Seven Earth Day predictions that failed spectacularly

Never Trust The Doom-Mongers: Earth Day Predictions That Were All Wrong

EarthDay_Envorinmental_Scares
The Daily Caller, 22 April 2016

Andrew Follett

Environmentalists truly believed and predicted that the planet was doomed during the first Earth Day in 1970, unless drastic actions were taken to save it. Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.
So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.
Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying. From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven green predictions that were just flat out wrong.

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 or 30 Years.”
Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
Wald was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. He even flew to Moscow at one point to advise the leader of the Soviet Union on environmental policy.
Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving to Death During the Next Ten Years.”
Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably increased despite increases in population.
Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.

3: “Population Will Inevitably and Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases in Food Supplies We Make.”
Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.
Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, the Entire World … Will Be in Famine.”
Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines 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 conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.

5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have to Wear Gas Masks to Survive Air Pollution.”
Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution … by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”
Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.

6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless the Parents Hold a Government License.”
David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.
Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.
Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.

7: “By the Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil.”
On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “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.’”
Numerous academics like Watt predicted that American oil production peaked in 1970 and would gradually decline, likely causing a global economic meltdown. However, the successful application of massive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, caused American oil production to come roaring back and there is currently too much oil on the market.
American oil and natural gas reserves are at their highest levels since 1972 and American oil production in 2014 was 80 percent higher than in 2008 thanks to fracking.
Furthermore, the U.S. now controls the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation in Colorado. This formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil shale, half of which may be recoverable. That’s five and a half times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This single geologic formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined.

Via Benny Peiser. (H/T, Ronald Bailey at Reason and Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute).

354 thoughts on “Seven Earth Day predictions that failed spectacularly

    • For many it’s a power over others scheme.
      Though typically power over others also results in more money to those in power.

      • They’re passing their eco-rational tipping point, where absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      • Absolutely, Mark. All of the green malarkey is ultimately to pave the way for bigger and bigger government; a power grab. It explains why the lunatics who make these crazy predictions are not only not discredited when it becomes obvious to all that they were completely wrong, they are lionized and promoted. Currently Paul Ehrlich, who to my knowledge hasn’t been correct about anything, ever, in his field, is a professor of “population studies” at none other than Stanford U. Pretty nice gig for someone who has demonstrated he doesn’t know squat about population studies.

    • “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years.” They were right about one thing. Maybe a little early and for the wrong reason but it’s slowly falling apart day by day.

      • Joe: Bet Erlich is pretty pissed, he spent all these years, resources, effort predicting the fall of civ., even trying his best to bring it down, yet he has failed, only to see it being done by a few dozen guys in dresses demanding to use the ladies’ room.

    • No, it’s a scheme to fund a global government, while diminishing western civilizations through unfair global carbon taxes meant to shut down energy.

    • Yep, good old Al Gore and his minions have made millions from the gullibility of the Democrat Plantation minions. They snicker all the way to their gold vaults.

  1. The Sierra Club has killed millions via poverty caused by idiot politicians following their policies. Right now the PM of Canada is a puppet of a former Sierra Club leader, (G. Butts) the man who designed Ontario’s disastrous Green Energy plan that has resulted in over 500,000 lost jobs.

    • “Ontario’s disastrous Green Energy plan that has resulted in over 500,000 lost jobs.”

      Also: our rates are going up because we didn’t use enough power during a mild winter…

      • I am almost unable to speak because I am so angry about this issue. Our premiere of Ontario better hope I don’t see her on the street because I will give her a giant earful if I do and I might not be polite.

        Matt

      • Hey hoser, I’m with you. Oh, Canada! With Pride! Unfortunately, those frenchies in ottowa (and all of Quebec) are bent on destroying a perfectly well positioned (geographically and, more importantly, unencumbered by the global corrupt philosophy that we’re entrenched in) country that is CA. Your beautiful nation with 35 million people who, in my experience, are good natured, interesting and laid back, humorous and naturally pleasant, have been duped into Western Euro Socialism and you’ve become addicted to the same failures that will ultimately bring you down. There’s no going back and we’ll watch each other slide down the same failure route together, so it seems.

