax the population. And as for 'exciting and innovative solutions' the price to be paid for those will only become obvious to a trusting population over time. For instance, a small example, how about charging your electric car when the power goes down for weeks as is presently happening and you need it for the emergency?
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 21, 2023 14:15:23 GMT 12
I'm not sceptical ! It simply is not happening for the reasons given by 'scientists'. It's a natural cycle of events being exploited to control and tax the population. And as for 'exciting and innovative solutions' the price to be paid for those will only become obvious to a trusting population over time. For instance, a small example, how about charging your electric car when the power goes down for weeks as is presently happening and you need it for the emergency? I understand your concerns about the motivations and consequences of actions taken to address climate change. However, it's worth noting that there is a strong scientific consensus that the current global warming trend is primarily caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. While the solutions proposed to address climate change may involve some trade-offs and costs, there are also potential benefits in terms of creating more sustainable and resilient communities. Regarding the example of charging electric cars during power outages, it's true that this is currently a challenge in some areas. However, there are emerging technologies and solutions being developed to address these kinds of issues, such as backup power systems and grid-scale energy storage. As with any major societal transition, there will be challenges to overcome, but there are also opportunities for innovation and progress. It's worth noting that during a power outage, accessing diesel or petrol becomes a challenge as petrol stations require electricity to pump fuel out of the ground and to facilitate electronic payment. Additionally, they rely on banks having power to provide and change cash into smaller denominations. In Gisborne, it was observed that individuals who had cash mostly had large notes, causing a shortage of change for shops that could accept cash. Unsurprisingly no one wanted to leave a $100 note for a $50 purchase, but the store had run out of cash to be able to accept the $100 note. |
|
|
|
Post by OLD ROPE 👀 on Feb 21, 2023 14:45:54 GMT 12
Think about this at your Reeducation Camp. If NZ banned all fossil fuels, stopped flying, shipping, cows/sheep farting and returned NZ to pre european it would not make 1 iota of difference to any climate related event or affect co2 ppm. NZ under leftie/greenie influence is committing the population back to the dark ages for absolutely no reason one reason. Extra taxes! Reason 2. Ego enhancement for Shaw in front of his environmental buddies. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Feb 21, 2023 16:06:54 GMT 12
I look at NZME output, as just one example, which is near the biggest outlet out there, if not the biggest, to see they proudly claim they will not publish anything that contradicts the std CC alarmists angle.
I go see respected scientists publishing pier reviewed papers that contradict significant points the alarmists put out there. Yet they never get any msm air.
I see in msm alarmists sign letters, as one of many exampkes, which become big msm headlines saying 'scientists say...' yet when I go suss the letter I see maybe 20% are real scientists in some field, many with zero connection to Climate and only 10% of those, at best
are in a field close to climate.
I see just last week a big whoha about a letter written to Jimmy which got lots of msm coverage but since when were those NGOs ever close to anything climate bar the
beach on a sunny day. Then the next day a pier reviewed studed comes out questioning an aspect of CC, and its far from the first. Yet coverage is zip, nada, nothing.
If the case was strong eough then let it stand on its own 2 feet equally with those who disagree. Yet any mention of doing that is very quickly squished.
One does wonder why and the easiest possible answer it the CC alarmists cant afford that debate. Why?
Id love to know the real truth but to date the alarmists and supporters just have not sold it well enough to offset the growing amount of contradicting evidence out there.
|
|
