PDA

View Full Version : Past predictions of man's doom on Earth



Jerk
5/14/2008, 06:17 PM
False prophets of doom

Environmentalists would prefer that we forget these predictions

WALTER WILLIAMS

Creators Syndicate

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, 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 said 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."

World `likely to be ruined' by 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 work "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. 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?

Why believe them this time?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

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. And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.

Walter
Williams

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/617920.html

Turd_Ferguson
5/14/2008, 06:37 PM
One word...

http://www.angeleyes2.com/platinum6/backs/hippieflowerback.gif

StoopTroup
5/14/2008, 07:04 PM
Imagine all the peep pole.....

Turd_Ferguson
5/14/2008, 08:59 PM
Imagine all the peep hole.....Perv:texan:















I keed:D

OUWxGuesser
5/14/2008, 09:15 PM
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. And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.

Too bad his facts aren't right...
Equilibrium temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gasses is 255K, well below the freezing point of 273K. n00b.

Water vapor while the most important greenhouse gas does not account for "95%" of the greenhouse effect.

mdklatt
5/14/2008, 09:36 PM
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics

Well that about sums it up right there.

tommieharris91
5/14/2008, 10:34 PM
Well that about sums it up right there.

He's not sayin... he's just sayin...

mdklatt
5/14/2008, 10:45 PM
He's not sayin... he's just sayin...

Well, a lot of what he's just sayin' is wrong. Seriously, if somebody can't get the basic facts right he should just STFU.

sooner n houston
5/15/2008, 08:07 AM
Well, a lot of what he's just sayin' is wrong. Seriously, if somebody can't get the basic facts right he should just STFU.

You need to pass that bit of wisdom on to AlGore! :D

Harry Beanbag
5/15/2008, 08:24 AM
Water vapor while the most important greenhouse gas does not account for "95%" of the greenhouse effect.


What is the "consensus" on the percentage? I've seen claims from 30% to 98%.

Tulsa_Fireman
5/15/2008, 09:09 AM
My consensus is 146%.

Everyone else is wrong.

OUWxGuesser
5/15/2008, 10:44 AM
You need to pass that bit of wisdom on to AlGore!

Amen... his latest Myanmar rant made me sick.


What is the "consensus" on the percentage? I've seen claims from 30% to 98%.

The best energy budget I'm aware of comes from this:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html

Which found CO2 to be ~40% the forcing of water vapor. Keep in mind, however, this only considering gasses.... not clouds.

Regardless of the exact percentage, CO2 isn't what causes the most warming. It's the additional CO2 which slightly warms temperatures. What happens when you warm temperature slightly? More evaporation = more water vapor. Awww snap, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Planet gets warmer. This water vapor "feedback" makes CO2 3-4x more potent. Sounds like a run away train, but the planet will find a balance eventually. One possibility is more water vapor = more clouds = less incoming solar radiation.

NormanPride
5/15/2008, 11:08 AM
A rare WxGuesser appearance. How does methane effect the greenhouse gas levels? ;)

mdklatt
5/15/2008, 11:25 AM
How does methane effect the greenhouse gas levels?

Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and there's a whole lot of it stored in permafrost. This is very bad, because permafrost is no longer very "perma".

Animal Mother
5/15/2008, 04:47 PM
I'd list all the "end of the world" predictions by religious wing nuts but I have to go to sleep by 11pm tonight.

Harry Beanbag
5/15/2008, 04:56 PM
Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas...


We should probably go ahead and ban beans, pickled sausage, deviled eggs, and sauer kraut. That should cut down on the methane production. :texan:

SoonerInKCMO
5/15/2008, 04:57 PM
:les: 2012 IS THE END!! THE MAYANS SAID SO!!