Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

**Shek** · 05-08-2008, 22:17 PM

Quote:

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

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.

gunnut · 05-09-2008, 00:31 AM

I think, we, the United States, should take sole credit for keeping the earth warm and averting another ice age by introducing the SUV.

Helium · 05-10-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

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.

This is an article from an economist lol, please and nowhere does it mention that carbon has an insignificant effect on the atmosphere. You have used this article to try and make an argument that water vapour is a more serious green house gas than carbon, thus in doing so trying to make a point that carbon is "ïnsignificant" because its introduction into the atmosphere is far less than water vapour.

Quote:

Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.

Are you f****** serious, this is a statement by an economist and he does not provide any source for this...."fact". This is a perfect example of utilizing statistics to fit your own argument, he does not state whether 95% of human introduced water vapour/anthropogenic or if this is the natural green house effect. I assume he is talking about the natural effect judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases.

If he means that the organic water vapour, then I agree that this can be true (95% I think not but I would believe a figure over 50%) but it is irrelevent because we know that the naturally occuring green house gases are what has created the oxic and temperate climate necessary for life so the effect of this non-human introduced vapour is essential for maintaining the current natural climate.

Heres good ol' Wallys credentials

Quote:

Walter E. Williams
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.

Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.

Not really qualified to be used to support that carbon is insignificant as a gree house gas, especially when he doesn't even mention carbon.

Quote:

On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Again irrelevant, the green house gases emitted by wetlands are what maintains the natural levels of chemical composition of the atm...ere to create the required oxic and temperature conditions necessary for life. Again what matter is what chemicals/molecules r added/introduced unnaturally by humans that alter the chemical composition thus the oxic and temperature of at...ere.

You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are irrelevant.

dalem · 05-10-2008, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are irrelevant.

More importantly, no one, including you, has provided evidence that CO2 emissions are relevant.

Your theory, Bright Eyes, you do the leg work.

-dale

Wooglin · 05-10-2008, 14:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

This is an article from an economist lol, please and nowhere does it mention that carbon has an insignificant effect on the atmosphere. You have used this article to try and make an argument that water vapour is a more serious green house gas than carbon, thus in doing so trying to make a point that carbon is "ïnsignificant" because its introduction into the atmosphere is far less than water vapour.

Are you f****** serious, this is a statement by an economist and he does not provide any source for this...."fact". This is a perfect example of utilizing statistics to fit your own argument, he does not state whether 95% of human introduced water vapour/anthropogenic or if this is the natural green house effect. I assume he is talking about the natural effect judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases.

If he means that the organic water vapour, then I agree that this can be true (95% I think not but I would believe a figure over 50%) but it is irrelevent because we know that the naturally occuring green house gases are what has created the oxic and temperate climate necessary for life so the effect of this non-human introduced vapour is essential for maintaining the current natural climate.

Heres good ol' Wallys credentials

Not really qualified to be used to support that carbon is insignificant as a gree house gas, especially when he doesn't even mention carbon.

Again irrelevant, the green house gases emitted by wetlands are what maintains the natural levels of chemical composition of the atm...ere to create the required oxic and temperature conditions necessary for life. Again what matter is what chemicals/molecules r added/introduced unnaturally by humans that alter the chemical composition thus the oxic and temperature of at...ere.

You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are irrelevant.

By far, the biggest and most important contributer to the green house effect IS water vapor. This is not disputed by anyone other than you. In fact, even the exxagerated effect attributed to Co2 relies on it's speculated effect on water vapor. Co2 by itself is in fact rather insignificant... both by volume and effect. It's well known that C02 by itself cannot produce a sginificant change.

Your statement that "...judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases."... is both incomplete and over simplified.

The hypothesis relies on radiative forcing, which can only be shown in models. What should be happening if this hypothesis is correct is increased warming in the troposphere. That is the key signal. All models used to point the finger to Co2 necessarily rely on this hypothesis (refer to IPCC TAR and every single GCM, or even realclimate if you prefer).

As you can see, it's not happening. All observations show that the troposphere is not, and has not, warmed as the models (thus the hypothesis) say it should be. So if you're going to make the argument that Co2 is drving temp and changing climate you're going to need to explain how the hypothesis can be wrong and still be right. Good luck.

05-09-2008, 00:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 8,597 Country:	I think, we, the United States, should take sole credit for keeping the earth warm and averting another ice age by introducing the SUV. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!	gunnut	Science & Tech	612	01-22-2008 17:17 PM
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus	Parihaka	Science & Tech	275	01-06-2008 00:17 AM
Deadly Environmentalists	Shek	Science & Tech	6	09-03-2007 18:17 PM
Pakistan: The wild and wooly land!	Ray	Political Discussions	0	03-12-2006 13:49 PM
In Wild Wild Bihar, kids fight for justice	Samudra	Political Discussions	22	02-01-2005 10:08 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)