Yup. I've been watching since Katrina and seen less powerful hurricanes every year, where the climate experts were predicting even worse than Katrina for coming years. They couldn't have been more wrong.
"Global warming" is dead. Man-made carbon pollution affect on global climate is a failed psuedo-science theory much like the "ice age" predictions back in the '70's from Time and Newsweek and other publications, although that may come about nowadays.
Then there was the "population bomb" (also back in the 70's) where we would all die from starvation as the same media predicted. We're still here and growing by the day. The only reason why some populations don't have enough to eat (mostly Africa) is because of their tribal warfare. Think Somalia and "Black Hawk Down" and the original intent to feed them.
There was also the DDT, Alcar (apples), and themaldihide scare (which has proven to be a medicine of late).
Really loved the stupid headlines about NO difference between young boys and girls - nurture vs nature debate. The liberal media was promoting nurture and that if you give a Barbie to a young boy, he will turn out to be a girl, or vice versus. GI Joe would turn a 4 year old girl into a boy.
Later, the media said, oops, there ARE inherent differences between boys and girls. Here's why: Someone (don't remember) did a number of experiments with 3 year old boys and girls. They put Mom on one side of a short barrier and kids on the other side. They watched as the girls sat and cried looking at Mom and the boys tried to get over the barrier to get to Mom. So the "experts" realized that boys were more aggressive than the girls. Big surprise!
As if us parents did already know that. My wife and I were amazed when we saw the initial Newsweek/Time pronunciations about nature vs nurture debate in that it was all about nurture (how you raise). We laughed our ass off once they recognized that there is a difference between boys and girls. Think hormones. More testosterone in boys - more aggressive. What a surprise. Sheesh. Get my point about scientists and sociologists?
Now let's think about Copernicus who proposed the Earth revolved around the Sun, although he thought the Sun was the center of the Universe (wrong again). Before him, all thought the Sun revolved around the Earth (including Aristotle)! Scientists they were. Fast forward to Columbus, and all thought the Earth was flat. Get my point?
I have a question: When did our scientists become so biased? Is it really all about grants now? Do they actually massage their stats for money? What a shame, that's not how science should work. Science was our last connection to reality.
It’s not the scientists.
It’s the media.
It’s always been the media.
Think about it... Scientists don’t produce the articles we read or the TV shows we watch; the media does. In the real world, most scientists work for a living (often for an “evil” company like Exxon or BP or a “greedy” pharmaceutical or chemical company—Monsanto, ADM, etc) and are not liberals. If anything, they’re more likely to be slightly conservative, since logic rules their world.
The media is the ones who report this nonsense—not scientists.
Co-authored by John P. Holdren [with Anne and Paul Ehrlich]. Holdren is Obama's long serving Science and Technology Czar who holds that Americans should not expect to be number one in everything all the time.
__________________________
John P. Holdren .............."6. The situation has been analyzed and reanalyzed in the technical and popular literature. Two key technical papers are P. R. Ehrlich and J. P. Holdren, "The Impact of Population Growth," Science, vol. 171 (1971), pp. 1212-17, and J. P. Holdren and P. R. Ehrlich, "Human Population and the Global Environment," American Scientist, vol. 62 (1974), pp. 282-92. Much important information can be found in works by Lester Brown and his colleagues in the excellent State of the World series issued by Worldwatch Institute and published by W. W. Norton, New York, and in the World Resources series issued by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), (published by Basic Books, New York).
Two other landmark works are the Global 2000 Report to the President, issued in 1980 by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, and the World Commission on Environment and Development's 1987 report Our Common Future (the "Brundtland Report," named for the commission's chairwoman, the Prime Minister of Norway), published by Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. A detailed exposition of the connection of population growth to the rest of the human predicament can be found in P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and J. P. Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977). The most recent extensive popular treatment is A. H. Ehrlich and P. R. Ehrlich, Earth (Franklin Watts, New York, 1987).
___________________________________________
Paul R. Ehrlich & Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, 1990.
In 1968, The Population Bomb1 warned of impending disaster if the population explosion was not brought under control. Then the fuse was burning; now the population bomb has detonated. Since 1968, at least 200 million people -- mostly children -- have perished needlessly of hunger and hunger-related diseases, despite "crash programs to 'stretch' the carrying capacity of Earth by increasing food production."2 The population problem is no longer primarily a threat for the future as it was when the Bomb was written and there were only 3.5 billion human beings."... Source
July 21, 2011 - Mary Ellen Harte and Anne Ehrlich: The world's biggest problem? Too many people"...Our unsustainable population levels are depleting resources and denying a decent future to our descendants. We must stop the denial. Source