        Negative, I know, but it’s a sad state of affairs. CA’s political and moral path would seem less complicated and easier to adjust than the US, with our 350 million desperate and divided factions of confused and racially charged people. Either way, please show your strength through world hockey that gives us all hope that you’re still the land of Wayne Gretzky, LaPointe, Hull, Mikita, ……..Love you guys and I wish you the best!

  2. Indeed, why stop now. Seems nothing succeeds quite like absolute failure. Especially with the average cow… I mean person….

  3. The environmentalist doom sayers have learned a lesson. Their predictions now cover 100 years! No more predictions that only cover 30-40 years that people remember.

    • “Population Will Inevitably and Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases in Food Supplies We Make.”
      Earlich might have been correct if the 1970’s had resulted in the dread ice age that every one was looking forward to…

      • A doubling of CO2 to 800ppm and crop yields are through the roof. This, by the way, would benefit even subsistence crop farmers at any location in the world.

    • Plus no more predictions of an environmental catastrophe that’s supposed to happen during the lifetime of the people they’re trying to fleece.

  4. Dang! I hate it when the world ends and I miss it! Happens every time, too. EVERY…SINGLE…TIME!!!

    • Not just unhinged, but flailing about in their predicted increase in hurricanes and sharknadoes..

  5. And don’t forget:

    All seven Great Lakes becoming burning chemical pits of unquenchable fire that will cover the Earth in smoke, cutting off sunlight and plunging the planet into one last lethal Ice Age.

    Global thermonuclear war in the year 2000 over dwindling food and fresh water supplies.

    You’re not trying hard enough, humanity!

    • More scares that never happened:

      • Polar bears becoming extinct

      • Runaway global warming

      • Sea level rise accelerating

      • Polar ice will disappear

      • Manhattan, Florida, and Tuvalu submerged

      • Increasing hurricanes and severe weather events

      NONE of those predictions ever came true. Not one of them. They were all wrong.

      As Einstein, Feynman, Popper, Langmuir and other famous scientists pointed out: If your ‘theory’ is contradicted by observtion, your ‘theory’ is WRONG.

      As Feynman said, “That’s all there is to it.”

