Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Earth Day Predictions From 1970

by Da King on April 30, 2009

in environment,global warming,Uncategorized

Because we're on the verge of riding the cap-and-trade road (to hell ?), paved with good intentions, of course, I thought I'd share some of the not-so-accurate predictions our environmental gurus made on the original Earth Day in 1970. Not that I'm saying Al Gore could EVER be mistaken now. Lord, no. He said "the science is settled," so…that's it. There will be no more science on global warming. Nada. It's over. The science stops here. We know all there is to know. That's the way all scientific achievement has been brought about, by stopping the science…..wait a minute. That doesn't sound quite right…..

Ah, no matter.

Anyway, as Reason Online states, when it comes to predictions, the environmental prophets of doom have not only been wrong, they've been spectacularly wrong.

I give you the 1970 Earth Day predictions from the leading Al Gore's of their day (except the following people REALLY WERE scientists, unlike the Goreacle, who is, in case nobody has noticed, a businessman, heavily invested in (guess what?) green technologies).

Check these out:

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind" – Harvard biologist George Wald

"By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s" – Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. Ehrlich estimated that 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the 'Great Die-Off' in the 1980's.

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation" – Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day 1970. The reality ? Since 1970, the amount of food per person globally has increased by 26 percent, as the International Food Policy Research Institute reported in October 1999.

"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…." – Life magazine.

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable" – ecologist Kenneth Watt

"Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out" – a 1973 Deparment of Health, Education, and Welfare study about the effects of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons.

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any" – ecologist Kenneth Watt.

"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct" – Sen. Gaylord Nelson in Look magazine.

"The greenhouse theorists contend the world is threatened with a rise in average temperature, which if it reached 4 or 5 degrees, could melt the polar ice caps, raise sea level by as much as 300 feet and cause a worldwide flood" – Newsweek, 1970.

"Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born" – Newsweek, 1970.

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age" – ecologist Kenneth Watt.

  • Andrea
  • averagejoe5

    So what do we fear? Global warming? Global cooling? How can there be such differences of opinion in 30 years. How can both use data from the beginning of the century and beyond and come up with 2 such differeing opinions? Here's why. They are fulla' sh*t. It's about money and politics. They know alot about weather patterns, they know alot about how things work. But earth and the universe has been here for eternity and has adapted. Humans will go extinct like the dinosaurs. Or their spirit will be taken to another realm. What ever you believe. This is beyond our control because the more we are charged for carbon credits the faster industry is going to go to China and India and just pump the atmosphere full of polutants. There is no EPA there. Better smoke 'm while ya got 'em.

  • Christopher

    I'm not a believer. And it really has turned into a religion at this point where if you don't believe then you are pollitically incorrect.

    I remember reading the ice age magazines in the 1970s as a youngster. Kinda scared me then but the algore people scare me more today. They are very misguided and scary.

  • angry conserv

    Thanks King,
    I read those predictions last week and have passed some along to people I annoy with my growing strident monalogues. I found great humor in some of those but the people I repeated them to are comfortable in the belief- it has been decided

  • Da King

    Andrea says, "I 'd still rather believe science than those that are politically motivated to protect the interest of big business."

    I agree completely. Let's listen to the scientists. The problem is, the scientists are divided. The consensus Al Gore speaks of doesn't exist, not to mention the fact that global warming is big business too. Gore's company alone has billions invested in green technologies, as does GE and many others.

  • The Reverend

    I'm wondering…after reading your post…..is there such a thing as air pollution? Water pollution? Do these things even exist?

    And what of the EPA? If there isn't any air, water, or atmospheric pollution, you know, to speak of, shouldn't we do away with the EPA?

    What would a scientific consensus look like? Would EVERY scientist have to agree on everything before conclusions could be drawn?

    And…I just can't resist the setup…..Bush predictions about Iraq didn't have EVERY foreign policy expert on board….but that didn't stop him from committing the crime anyway. I mean, right?

    Does that mean that wars of choice simply don't need unanimous consent but earth-threatening environmental issues do? And why the distinction?

  • Da King

    Rev,
    Of what crime in Iraq are you speaking ? Congress voted FOR the use of military force in Iraq, remember ??? You must be confusing Bush with Clinton, who bombed Iraq without any Congressional authorization, and also went to war in Bosnia without any Congressional authorization.

    I don't recall anyone ever saying there is no such thing as air pollution or water pollution. If you have such evidence, which I doubt you do, I'd be interested in hearing it.

    Scientific consensus is fairly obvious, but maybe it would help if I told you what scientific consensus DOESN'T look like. It doesn't look like 1,900 UN scientists agreeing on global warming and 31,000 other scientists disagreeing. Scientific consensus doesn't look like flawed temperature models, conflicting evidence, and closed minds like Al Gore's.

  • The Reverend

    Is that the official score? 1900 to 31,000?

    It looks like, hey, many more scientists disagree with Al, rather than agree.

    I don't know, for some reason…those numbers look suspicious.

    But Big Carbon Producers couldn't be wrong, could they? I mean Big Carbon has no potential conflict of interest in any of this, right?

  • Da King

    I'll take your response to mean you DON'T have any proof that people are denying air or water pollution.

    And please stop calling all global warming skeptics "Big Carbon Producers." That's very dishonest. You sound like Al Gore.

    One such global warming skeptic, Lord Monckton, the former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher, was supposed to speak at the recent global warming hearings in Congress, but the Dems pulled the plug on him. They didn't want him to make Al Gore look bad. Apparently, that's how Dems reach "consensus," they silence the opposition.

    http://www.wikio.co.uk/news/Christopher+Monckton

  • averagejoe5

    King, there have been several congressional hearings on the subject of global warming and when they let the ones against the subject speak they treat them like they are insane. They don't even listen. This is going to be a huge profit maker for them. They don't want the truth, because they can't handle the truth. They would rather lie than protect their constituents.

  • Da King

    I know, joe. I've heard them. The Dems in Congress interrupt global warming skeptics constantly and barely let them get a full sentence out. Then they smirk and attack and act like the guy just said the earth is flat. It's pathetic.

  • larry d.

    Those hearings are reminiscent of some videos I saw last fall concerning finance committee hearings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    They don't care if they're selling the earth down the river any more than they cared when they were selling the nation down the river. It's the truth.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).