
UPDATE: New table added below.
While searching for something else, I came across this entertaining collection of grand predictive failures related to resources and climate change, along with some of the biggest predictive failures of Paul Ehrlich. I thought it worth sharing.
Exhaustion of Resources
“Indeed it is certain, it is clear to see, that the earth itself is currently more cultivated and developed than in earlier times. Now all places are accessible, all are documented, all are full of business. The most charming farms obliterate empty places, ploughed fields vanquish forests, herds drive out wild beasts, sandy places are planted with crops, stones are fixed, swamps drained, and there are such great cities where formerly hardly a hut… everywhere there is a dwelling, everywhere a multitude, everywhere a government, everywhere there is life. The greatest evidence of the large number of people: we are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate to us; and our needs straiten us and complaints are everywhere while already nature does not sustain us.”
- In 1865, Stanley Jevons (one of the most recognized 19th century economists) predicted that England would run out of coal by 1900, and that England’s factories would grind to a standstill.
- In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California.
- In 1891, it said the same thing about Kansas and Texas. (See Osterfeld, David. Prosperity Versus Planning : How Government Stifles Economic Growth. New York : Oxford University Press, 1992.)
- In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
- 1944 federal government review predicted that by now the US would have exhausted its reserves of 21 of 41 commodities it examined. Among them were tin, nickel, zinc, lead and manganese.
- In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.
Claim: In 1952 the US President’s Materials Policy Commission concluded that by the mid-1970s copper production in the US could not exceed 800,000 tons and that lead production would be at most 300,000 tons per year.
Data: But copper production in 1973 was 1.6 million tons, and by 1974 lead production had reached 614,000 tons – 100% higher than predicted.
Claims: In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb and declared that the battle to feed humanity had been lost and that there would be a major food shortage in the US. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death,” and by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million. The problems in the US would be relatively minor compared to those in the rest of the world. (Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine Books, 1968.) New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled “In Praise of Prophets.”
Claim: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Claim: Ehrlich wrote in 1968, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever.”
Data: Yet in a only few years India was exporting food and significantly changed its food production capacity. Ehrlich must have noted this because in the 1971 version of his book this comment is deleted (Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource, Princeton: Princeton Univesity Press, 1981, p. 64).
The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021. (See Donella Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library, 1972.
Claim: In 1974, the US Geological Survey announced “at 1974 technology and 1974 price” the US had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.
Data: The American Gas Association said that gas supplies were sufficient for the next 1,000-2,500 years. (Julian Simon, Population Matters. New Jersey: Transaction Publications, 1990): p. 90.
Population and Poverty
In the mid 1970s the US government sponsored a travelling exhibit for schoolchildren titled, “Population: The Problem is Us.” (Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population, San Francisco: CA, Ignatius, 1988, p. 21.)
In 1973, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s vote in Roe v. Wade was influenced by this idea, according to Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong: “As Stewart saw it, abortion was becoming one reasonable solution to population control” (quoted in Newsweek of September 14, 1987, p. 33.).
In 1989, when the US Supreme Court was hearing the Webster case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor brought the idea of overpopulation into a hypothetical question she asked of Charles Fried, former solicitor-general, “Do you think that the state has the right to, if in a future century we had a serious overpopulation problem, has a right to require women to have abortions after so many children?”
World Bank president Barber Conable calls for population control because “poverty and rapid population growth reinforce each other” (Washington Post, July 16, 1990, p. A13)
Prince Philip advises us that “It must be obvious by now that further population growth in any country is undesirable” (Washington Post, May 8, 1990, p. A26)
37 Senators wrote President Bush in support of funding for population control (Washington Post, April 1, 1990, p. H1)
The Trilateral Commission and the American Assembly call for reduction in population growth (U. S. News and World Report, May 7, 1990)
Newsweek‘s year-ending cover story concluded that “Foremost of the new realities is the world’s population problem” (December 25, 1990, p.44)
The president of NOW warns that continued population growth would be a “catastrophe” (Nat Hentoff in the Washington Post, July 29, 1989, p. A17)
Ted Turner (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wed. Dec. 2, 1998) in an address to the Society of Environmental Journalists in Chattanooga – blamed Christianity for overpopulation and environmental degradation, and argued that the people who disagree with him are “dummies.” He stated in part, “The Judeo-Christian religion says man was given dominion over everything, and his salvation was that he was to go out and increase and multiply. Well, we have done that … to the point where in Calcutta, it’s a hellhole. So it’s not an environmentally friendly religion.”
