by Robert M. Traxler
Climate change, the latest in the long list of disaster predictions from environmentalists, is perhaps the best term they have coined. Global cooling, mass starvation, global warming, pestilence, pollution, disease and a few smaller ones all come and go, but climate change is brilliant, it is heads I win tails you lose.
The climate is always changing; it has for as long as humans kept records, and even longer if we believe in what ice cores from the arctic tell us.
Harvard biologist George Wald estimated in 1970 that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “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.”
I was in Asia in the 1980s, and must have missed that one?
Former Vice President Al Gore stated that all the correct scientists, all the real scientists believe in global warming. If you do not support the current politically correct predictions, you will not be hired or funded in the industry, so dissent is not allowed. Gore was worth $1.7 million when he departed congress, he is worth more than $300 million today; so being a climate change activist pays fairly well.
Worldwide, the numbers for funding are large, even by my humble standards, gargantuan. In 2014, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed,” a number estimated at a few pennies north of $5 trillion.
Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, that by 1975 global cooling will result in widespread famines that will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or even sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions and by the year 2000, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
In January 1970, Life magazine reported that scientists have irrefutable experimental and theoretical evidence to support the predictions that in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear protective (gas) masks to survive air pollution, and by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half. Global cooling and famine will be the result. Must have missed that one as well?
Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “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.’” Back in the days that someone pumped gas for you. Missed that one also.
Kenneth Watt also warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he reported. “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.”
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Is cleaning up the planet a good thing? Sure it is, but enough with the over the top, wild, apocalyptic “end of the world is near, pay me” tactics. Can we have “common sense” climate predictions?
Enough about 1970, 1980 predictions. Did your 1970 car have the same technology as your 2019 auto? No. New technology makes tracking easier. Is it more accurate? I do not know. Is it true? I do not know. People will make money off anything if people will believe and donate. No fuel heard that in the 1970s. As soon as the price went way up, we had all kinds. You can not fix stupid. Common sense is gone. I agree with a lot of your article but living in the past is not wise.
Mr. Longstreet,
Sir, Thanks for the comment.
When people predict the future as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has, we must look back. She has predicted in 12 years the world will end, so to challenge her prediction we must look back in 12 years to see if she is correct. To be fair we need to give her more than 12 years, even 20 or 30, forcing us to always dwell in the past.
Your argument that science is better today was the same one used in all past climate apocalyptic predictions and will be made in the future as the dates keep passing and the money keeps flowing.
Thanks again, Merry Christmas.
Fair enough. But what does AOC know about the climate? Nothing. that makes her prediction not even valid. Like I said if people are stupid enough to believe and donate, it will continue. Science is better but I never said it was 100% accurate. You have a Merry Christmas also.
Denny: AOC was quoting a United Nations study by scientists when she commented on climate change.
And we all know how fair and truthful the United Nations are!
A den of Socialists and Marxists.
Another thing for everyone to ponder – without knowing past history, you have no way of knowing what is true or false. So far, the environmental disaster predictions have been wildly inaccurate. Don’t be fooled by the media.
It might be worth commenting that even science is a fluid thing. If one looks at the bigger picture of how humankind has advanced in areas like medicine based on the sophistication of the researchers, the advances in technology that allow for better research, development and testing of hypotheses, and even serendipitous discoveries, one will find that old assumptions have been overturned, revised, or advanced. Science with regard to climate change/fluctuations is no different. Rather than argue over who is or has been correct, why not concentrate on avoiding the monetary/avarice driven aspect and focus more on how to be just plain good stewards of planet Earth globally. Plain old listening to scientists as well as what the earth itself is telling us might be a good start.
Ms. Mandaville,
Thank for the comment.
It would be nice if both sides were represented in the debate. The establishment in the Global Climate Change industry will not tolerate contrarian views. Two years ago the industry paid from $30,000 (part time) to $500,000 (not including side jobs) to the teachers of Global Climate Change who were in the fold, those not in the fold just do not get hired. I am afraid the planet speaks only to those allowed to listen with the industry’s approval. A large business is one with 500 employees and 7 million in receipts, Global Climate Change blows the standard out of the galaxy.
Thank you kindly for the comment.
Mr. Traxler, the planet speaks to each of us, if we take the time to look and listen. It speaks to us individually and in groups. And it’s not only with regard to the alleged warming or cooling of the earth, with carbon emissions, with air quality. We see it in the endangering of species, in changes to specific environments we may have known when we were children that have drastically changed or been completely wiped away. In modern times we have seen the Cuyahoga River burn, then be cleaned up again when mistakes were corrected. The Manasquan River, where my grandmother’s home was, I have seen go from crystal clear salt water to oil and gas polluted sludge, and back to near clear and clean again over the course of 60 years. My husband has seen Lake Erie, where his family summered, go from a seaside wonderland to a highly polluted body of water and back to a place that is a dream to vacation, all because humans made big mistakes, recognized them as such, and took actions to correct them.
Yes, these are examples of change in small environments, but they are what fuel (no pun intended) the grassroots movements to address bigger perceived threats. And large industry does not dictate what we are allowed to perceive.
I find it counterproductive to find fault with those who raise the alarm, lest we be the ones to say, “Gee, I wish we would have listened a little more.”
But , then, you and I will probably be dead before that happens, so who really cares? Right?
Ms. Mandaville,
Thanks for the comment.
Wrong.
Thanks again.
Army Bob, you barely seem to have a primary school level education in earth science, yet you think you are more informed on the issue of environmental stewardship than the most advanced scientists of the day. That is textbook Dunning-Krugerism.
Wow, a reply from the esteemed Mr. Gless! I thought you may have expired or moved away. What a delight to have such a learned and experienced meterologist/scientist in our midsts. Just remember, when taking on Army Bob, you’re not battling a lightweight. I know AB and you’re no AB!
Mr. Gless,
Thanks for the comment.
Asking questions and questioning those in power doesn’t make people stupid as yo stated with the Dunning remark.
Thanks again.