Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

[MdKnightR]

Walter Williams had a really good piece in the paper today. I'm sure this will spark some debate with our resident tree huggers. Enjoy!

 

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/EnvironmentalistsWildPredictions.htm

 

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.

 

 

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

[Totenkopf]

And the greenie weenies wonder why so many people don't take them seriously.

[SilentScope001]

All that ethos that could have came from that article was trashed when I read that it came from an ECONOMIST professor. That ruined it. I do not doubt that he is not dumb when studying the economy, but climate change is a whole different subject, and you need ethos to convince people in 'the real world', for crying out loud.

 

What if I had a Ecology Professor go and rant about how the Patriot Act will defend America (without talking about how the Patriot Act will save endangered species)? Or if we have a History Professor go and discuss about the problems of present-day sewers (without using any historical arguments about the sewers in the past)? That's just wrong. You are very skilled in only one area of study, but that doesn't mean you should start talking about every other area of study.

 

I mean, he's an ECONOMIST! He should do a risk-benieft study instead of this article. Talk about how much it would cost, and the bad effects it would have on the economy. Imply prehaps global warming may not happen at all, and then the message is clear: It is too expensive to spend money to defend against a threat that may or may not exist.

 

And the whole article was just full of quotes. Quotes can be cherry-picked to support whatever cause you want. Just because you predict doomsday wrong a hundred times does not mean that the 101st Predicition is wrong.

[Totenkopf]

No, just that the 101st won't be seen as any more valid than the 100 previous failed claims, robbing that person of his "ethos" (or perhaps demonstrating his complete lack thereof). The lack of an educational credential doesn't make someone's analysis off base.

[MdKnightR]

The lack of an educational credential doesn't make someone's analysis off base.

 

 

So true! Makes me wonder what SilentScope001's educational credential is though. Is he an "expert" according to his degree or lack thereof?

[Tommycat]

...greenie weenies...

I am SO using that from now on.

 

Yeah it's so hard to take the envirowhackos seriously when they keep getting it so wrong so many times. It's almost like someone predicting the stock market and each time getting it wrong telling you "But this time I'm RIGHT!" Even if it is right(which I doubt), we're taking a rather large gamble on something that has not been correctly guessed so many times.

 

How about if you're so sure about it. YOU pay for it. Or at least if you are wrong, you pay everyone else back. Pay back the billions we've spent on your research. Pay back the trillions in lost revenue.

 

Again, don't get me wrong, I don't think we should trash the world. Don't litter. Don't dump chemicals everywhere. but lets not get all in an uproar trying to prevent global warming. Hey maybe it was our reactions to the 70's global ice age threat that caused global warming . Perhaps we tend to overreact to the news.

[Arcesious]

Okay, now my views o Global warming have definitly changed... If anything, it's only a phase in the Earth's weather system... Ice Age, warming age/volcanic age, and then a nuetral age, and then all over again...

[Jae Onasi]

Well, I don't know if global warming or cooling is real or just a normal climatic change. I do know, however, that my lower mpg minivan is costing me more money at the pump. I know that pouring mercury and assorted other chemicals into our fresh water supplies (lakes, rivers) is very bad for us and the creatures around us. I know that because of rainforest destruction in countries such as Brazil, we'll likely lose rare species of plants and animals that might otherwise be of great benefit to humanity.

 

Whether or not global warming is real, fouling the air we breath and water we drink is just plain bad for us.

[Samuel Dravis]

So true! Makes me wonder what SilentScope001's educational credential is though. Is he an "expert" according to his degree or lack thereof?

He wasn't claiming to be an expert. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of a person who 1) is not (officially) trained in the subject, and 2) the subject of discussion is widely contentious. While a lack of such training doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, it does mean that they may not be fully aware of the subject. I both agree with Silentscope and think it's wise to take this kind of opinion with a slightly larger grain of salt than is done with someone who is actually in the field they're talking about.

[Corinthian]

I agree with the article completely. In fact, it makes me want to laugh. Why should we believe these Doomsayers? Their fathers were saying thirty years ago that we were freezing, now things are heating up? Make up your mind already.

[Totenkopf]

He wasn't claiming to be an expert. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of a person who 1) is not (officially) trained in the subject, and 2) the subject of discussion is widely contentious. While a lack of such training doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, it does mean that they may not be fully aware of the subject. I both agree with Silentscope and think it's wise to take this kind of opinion with a slightly larger grain of salt than is done with someone who is actually in the field they're talking about.

 

 

The only problem is that many people acquire a lot of information outside of their "accredited" field over the course of a lifetime. Do we discount your opinion or position on a certain subject just b/c you don't have a degree in that field? Given how divisive many of the opinions are of people within in a field, just how much credence should we give any one of them? And based on what (especially if we aren't accredited ourselves, such that our pov on relevance is rendered irrelevant)? It's a sort of dangerous paradigm you set up where we "defer to the (self-proclaimed) experts". The world is full of many learned fools.