Ellen Goodman laments “People Pollution” (Washington Post, March 3, 1990, p. A25)
Herblock cartoon shows that the U. S. neglecting the “world population explosion” (Washington Post, July 19, 1990, p. A22)
Hobart Rowen likens population growth to “the pond weed [which] grows in huge leaps” (Washington Post, April 1, 1990, p. H8).
A Newsweek “My Turn” suggests giving every teen-age girl a check for up to $1200 each year that she does not have a baby “in order to stop the relentless increase of humanity” (Noel Perrin. “A Nonbearing Account”, April 2, 1990, p. 9).
Climate Change
Claim Jan. 1970: “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life Magazine, January 1970. Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, “but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions.”
Data: Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.
Claim April 1970: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.
Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.
Claim 1970: “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.
Claim 1972: “Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Data: Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover — an area larger than the continental United States — according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Claims 1974: “… when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere–from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”
Later in the article, “Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip teh climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.”
Source: “Another Ice Age,” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.
Claim 1989: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
Claims: “Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.”
“Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and … are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters–which scientists are attributing to global climate change–produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.”
“London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.” “Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community.”
According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” and winter snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
“David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow.”
See “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The Independent. March 20, 2000.
Data: “Coldest December Since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10 C bringing travel chaos across Britain.” Mailonline. Dec. 18, 2010.
Claim: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Wilson School. He was formerly a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, the largest non-governmental organization in the U.S. that examines problems and solutions to greenhouse gases.
Data: When asked about these old predictions Oppenheimer stated, “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he said. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”
However, that claim is not obviously true. Data from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation — rain and snow — has increased slightly over the century.
—
How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb” and president of Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the ’70s and ’80s.
Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.
=============================================================
Source: University of Georgia, Terry College of Business. Economics 2200, Economic Development of the US, David B. Mustard
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/courses/e2200/pop.htm
UPDATE: reader Dennis Wingo writes in with this table:
Great article. I went into this myself in my book “Moonrush“, I took all of the predictions for the depletion of resources from the book and marked in red the deadlines that had already passed. All of the predictions failed.

Examining an investor’s claim about resources running out –
“What Jeremy Grantham Gets Horribly, Horribly, Wrong About Resource Availability”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/16/what-jeremy-grantham-gets-horribly-horribly-wrong-about-resource-availability/
“To a useful level of accuracy the mining world divides the world up into dirt and ore. Your allotment patch contains gold, rare earths, uranium and all sorts of other lovely metals. However, your allotment patch is dirt. For while we do know how to extract all of those metals the cost of doing so would be higher than any value that could be recovered.”
Yes there was also Y2K, and just before that we were all going to die of AIDS in the West. I did my research and didn’t buy into either (and was scorned for that, needless to say, by all my leftie friends)
It really is high time we stopped called the AGW scaremongers ‘climate scientists’.
Scepticism is as we all know the one prerequisite for science, and these people have no understanding of scientific principle, nor of its methodology
The academics working in the climate field should really be classified as ‘Climate Modelers’. It confuses those who don’t follow the science and the arguments (which is most people, and includes environmental commentators) to associate these academics with ‘science’, since none of them has much if any background in any of the pure sciences.
Jimbo says:
January 19, 2013 at 4:59 am
Oh noe! We are doomed! Or is this going to be another failed prediction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually that brings up a whole different set of problems especially when you have whole ‘Socialist’ Governments built on the Ponzi scheme model.
E.M. Smith discusses the nasty problems caused by changing demographics for various countries here.
If a government knows about the problem then they can do something. One wonders if the current fad for ‘de-industrialization’ and ‘going Green’ isn’t being pushed by politicians and world leaders who are well aware that the Ponzi Schemes such as FDR’s New Deal are about to go belly up as the baby boomers retire and as a result we will see a major decline in our life styles and bankruptcy of our treasuries.