      • Hi! I just wanted to address some of the claims that you pointed out and just provide some information for consideration about why these things are happening, and if they are not how they should not be considered as an indicator that climate change is not a reality and impending issue that needs to be addressed. A common misconception about these predictions is that people believe that someone is predicting this will definitely happen. However they often mean that under the best scientific knowledge, if humans continue behaving and consuming the way that they are, these predictions will come to fruition.
        “Polar Bears Becoming Extinct”
        According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (commonly referred to as the WWF or World Wildlife Fund), in 1973 the US government classified the Polar Bear as an Endangered Species (Under the ESA act). Then in 2005, their status was changed from ‘least concern’ to vulnerable’, demonstrating that their populations have been steadily declining. Now today, 3 populations of Polar bears are in decline still, but due to incredible work from various foreign powers 1 population is increasing and 6 populations are now stable. This demonstrates my earlier point about how due to changes in legislature, polar bear populations are beginning to stabilize and humans are rectifying the damage they made to this species.
        “Runaway Global Warming”
        For arguments sake, I am going to assume that you meant increasing temperatures. According to NASA’s temperature analysis, the global temperature of the earth has increased by about .8 degrees Celsius since 1880. At the current point where we are now, our current lifestyles are not possible if the temperature increases 2 degrees Celsius. While this may not seem like a high amount, considering the age of the earth helps to put this into perspective. The earth is billions of years old and temperatures have naturally risen and fallen throughout that time period. However, the rise since 1880 is unprecedented and dangerous. Two-thirds of this global warming has happened since 1975. These temperature rises are not natural and cannot and should not be justified as a natural occurrence. These dates coincidences with the industrial revolution and energy usage in the MEDCs of the world demonstrates that the only possible explanation for this rise is human caused. If we continue to rise in temperature at the rate that we are rising, the results could be disastrous. For example, a one to two degree drop in temperature caused the Little Ice Age. A mere five degrees buried North America under Ice for 20,000 years. To look at this in the context of warming, a five degree rise in global temperature was enough to melt 20,000 year old ice. This is important and this is human caused and we need to be acknowledging this and addressing this. 99% of scientist agree that global temperature rise is real, dangerous, and human caused. The only people debating this are those not of scientific backgrounds such as politicians, media personal, economists, and others.
        Your next three points are fairly connected so I am going to address them all at once (also because this post is getting rather lengthy). “Sea level rise accelerating”, “Polar ice will disappear”, “Manhattan, Florida and Tuvalu submerged”.
        Sea level rise is happening because of two things. There is being added water from the land ice that is currently melting due to temperature changes but also because of a phenomenon that any elementary science class could explain, yet it is often overlooked. As water is warmed, it expands. Sea level is currently rising at a rate of change of 3.42 mm per year, and while that may not seem like a lot, my earlier points should continue to explain how the smallest fluctuations in the earth affect us dramatically. This rate is continuously rising and it is posing a large threat. You are entirely correct in stating that “Manhattan, Florida, and Tuvalu submerged” has not happened. However small island nations such as the Solomon Islands, while not completely submerged are quickly losing landmass and are experiencing more damaging storms. In August of 2015 a town on the Solomon Islands relocated because of the dangerous sea level rises. This is real. This is happening. We cannot sit ideally by and watch these sea levels continue to affect so many communities of people due to our wrong actions.
        On to the polar ice caps. Yes they are melting. However in some places they are growing. Surely this means that climate change cannot be real? Wrong. This just serves to demonstrate the reality of climate change and how much it is really changing the makeup of our planet.
        “Increasing hurricanes and severe weather events”
        All you need to do is to watch the news and witness the unusual events in Texas, think back to Super Storm Sandy, and think about the countless extreme floods that we have become immune to because they are so prevalent in our media to realize how this is happening. Human induced climate changed has increased high temperatures heavy downpours, severe floods and droughts, and this is just in the US. We are causing climate change, and it is our responsibility to address this and to fix this.

        Thank you for reading my response and I respectfully ask that all replies to this are attacks on the content of this and not the character of the author. Climate change is caused by humans and it is affecting our beautiful planet that we have a responsibility to care for. Please consider this information and think about ways that you can reduce the negative impact that you have on the climate (it can be as simple as carpooling! everything helps!) and how we can make reparations for the wrongs committed against mother earth.

      • kdwankelman says:

        However, the rise since 1880 is unprecedented and dangerous.

        I just picked that factoid as an example of the misinformation you’re spreading. Where do you get that nonsense?

        Everything you wrote is your opinion, and most all of it is wrong. You assert:

        “Climate change is caused by humans.”

        But as usual, you never quantify anything. Is 0.000001ºC (warming or cooling; take your pick) caused by humans? Or is your invented “0.8º” caused by humans? And how is ‘it’ caused? Certainly, CO2 cannot be the cause, because global warming stopped for almost 20 years, while CO2 continued its steady, harmless, and beneficial rise. Furthermore, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. Effect cannot precede cause, so there goes your pseudo-science conjecture, right out the window.

        Back to your “unprecedented and dangerous” global warming. This is what your hand-waving is all about:

        All your assertions are pretty much copied and pasted from thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs. But this is the internet’s “Best Science” site, and that sort of misinformation doesn’t fly here. As a matter of fact, there is nothing either unprecedented, or unusual happening with global T. Everything being observed now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.

        The next time you try to make similar assertions, be specific, instead of peddling the usual climate alarmist pablum.

