Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Proof that Gobal Warming is a joke and Al Gore is an idiot, just some facts

jdynasty

New member
False prophets of doom
WALTER WILLIAMS
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, 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.

Walter

Williams
 
all of it is foolish, global warming is just the flava of the decade, starting in 2010 we will be discussing how the sun is about to burn out, didn't you get the memo
 
What is it that you feel the need to prove that climate change is a 'joke'?

Just wondering, it does seem to be a very emotive issue for a lot of Americans.
 
Tatyana said:
What is it that you feel the need to prove that climate change is a 'joke'?

Just wondering, it does seem to be a very emotive issue for a lot of Americans.

i don't know if you've paid attention to some of the proposed legislation regarding air quality and CO2 emissions, but there are some very ambitious policies that could very well be implement in the near future. basically there are so many uncontrollable sources of CO2 emissions such as agriculture, cement making, and land-use changes that to achieve the desired goals of CO2 emissiosn reduction, carbon will pretty much have to be eliminated from the entire energy sector - this includes coal power plants and oil-powered vehicles. This will hurt our economy very badly. Even without clearcut goals, alternative fuel sources are very expensive, the research is also costly, and reducing your carbon footprint is a huge pain in the ass. So if it turns out that humans really don't have any impact on climate change, it will be a huge debacle, as we would have incurred all these costs for nothing. (which is a possibility)
 
Last edited:
Just another way for the left to expand government control and influence into our lives.
 
nimbus said:
i don't know if you've paid attention to some of the proposed legislation regarding air quality and CO2 emissions, but there are some very ambitious policies that could very well be implement in the near future. and basically there are so many uncontrollable sources of CO2 emissions such as agriculture, cement making, and land-use changes that achieve the desired goals of CO2 emissiosn reduction, carbon will pretty much have to be eliminated from the entire energy sector - this includes coal power plants and oil-powered vehicles. This will hurt our economy very badly. Even without clearcut goals, alternative fuel sources are very expensive, the research is also costly, and reducing your carbon footprint is a huge pain in the ass. So if it turns out that humans really don't have any impact on climate change, it will be a huge debacle, as we would have incurred all these costs for nothing. (which is a possibility)

Whether or not there is an issue with climate change, there is an issue with coal and petrol as a limited resource, air pollution from car emissions causing health problems in children and the elderly etc.

I would have thought that addressing some of the energy policies rather than trying to disprove climate change would be far more logical and productive.

I often wonder if it is more about people fearing the unknown and change rather than the actual issues.

Technology will advance, and it would be wise to seek out alternate energy sources, reduce pollution and waste wouldn't you agree?
 
Tatyana said:
Technology will advance, and it would be wise to seek out alternate energy sources, reduce pollution and waste wouldn't you agree?
It would. What wouldnt be make sense is doing stuff like taxing individuals who drive specific types of automobiles, running the risk of corn shortages because we decide to burn a large portion of it for 2mpg more, etc.

Stuff thats already being proposed or in motion.
 
Top Bottom