Reply With Quote
But ... but ... the world sucks!
Big business, and big oil, and big Fast Food are killing us all!
To whom can we turn to save us from ourselves??
Gee I didn't know all this stuff, did you?
Jewish World Review May 7, 2008 / 2 Iyar 5768
Environmentalists' wild predictions
By Walter Williams
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
===================================
All I got to say is that Damn Bush Administration and
Big Oil will kill us all. Right dan and boutons? Oh, I
forgot he was around then, was he?
But ... but ... the world sucks!
Big business, and big oil, and big Fast Food are killing us all!
To whom can we turn to save us from ourselves??
I wonder if that writer, Walter Williams, is the same very bright African American economist that used to be seen on television frequently?
^^He is. The very same.
When did a economists (or a person without a real job) become a expert on Climatology?
He was just recounting predictions. You don't have to be a climatologist to repeat the words of climatologists, do you?
Yep, liberals are chronically wrong about almost everything. I don't listen much to Michael Savage, but I have to agree with him when he says "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Sometimes I think they are not as dumb as they appear, but want to destroy America.
So why didn't he quote the dozens of climatologists who have been right? Didn't meet his agenda maybe?
Like who?
Yes Propaganda Dan, Like who?
None of the IPCC's past predictions have come true. Every time they do a new report, they have to change their predictions because they have been wrong from day one.
Easily seen data stopped flowing from the alarmists after 2004 because it shows a tapering off and cooling trend. It doesn't support their previous predictions.
These guys are losers, and they know it. They are to small of people to admit they were wrong, and continue to lie to justify their prior work and research grants.
OK, that is my opinion on much of the above, but I have at least done more research on the subject than most here.
Ummm...no, maybe you just need better sources....
Responding to this request, the IPCC adopted its first assessment report on 30 August 1990 in Sundsvall, Sweden.
Ipcc reportWorking Group I addressed in its scientific assessment a broad range of topics including greenhouse gases and aerosols, radiative forcing, processes and modelling, observed climate variations and change, and detection of the greenhouse effect in the observations. The experts concluded that they are certain that emissions from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and that this will enhance the greenhouse effect and result in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. Models available at that time predicted under business as usual a rate of increase of the global mean temperature during the 21st century of 0.3oC per decade with an uncertainty range of 0.2oC to 0.5oC, and an increase of the global mean sea level of 6 cm per decade with an uncertainty range of 3 to 10 cm per decade. They pointed out a number of uncertainties including sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and the role of clouds, oceans and polar ice sheets.
Looks pretty accurate to me...
"During the 21st century"
OK, I didn't know we were in the 22nd century now. Silly me.
Hey if it looks accurate to dan, that's good enough for me. Yeah,
you bet. The UN, how could you question their "model".
Dan ever heard of junk in, junk out theory. Just wondering.
Dan, so far in the 21st Century, we've seen a net decline in global temperature and no appreciable change in sea levels. Also, it is now accepted that we're entering a period of cooling. How can you say the IPCC was accurate?
Finally, the prediction you cited was hardly of the Henny-Penny variety Dr. Williams addressed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