[Samuel Dravis]

The only problem is that many people acquire a lot of information outside of their "accredited" field over the course of a lifetime. Do we discount your opinion or position on a certain subject just b/c you don't have a degree in that field? Given how divisive many of the opinions are of people within in a field, just how much credence should we give any one of them? And based on what (especially if we aren't accredited ourselves, such that our pov on relevance is rendered irrelevant)? It's a sort of dangerous paradigm you set up where we "defer to the (self-proclaimed) experts". The world is full of many learned fools.

I certainly don't discount that people can (and do) learn quite a lot about other fields and can be competent in them even though they don't have a degree. I just think it is reasonable to be more skeptical of those without a degree than with one. It's not about trusting the "self-proclaimed experts" - a degree is not usually self-proclaimed - but about who is most likely to have a good view of the subject, given that we're not trained in it ourselves. The reason I say this is because, quite frankly, there are a lot of people on both sides saying a lot of things, mostly contradictory.

 

How are people supposed to distinguish the good ideas from the bad? I would start by weeding out most of the crazies by dropping those without a degree (if a person has the right idea and doesn't have a degree, I am virtually certain that idea will also be held by someone with a degree). After that, you might be able to find some arguments for both sides and you can evaluate those.

 

I've personally taken an environmental science course just for this purpose. What I got from that course is a general amazement that we live in such a great time -- and a general worry that we might help screw it up. Polluting any amount isn't and won't ever be good, but it may be a necessary evil. I don't agree with the wackos that say the world is going to end in a great cataclysm, because it probably won't. What I will say is that, if the purpose of this article is to make people feel good about how they're not affecting their environment, then I believe the motives of the author are suspect. As Jae said:

Whether or not global warming is real, fouling the air we breath and water we drink is just plain bad for us.

Anything that is an attempt to distract us from what we're doing is not going to win points from me, even if it, strictly speaking, is factually correct. For example, if someone uses the fact "None of the doomsday scenarios have come about yet even though they've been predicted." in order to forward the general idea: "...so no need to be concerned about those wacky scientists, lol." - a conclusion which, I'm sure you'll agree, does not follow.

 

YMMV.

[Totenkopf]

I certainly don't discount that people can (and do) learn quite a lot about other fields and can be competent in them even though they don't have a degree. I just think it is reasonable to be more skeptical of those without a degree than with one. It's not about trusting the "self-proclaimed experts" - a degree is not usually self-proclaimed - but about who is most likely to have a good view of the subject, given that we're not trained in it ourselves. The reason I say this is because, quite frankly, there are a lot of people on both sides saying a lot of things, mostly contradictory.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, though I think I'd be only slighty less skeptical of those w/o than those with w/o knowing anything about the credentialed so-called expert (self-proclaimed was a rather poor choice, but was too lazy to change it).

 

How are people supposed to distinguish the good ideas from the bad? I would start by weeding out most of the crazies by dropping those without a degree (if a person has the right idea and doesn't have a degree, I am virtually certain that idea will also be held by someone with a degree). After that, you might be able to find some arguments for both sides and you can evaluate those.

 

Only caveat I'd add here is that you research who it is that's providing you with your education.

 

I've personally taken an environmental science course just for this purpose. What I got from that course is a general amazement that we live in such a great time -- and a general worry that we might help screw it up. Polluting any amount isn't and won't ever be good, but it may be a necessary evil. I don't agree with the wackos that say the world is going to end in a great cataclysm, because it probably won't. What I will say is that, if the purpose of this article is to make people feel good about how they're not affecting their environment, then I believe the motives of the author are suspect. As Jae said: Anything that is an attempt to distract us from what we're doing is not going to win points from me, even if it, strictly speaking, is factually correct. For example, if someone uses the fact "None of the doomsday scenarios have come about yet even though they've been predicted." in order to forward the general idea: "...so no need to be concerned about those wacky scientists, lol." - a conclusion which, I'm sure you'll agree, does not follow.

 

Fair enough. If you could prove that Mr. Williams is merely trying to assuage people's fears that their consumption lifestyle is having no effect at all, then that would be reasonable. I do agree with both of you, and others, who say that we shouldn't indiscriminately pollute the earth merely b/c we apparently can. In the case of the doomsayers, though, it would not be unfair to dismiss them altogether due to an extremely poor track record (not merely the number of "misses", but the nature of their claims as well). However, I guess even a broken clock is right at least 2x a day.

 

 

 

 

YMMV.

 

Your mouth, my WHAT?!?

