May 15 2008
Environmentalists Usually Wrong
Before I show you this article, I have to remind you all of my consistent position on environmental issues: we may not know what’s going on, but we can all do better for a cleaner healthier planet, and environmental alarmists are ruining the ’cause’ with their hyperbolics.
With that out of the way, I present Walter Williams’ utter dissection of environmental alarmists.
False prophets of doom
Environmentalists would prefer that we forget these predictions
WALTER WILLIAMS
Creators SyndicateNow 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.
Somewhere between “we’re all gonna die!” and “we don’t need to do anything” is the truth, and the only way to reach a majority of Americans is to figure out what that truth is, make it simple to understand, and help Americans make practical choices that will benefit the environment.
Until that happens, it’s all just a bunch of idiots screaming at each other.

May 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
So much good stuff in there, Vinny. Again a quality find on your end.
It actually pains me to hear “Doomsday Green” folks speak, because they’re frequently blind to the fact that many people around them are actually tuning them out immediately. And many of those tuning them out really care deeply about having a clean planet and beautiful living environment.
You can be both pragmatic on human quality of life AND a steward of the environment. You do not have to live on the extreme ends.
My own view is that the issue of global warming is turning on the alarmists, and rather quickly. When it does, we’ll still have to be cognizant of keeping our world clean and vibrant.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
It’s great to see some of the facts laid out. I’ve believed that from the beginning… we’re probably not doing as much damage as “they” say, but we could also be more responsible.
I just had a discussion last night about the “10 year supply” of oil. Actually the person used 5 years in his argument. Checking on Wikipedia, it says we have a 12 year supply, the Independent Petrol Assoc. of America says 10 in proven reserve with 120 years of known unrealized gas.
There seems to be a big misconception that middle eastern countries have the majority of the world’s oil, but that only accounts for the world’s proven reserve. Speaking of recoverable reserves, that’s not true.
You know those claims by the environmental alarmists seem like something out of an 80’s sci-fi doomsday movie, where the world becomes all Mad Max by 1999 or something. Maybe that’s on the way, but I don’t think it’ll be because I accidentally threw the recyclables in the trash.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Wait a while, PAL!!! If you don’t support Global Warming, you are not part of Mainstream Science (C) and therefore an anti-science QUACK. Just like when you used to be a quack for believing light could be both an electromagnetic wave AND a particle at the same time. Holy shit!