Seems the Fabian Socialists in the UK have come up with a solution:
Death by Fuel Poverty and Death by Hospital: Four patients die thirsty or starving EVERY DAY on our hospital wards show damning new statistics and Visiting a patient in a British hospital? Then take them food and water, just to be safe and NHS gets millions for controversial care pathway “The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing terminally-ill patients on a controversial “pathway” to death…”
The Liverpool-Care-Pathway is withdrawing all food and water and letting the person die of hunger and thrist with drugs to keep then from complaining. Do that to an animal and they toss you in jail. But if Dr. Nasty does it to old Granny the hospital gets a reward.
From a founding member of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw
Makes one feel like cattle or slaves doesn’t it.
Thomas P:
re your post at January 19, 2013 at 7:18 am.
‘Limits to Growth’ is an interesting item of history because it made predictions based on a false premise so those predictions have all been found to be wrong with passage of time.
In other words, ‘Limits to Growth’ was bollocks. Live with it.
Richard
Thomas P says:
January 19, 2013 at 7:18 am
“I don’t know how reliable the rest of that list is, but the statements on LTG are definitely misleading.”
No they are not. Read my link to hauntingthelibrary above. He points out that ALL LTG-type models ALWAYS lead to a collapse somewhere down the road because LTG does not consider improvements or new discoveries. So when you start out with assumptions of which you know they are wrong and come out with collapse scenarios which must therefore also be wrong, what would one call this? Shoddy work? Embezzling the customers money? Or the Gold standard of computer modeling?
In my opinion, the CoR squandered his money, got a pile of dung for it, and wasn’t very happy – maybe they became happy about it later when they saw how many units the book sold, I don’t know CoR members personally. If I could write up a pile of dung like that and sell a million units I’d be happy, I’m like that.
Alan D McIntire says:
January 19, 2013 at 5:42 am
Jevons was a liberal in the “classic” sense. You can read his
“The Theory of Political Economy” here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnPE1.html#firstpage-bar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The key statement to me is
“Repeated reflection and inquiry have led me to the somewhat novel opinion, that value depends entirely upon utility. Prevailing opinions make labour rather than utility the origin of value; and there are even those who distinctly assert that labour is the cause of value. I show, on the contrary, that we have only to trace out carefully the natural laws of the variation of utility, as depending upon the quantity of commodity in our possession, in order to arrive at a satisfactory theory of exchange, of which the ordinary laws of supply and demand are a necessary consequence.”
Buggy whips come to mind and the fact horses and riding lessons cost about the same as they did in the 1960’s despite the fact that the actual value of the dollar has dropped like a rock.
“It’s the same for petroleum where the figure for no more reserves found is quoted.You can find some more data over at the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
I don’t know how reliable the rest of that list is, but the statements on LTG are definitely misleading.
”
The point is not that they had only a single prediction. The point is that their MODELS were incomplete, resulting in bogus predictions. Why would you predict no more reserves? As if technology won’t discover, and allow access to, more reserves over time than the moment the model is put forth? Alternative energy sources (much expanded natural gas is a replacement for oil in many applications) reduce rate of consumption… not really taken into account either, right? Minituration reduces need for copper and requires less power to do much more than what used to take a great deal of power to do inferior work (witness consumer cell phone vs Univac.) Simply extrapolating things from today is almost guaranteed to be a failed prediction.
Ultimately, any prediction is only as good as their assumptions. Climate Sci assumed that they knew exactly how the world works and have exact values for all of the coefficients. They’re wrong, which is why their predictions have been wrong.
No one can forecast with any degree of certainty because life is uncertain, and conditions change both independently and in response to the changing conditions. These are all “social science” issues. It’s soft and mushy, not like a nice hard science where a physicist may predict the properties of an unknown element accurately because science is science… it doesn’t really change within a given frame of reference.
Robbie says:
January 19, 2013 at 3:28 am
“Oh really Mr. Watts!
Are you trying to suggest to your audience with this piece that we (humans) can go on with business as usual for an unlimited amount of time on a planet that has a limited amount of space and resources?”
Time to dust off an old calculation of mine – I do this sort of thing as a first quantification of a possible problem: the entire population of the world could tread water in Lake Superior with 15 square metres of water each. If you want to crowd them into a square metre each, then the lake would hold 90 billion.
