Following Earth Day last month, we were reminded of some of the outrageous predictions of the environmental crowd back in the late 1960s. I wrote about some of them here. Walter Williams’ article in The Charlotte Observer Saturday, False Prophets of Doom, points out a few more. For example, Paul Ehrlich, hero and mentor of none other than Al Gore, apparently said that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ouch!
Professor Williams provides some much needed perspective on the global warming issue, with a few simple facts. It’s too bad that our main stream media can’t use these facts to apply a little critical thinking to the more ridiculous claims of the alarmists.
1. “Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere.”
So at most, CO2 emissions make up less than 5% of greenhouse gases (and in fact, a lot less).
2. “Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.”
We were told in the 1970s that an 11 degree temperature reduction would bring on another Ice Age. Mankind could survive another Ice Age, but at zero degrees, Earth would be just another lifeless planet orbiting the sun.
3. “Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output.”
And how exactly do we propose to control the Earth’s orbit or the sun’s output?
4. “And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.”
Not to mention a good volcanic eruption, which probably dwarfs all human sources within its first few minutes.
In summary, we humans have developed a highly inflated opinion of our own importance on this planet. We live in big cities, so we assume the whole earth is crowded. Yes, we can damage our environment, but on balance, we do more good than harm. The “pristine environment” of our dreams never actually existed, Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. So the next time you hear predictions of impending doom, ask yourself this. Are these predictions any different than those of Paul Ehrlich in 1968, or Thomas Malthus in 1799? And are politicians today so much smarter that we should actually listen to them? The answer should be obvious.
Tags: Doom, Environmental hysteria, global warming