....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?
This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....
Because Erlich was a major, popular writer. Book for example, The Population Bomb.
He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.
And he was wrong in everything he said.
As you could well be.
He was a single author.
He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that. (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)
Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.
I did google the book a bit. I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.
btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.
It is quite easy to look at usable land, max theoretical food production, minimal and average needs for humans, and figure out the curves. Erlich's complete and total failure should serve as a warning for anyone wanting to make apocalyptic claims about Warming or whatever. Erlich's logical fallacy was presuming the continuation of observed linear and exponential trends in a mathematically chaotic environment. To put it in common language, sort of like a gambler winning a couple of hands and thinking it'll continue.
That's the certain way to lose and lose hard.