Okay that’s how much room we take up. Admittedly, we could use the earth’s resources much better and we have been making considerable improvements. As and example a 50s car averaged 1,680kg whereas today its at 1,100kg. With the electric car, (lithium ion batteries) we will be reducing it even further and with nothing coming out of an exhaust pipe – wow.
http://www.cefic-efra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=115
This sort of thing has been happening with locomotives, etc. etc. Aircraft have gotten much bigger but per passenger it is lighter. You see Robbie, the predictions failed because it isn’t valid to estimate population growth (the one factor they haven’t been too bad on predicting) and multiply it by the per capita kilos of horseshit that will be produced in the future. Regarding copper, lead, zinc and the like, not only have we been reducing our per capita consumption of these but we are recycling these valuable resources (~90% for lead and lead producers are worrying about the decline of the electric battery which is going the way of the dodo). Almost every ounce of gold that has been produced on the planet is largely still in inventory or circulation – we did lose a few Spanish galleons full but will probably find all these). What would we do about a shortage of zinc. Note that most of it is used for coating steel against corrosion: barn rooves, powerline pylons, culverts, automobile bodies ….
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zinc/index.html#mcs
The shortage isn’t in materials; it is in imagination. Regarding city growth, double the distance from the outskirts to the centre and you have a population of 4 times the smaller city. Moreover, with expansion of dwelling places in the vertical direction, we could perhaps get 6 times the population of the smaller city in the future. Indeed, with a population leveling off at less than 50% more than the present pop, we can state that cities have virtually already reached their largest dimensions. I hope this helps a bit.
Ive half a mind to write to the Royal Society in London, for admitting that moron ( Ehrlich)) to its ranks, including this sorry list of preposterous pontificating.
The RS clearly has a number of members with only half a mind too.
Where are the defenders of this illustrious body? Has no one got any balls anymore? Halfwits.
Joe Blogg-er says:
Why are some climate scientists inclined to frighten the rest of us with catastrophic predictions?
Sigmund Freud says:
It is the mother’s fault. “if you don’t eat your vegetables now, the nasty global warming is going to get you! “
Sam Norton (@Elizaphanian) says:
January 19, 2013 at 2:03 am
…Anyone who thinks we’re not running up against some resource limits needs to have an alternative, and preferably plausible, explanation for why the tripling of oil prices over the last decade has seen no significant increase in the production of oil.
—————————————————————————————————-
Try “Devaluation of the Dollar”.
fact is that the Dollar was devaluated (inflated) three-fold over the exact timeframe to which you are referring to (see the Dollar vs. Gold-ratio). Therefore, the price of Crude has in fact not changed one bit. It’s only the currency in which it is priced, which has lot two-thirds of it’s value, compared to oil / Gold, during the past 19 years.
Hyperinflation coming – anyone? .
Because oil prices are now decided in the City of London on the futures market. They’re not tied to production cost. The City of London buys up the oil market, essentially taking possession.
http://www.ibtimes.com/crude-oil-futures-fall-superstorm-sandy-dampens-demand-856046
Ehrlich: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people”
Neil: “By the year 2013 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of islands, inhabited by some 70 million unjustly impoverished and angry people”
Unjustly impoverished by you and your kind, Paul.
Robbie says:
January 19, 2013 at 3:28 am
Oh really Mr. Watts!
Are you trying to suggest to your audience with this piece that we (humans) can go on with business as usual for an unlimited amount of time on a planet that has a limited amount of space and resources?
———————
I don’t think Anthony Watts insinuates much, he seems to speak his piece in a pretty straightforward way.
Speaking for myself though, yes. So long as people are free (government interference is minimized) to try to get rich (three cheers for the power of the profit motive) solving resource problems (capitalism, science, and technology are kept alive and well) we’re going to be OK. The real fear I’ve got is that politicians following the policy recommendations of the IPCC will knock us back to the Dark Ages and effectively remove humanity’s ability to cope with these problems.
It is alright to laugh at the failed predictions of the past. Question is how to learn from this. It could be that there could be potential problems out there will suddenly magnify into much larger, calamitous ones – like AIDS. We need to be able to sort the good evidence from the speculative and the plain crazy.
An example is WS Jevons. In “The Coal Question” 1865 Jevons did predict that coal would run out in England by 1900. He also made some insights on renewable energy that are still relevant 150 years on.
On Wind Power
“The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire.”
