‘Nuff said. Alright, I’ll let you get back to your libertarian literati fantasy life…

In terms of the amount of quality control – the variable you mention – no there isn’t. None of those scientific organisations actually checked the validity of the research, they took it on the basis of reputation and convention. Like you, they assume somebody else must have checked it, and would have said something if there was anything wrong with it, and therefore all those people who claim to have checked it and found something wrong with it must be liars. It’s an easy assumption to make, and not the first time. And in these days of tight research budgets, loud support for prevailing political fashions is a necessary defence of the profession’s interests.

None of these statements actually represent the opinions (let alone the careful and informed scientific judgement) of their members. They are concocted by tiny committees of self-selected and mutually supportive volunteers, consisting of the already-convinced and concerned. And even if they were not, they are allocated no time or money to research the issues. Do you think that somebody like me would ever be able to get an invitation onto a climate change committee?! Quite unsuitable! I might waste everybody’s time asking questions!

You find me one of those scientific organisations that gives a detailed account of the Harry_read_me file and their checks ensuring that the peer-reviewed and published science that software supports is still sound. Then you can talk to me about “quality control”.

That’s interesting that you don’t even feel the need to analyze or explain. To you, there are just no distinctions between them worth noticing.

Because it was more than just Professor Ehrlich saying it. I remember that in the public political sphere at least it was the consensus, and not even a controversial one. It was considered common sense, and a lot of politicians, public figures, and even scientists made statements in support. It led to NSSM 200 and changes to US government policy on international aid. Some say this led to the downfall of Indira Ghandi. The was taken seriously in the media and in international politics, and the sceptical (if you ever heard of them) were considered to be cranks, in blind denial of the unpleasant reality.

Ehrlich happened to be one of the most prominent and respected speakers on the subject, and advocated more than most for the unpalatable solutions, which makes him a handy source of quotes, but we’ve got plenty of choice.

Here’s another one:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

The constitutional lawyers must have been working overtime coming up with that one! This isn’t simply the knee-jerk response to the word ‘abortion’. I’ve read heart-breaking stories of where this is a reality in China.

But there’s no doubt that the population crisis is coming, the question is how severe it might be.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.”

Does he feel the same horror? Does he understand why people find it horrifying? The way it is discussed here gives the impression that he might not. But perhaps that is a step too far. What else might we try?

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”

Because the men might fight back, perhaps? You can imagine the scenario. But who could ever have the power to implement it in the face of democratic opposition?

“Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Ah! Them!

It seems it’s not the mad imagining of some wingnut conspiracy theorists after all! There really are greenies who have seriously considered it. And although the author here claims to have backed away from the position since, there are others who still advocate for it.

“Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.”

“It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

I will concede that it’s not the only solution on offer, though. Some show more imagination.

“Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order.”

I’m not going to say anything…

And what about timescales? When did they think we needed to take action to avert catastrophe?

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high.”

Oh dear! And we just muddled through anyway! I expect that’s why we’re still here, poised on the brink of catastrophe, instead of in the loving care of the Planetary Regime. Imagine the disappointment of all the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

Forget for a second that I’m making any argument at all.

The case of a single PHD named Paul Ehrlich speculating 40 years ago, and all of those pages of scientific organizations making statements concurring on how robust AGW science is–how are those two things analogous?

I’m honestly curious about how you argue that they are.

I can address the science on it’s merits. But there’s no point, because you don’t know the science, you don’t rely on the science, and all you’ve got are a couple of empty Argument from Authority links that you mindlessly drag out time and time again. Feel free to try to argue the actual science with me any time.

In this case, the question wasn’t science but economics. You wanted to know how it was possible that the market could overcome the predicted environmental doom of “future scarcity shocks in the face of growing demand” with ease while objecting to the major costs of your proposed solutions. I gave you the answer – because just as in the 1960s/70s, the predictions of future scarcity shocks are entirely imaginary – false predictions founded on basic misunderstandings of how resources, industry, and economics work. We solved them anyway, without your intervention. We were already solving them – environmental improvements started long before any of the legislation TTT mentions, and carried on through them without a blip.

But as usual with millenarian cults, when the prophesies fail to come true the believers don’t reconsider whether they might have misunderstood; they just rearrange the details slightly, shift the prophesy another few decades down the road, and carry on. Malthusian enviro-doom was totally discredited as a theory in the 1980s, but here you still are. Talk about ‘denial’…

I assume by the study from more than 12 years ago you mean MBH98. When you, Mann, and the IPCC admit that it was wrong and your vaunted peer review and thousands of scientists totally missed it, formally withdraw it, and stop using it everywhere as part of the “evidence” for impending catastrophe, I’ll stop talking about it. Until then, it’s still clear evidence of the serious problems remaining with the conduct and public presentation of climate science, which will be presented at every opportunity.

You might desperately wish it could go away, but it won’t until you (meaning all AGWers) deal with it properly.

It’s also possible you’re just trying to make an ego-driven “Al Gore Is Fat!” non-sequitur about Paul Ehrlich, and if so you shouldn’t because it would be an ego-driven non-sequitur. There’s also the fact that averting a crisis does not mean that the crisis would always have been impossible.

But hey, if you really want to go there, here’s a hilarious compendium of how anti-science right-wing conspiracy kooks were sure that the Montreal Accords were going to destroy the U.S. economy and force us all into living in caves again. If you want to see real examples of chicken-little doomsaying, you never have to look further than what any eco-denialist says about any piece of environmental legislation before it passes.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

Hmm, what was the U.S. economy in the 1990s like again?

When you can’t address the science on its merits, simply make a an argument by gross historical analogy. Ignoring the particulars, “Nullius in Verba” is using sheer rhetoric to compare things that are qualitatively, completely different (which is ironic, considering the name he’s giving himself).

For instance, was the view he quotes from some obscure source from the 70′s supported by all of these scientific organizations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations

Nope. Not even close. That won’t stop him though. When Nullius isn’t making arguments by gross, untenable historical analogy (like the one he made above–scientists secretly want Centralized Government, just like the commies of old!) he’s spouting moot talking points on studies from more than 12 years ago (which now have been overtaken by other studies many times over).

The answer is the same as it was after the 1960-70 scare, when we were told environmental catastrophe was inevitable, and that civilisation would collapse and most of us would be dead by 2000. How come the democratic free market was powerful enough to overcome unavoidable over-populated resource-depletion DOOM, but would have been destroyed by a few slightly totalitarian regulations restricting births, introducing compulsory sterilisation, culling excess population, taking control of industry, and so on?

Think I’m exaggerating?
“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” “Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” “By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.”

‘brutal and heartless’, eh?

How on Earth did the market enable us to dodge that bullet? It must be magic!!