[MdKnightR]

Fair enough. If you could prove that Mr. Williams is merely trying to assuage people's fears that there consumption lifestyle is having no effect at all, then that would be reasonable. I do agree with both of you, and others, who say that we shouldn't indiscriminately pollute the earth merely b/c we apparently can.

 

And I don't believe that was Mr. Williams' intent either. I also would like to see proof to the contrary.

 

Nobody is saying "lets indiscriminately pollute" just because we should have no fear. What we should be on the lookout for is fear-mongering, of which many of the "greenie weenies" (I love it!) participate in. If they want to be taken seriously, they really need to brush up on the "Boy that cried WOLF."

[Totenkopf]

Don't forget Chicken Little.

[Samuel Dravis]

I don't necessarily disagree, though I think I'd be only slighty less skeptical of those w/o than those with w/o knowing anything about the credentialed so-called expert (self-proclaimed was a rather poor choice, but was too lazy to change it).

I think it's quite reasonable for you to make sure the ones you're trusting didn't get their credentials from a bad school (or a diploma mill ).

 

In the case of the doomsayers, though, it would not be unfair to dismiss them altogether due to an extremely poor track record (not merely the number of "misses", but the nature of their claims as well). However, I guess even a broken clock is right at least 2x a day.

Yes, I agree. This particular brand of doomsayers has apparently got a bit loose upstairs.

 

Only caveat I'd add here is that you research who it is that's providing you with your education.

Good point.

 

I do agree with both of you, and others, who say that we shouldn't indiscriminately pollute the earth merely b/c we apparently can.

Nobody is saying "lets indiscriminately pollute" just because we should have no fear.

I'm glad you both agree with me on this then.

 

Fair enough. If you could prove that Mr. Williams is merely trying to assuage people's fears that their consumption lifestyle is having no effect at all, then that would be reasonable.

And I don't believe that was Mr. Williams' intent either. I also would like to see proof to the contrary.

I am not particularly interested in Mr. Williams' intent. What I meant to convey is that the method used by this (and other similar) articles does serve the general idea that we aren't doing much to the environment. For example,

 

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.

Piling these natural greenhouse effects on top of ours doesn't make ours any better. The tone of the article seems to be that our contribution is fairly insignificant and not really worth talking about, at least in context of our radically changing the environment. Naturally I am not terribly pleased with this, because like you I am concerned with what we're actually doing, regardless of its particular effect on the entire atmosphere. While it's true that the world hasn't ended, we've still got acid rain. I think that fact should be recognized as well.

 

What we should be on the lookout for is fear-mongering, of which many of the "greenie weenies" (I love it!) participate in. If they want to be taken seriously, they really need to brush up on the "Boy that cried WOLF."

Right, and that's an understandable position. A point here, though: I think that the opposite of crying wolf all the time is not "never cry wolf" but "only cry wolf when it's appropriate." Like you said, they should be more responsible in their claims, but we also need to remember to listen to them when the time comes. Like Totenkopf said, a broken clock is right twice a day -- and a broken atmosphere is not an acceptable way of figuring out if the doomsayers were right.

 

Your mouth, my WHAT?!?

[MdKnightR]

Piling these natural greenhouse effects on top of ours doesn't make ours any better. The tone of the article seems to be that our contribution is fairly insignificant and not really worth talking about, at least in context of our radically changing the environment. Naturally I am not terribly pleased with this, because like you I am concerned with what we're actually doing, regardless of its particular effect on the entire atmosphere. While it's true that the world hasn't ended, we've still got acid rain. I think that fact should be recognized as well.

 

I don't believe the intent of the article was to make our impact look "better," it simply puts things in perspective, nothing more. The fact still remains that our contribution is far less than what the doomsayers would have us believe.

[jonathan7]

Well, I don't know if global warming or cooling is real or just a normal climatic change. I do know, however, that my lower mpg minivan is costing me more money at the pump. I know that pouring mercury and assorted other chemicals into our fresh water supplies (lakes, rivers) is very bad for us and the creatures around us. I know that because of rainforest destruction in countries such as Brazil, we'll likely lose rare species of plants and animals that might otherwise be of great benefit to humanity.

 

Whether or not global warming is real, fouling the air we breath and water we drink is just plain bad for us.

 

QFT

 

Given that I have lost alot of faith with our eductional system, I have used a unique thing called 'common sense'. This very rare attribute, which most people seem to lack tells me all sorts of things.

 

e.g. Our government in its infinite wisdom some years ago decided after expert advice to bring in lots of tests for young children. Genuis psychologists years later said all this testing was bad for their children; I had always said that all this testing was both pointless and bad for kids; its common sense! Indeed it has always been my expierance that people who were happy and enjoyed their childhood are far more productive adults.