On Hydro
“When an abundant natural fall of water is at hand, nothing can be cheaper or better than water power. But everything depends upon local circumstances.” Then went on to describe the expense of building reservoirs.
Jevons also pointed out that more efficient means of energy use also leads to higher consumption not lower. More efficient light bulbs, for instance, increase the demand for light, so can lead to more energy consumption.
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/11/economist-magazine-debate-renewable-energy-can-the-euuk-intelligentsia-wean-itself-off-renewables-i/
Again I would like to recommend everyone to read one of the most thought provoking and brilliant books I have ever read: Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail And Why Do We Believe Them Anyway by Dan Gardner.
You could say that Ehrlich plays the lead part.
@Sam Norton January 19, 2013 at 2:03 am
Sam you’ve overlooked or ignored the oil and natural gas fracking boom going on around the globe. This boom is set to provide the world enough natural gas for a couple of hundred years or more, and oil for a hundred or so years. That’s if they only recover about 30% of the shale oil and natural gas. Don’t bet on them not figuring out how to get perhaps 75% in the next 20 years or so.
By coincidence, today at http://www.thegwpf.org/ is a reprint of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
BBC 2007 :
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
which includes this beauty –
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
One might be tempted (or lead) to think that with all this accrued knowledge and wisdom you might be on the issuing-end of a monthly financial newsletter, or perhaps another reigning financial maven in the Warren Buffet class dispatching wise, sage advice to an admiring crowd.
But, sadly, no …
Instead, ‘product constitution’ consists of a populist re-hash of ‘agitprop’ straight from the muck-raking (newspaper) era … does the name Ida M. Tarball ring a bell?
.
.
PS. You are as free as the next person to invest in the commodities futures market.
.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 NKJ
Thomas P says:
January 19, 2013 at 7:18 am
“The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, ”
“That report consedered several different scenarios. The 1981 figure is what they got if they assumed exponential growth in demand and no new reserves found.”
Thomas, these LTG assumptions by themselves show that linear thinking amateurs are at work. Reserves are the measured amounts at a particular time and is a function of expensive cost of drilling off reserves and the amount required for forward mine planning. No mine operator needs more than 10 years of reserves (20-25 for a new mine for feasibility) for this purpose. The actual deposit usually has several to many multiples of this amount. For example, nickel production in the Sudbury area of Ontario started about 1905 (or thereabouts) with some 20 years measured reserves. The basin is still producing nickel at a much greater rate than in 1905 and for many decades was the world’s largest nickel producer – surpassed by bigger ones developed since in Russsia. The rapid rise in price with Chinese industrial development in recent years created a rush for nickel and literally hundreds of nickel projects suddenly came into being. Trust me (I have been doing mining feasibility studies for over 30 years), these guys will be off the mark by more than a 1000% and that doesn’t take into account the fact the nickel, etc are also being more and more efficiently recycled – lead for example about 90% recycled. We are safe on what we know now for more than a century from now and I’m confident that will be true a century later. It is hard to educate people on this. They research world “reserves” and then divide it by annual production to get how long it will last.
The only horseshit we are being buried in is publications like this, Ehrlich’s, and the IPCC.
Minor typos [INDICATED LIKE THIS]:
Telltale signs are everywhere–from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh [IN THE] waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro[M] the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia [CANADIAN] Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”
Apologies if these have already been noted.
IanM
The only response to that is a very hardy Bill Cosby-class “Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight ….”
.
hannuko says:
January 19, 2013 at 8:10 am
Again I would like to recommend everyone to read one of the most thought provoking and brilliant books I have ever read: Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail And Why Do We Believe Them Anyway by Dan Gardner.
==================================================================
I’ve read it.
An excellent read
Martin Luther King ,Robert Kennedy both Assassinated .Tet Offensive,the US Embassy in Saigon over ran live on American Television,Wood stock, Rolling Stones at Altermont Speedway and then Charles Mansion finally killed the off the Hippy Dream.All happened in the same year.America under attack from inside and out.1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb.Just reflecting the social angst of the time.
http://www.zonu.com/fullsize-en/2009-11-06-10885/The-Earth-from-the-Moon.html
Then one year later 1969 America Neal Armstrong standing on the moon looked back towards our planet perhaps . Human kind wasn’t so bad after all.
PS Al Gore releases Inconvenient Truth the same year as 9 11.