 

So common sense tells me that breathing in for example car fumes will kill you; it would follow that if a billion people are doing that every day will have an effect on the environment.

 

Common sense tells me, that even if the earths temperature is rising as a natural occurance, that most human endevours are still not good for us. In the history of our planet far worse has happened; and the planet will recover; however we could end up wiping ourselves out.

 

Common sense tells me this is bad for the environement; http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html

 

In short, and I will not mince my words here, as it needs to be this harsh, even if global warming isn't happening, humans are having a horrible and devistating impact on the earth.

[MdKnightR]

In short, and I will not mince my words here, as it needs to be this harsh, even if global warming isn't happening, humans are having a horrible and devistating impact on the earth.

 

 

Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today.

[jonathan7]

Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today.

 

How an individual feels is irrelevant; I'd also far rather speak to the people of Burma who do not live in an MEDC, I would somewhat think the victims of Katrina have a better chance of survival and being looked after than Burma and the people of Burma have in general done alot less to contribute to the problems of the environment, than many of the victims of Katrina.

 

I feel sorry for the victims of Katrina; but they could by not acting contribute to greater calamities in the future, by not addressing problems; such as the ammount of plastics dumped into the ocean - something that will come back to haunt us.

[Ray Jones]

Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today.

Huh? What kind of argument is that against what jonathan7 said? That just because a hurricane can take our homes or do whatever to us, irresponsible pollution of our environment becomes harmless? Hm.

[Totenkopf]

In short, and I will not mince my words here, as it needs to be this harsh, even if global warming isn't happening, humans are having a horrible and devistating impact on the earth.

 

Common sense says you don't make radical life changes just b/c you suspect something is a problem, but don't know the TRUE extent or even exactly how it's a problem in the first place. We've established that cleaning up after yourself is NOT a bad thing, even necessary. But the current group of greenie weenies keep foisting flawed study upon flawed study upon us, "playing on our fears" (to quote one of the charlatans waiting to fleece us while he continues to live the high life). Fact is, there is only so much wealth to go around, so you must use it judiciously. One of the problems with the clean air/water nazis is that they keep shifting the goal post to the point where you can't have any pollution they can measure, regardless of human ability to harmlessly filter out the little bit left over after the last round of "cleansing". If you think we've got the $$ to COMLETELY clean up every mess, then you probably believe anything. You've got to work within your means and learn to live with tradeoffs.

[jonathan7]

Common sense says you don't make radical life changes just b/c you suspect something is a problem, but don't know the TRUE extent or even exactly how it's a problem in the first place. We've established that cleaning up after yourself is NOT a bad thing, even necessary. But the current group of greenie weenies keep foisting flawed study upon flawed study upon us, "playing on our fears" (to quote one of the charlatans waiting to fleece us while he continues to live the high life). Fact is, there is only so much wealth to go around, so you must use it judiciously. One of the problems with the clean air/water nazis is that they keep shifting the goal post to the point where you can't have any pollution they can measure, regardless of human ability to harmlessly filter out the little bit left over after the last round of "cleansing". If you think we've got the $$ to COMLETELY clean up every mess, then you probably believe anything. You've got to work within your means and learn to live with tradeoffs.

 

I haven't bothered reading alot of studies by either the 'greenie weenies' or the 'greedy weenies' because both just produce polemics supporting their position.

 

In short; I think the greedy weenies are more dangerous as they want to be able to continue polluting indiscrimitably, they think money can buy you anything; money cannot buy you long term good health, money cannot buy back dead species and finally money cannot buy back damage to the environment.

 

You do however delude yourself if you don't think we need to take decisive action quickly; specific example - do you really think all that rubbish floating around in the ocean isn't going to have an effect? The plastic will be absorbed and slowly go up the food chain.

 

Common sense says we need to a) stop dumping crap in the ocean b) try and remove whats floating around in it and c) recycle everything we can.

[mimartin]

Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today.

And that would prove what? You would get the same percentage as the national average that would say yes or no. Maybe slightly above, on the yes side, due to people along the coast knowing the effect man is having on the environment every time we go to eat seafood or walk along the beach.

[MdKnightR]

Huh? What kind of argument is that against what jonathan7 said? That just because a hurricane can take our homes or do whatever to us, irresponsible pollution of our environment becomes harmless? Hm.

 

 

It was a statement of how much power that our environment has over us. The idea that we can do much of any significance against our earth is quite,.... erm, what did jonathan7 call it?...extremely arrogant. But, again, we've already established in this thread that no one is authorizing free and wanton pollution. I'm just trying to put things into perspective.

 

Oh, and jonathan, it isn't the individuals that I was drawing your attention to, but the mass of people. BTW, thanks for bringing up Burma, that was a better example.