      • Hi! All of my resources are from either the WWF and NASA.gov. None of my information was taken from a blog, let alone “alarmist blogs”. I understand that I did skip some of the smaller details in my reply, but my post was already fairly lengthy and I was concerned that it would not get read if I continued into those. I am more than willing to break down the level of human involvement and the dangers of the rising climate change using reliable and data backed numbers.
        “Climate Change is caused by humans”
        It would be reductionist to reduce all of climate change to CO2, but it would also be ignoring the facts to not acknowledge CO2 significant role in the changing climates. The impact that the burning of fossil fuels and other similar energy expenditure is two part. It is attacking the ozone layer allowing more heat energy into the atmosphere and then creating greenhouse gasses that trap that same energy into the atmosphere and not allowing it to be released. This is a simplified explanation of a complicated chemical process, but to go into all of those details would consume many more words than I have to write here, I am sure you understand. This would not be as prevalent if it were not for the huge rise in industry that humans have gone in relativity (in terms of the earth’s age) recent history. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels has increased from approximately 1000 million tons in 1900 to almost 8000 million tons in 2006. This is heavily impacted the processes I described earlier.
        Also I would love to see a source for the graph you provided as it contradicts data found on NASA (a governmental organization tasked with collecting this information) which is a source that I and many others, would consider to be a valid and strong source.

        I would encourage you to explore this website and to see all the information that they provide on the reality of human caused climate change : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

      • All of my resources are from either the WWF and NASA.gov. None of my information was taken from a blog, let alone “alarmist blogs”.

        The WWF runs an alarmist blog. So does NASA. Their misinformation has a mountain of documentation here.

        You can parrot that misinformation all you like. But it’s still misinformation, based on nothing more than assertions.

        Wake me when you can produce a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement quantifying AGW.

        Until then, you’ve got nothin’.

      • Also one more thing. You sought to discredit me with stating that all of this is “your opinion”. You are most certainly correct, however I have formed my opinion through extensive research, some of what comes from courses on environmental science that I have taken. This is my opinion, and it is also the opinion of many other well educated and scientifically minded people. What you rebutted with is just as much your opinion, and while I disagree, I do not disagree based simply on the fact that it is opinion. Your statement attacking me saying “But as usual, you never quantify anything.” was opinion and wrong. But it was not wrong because it was opinion, it was incorrect because there were numerous places in my comment where I cited numbers and data. Opinion, especially when backed by valid, scientific evidence and data, is not a strong enough source of rebuttal. I find that trying to discredit someone because they showed “opinion” is only used when one has run out of other valid claims to make.

      • kdwankerman says:

        You sought to discredit me…

        You’re doing a fine job of that yourself. Keep digging.

        When Planet Earth tells me I’m on the wrong track, I will sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, the planet and skeptics of the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare are on the same page.

        It is the alarmist contingent that is constantly being contradicted by observations, not skeptics. As Prof Richard Feynman pointed out, if your ‘theory’ is contradicted by observations, then your ‘theory’ is wrong.

        Feynman concluded: “That’s all there is to it.”

      • kdwankelman, I commend you on your calm presentation of your position and your apparent willingness to dig into the issue a bit beyond the headlines.

        However, you should scratch WWF and any other green NGOs as sources of reliable information. They need CAGW for fundraising and the more dire picture they paint the more dollars roll in.

        As for NASA, I submit this page http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ as evidence that, while they do still do some worthwhile science, those heading up their climate change research are as vested in advocacy and propaganda as science. None of the consensus studies listed on this page stand up to methodological scrutiny. I further commend you for not including “the consensus” with your other AGW “evidence”. That NASA does should raise a red flag to you.

        You’ve provided a long list of observational evidence that the planet is warming, which is not disputed by most skeptics. How much it is warming and the cause of that warming is what matters and where we part with the CAGW proponents..

        Much of the underlying support for CAGW comes from the IPCC reports, an organization purporting to conduct an objective review of the current science by the best and the brightest. There is so much evidence to the contrary I will cite only one example from one of their own reports. If you want further evidence go to Donna LaFramboise’s site – https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/climate-bible/ page – and browse . I also suggest you buy her first ebook – “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” – for a thorough under-the-hood expose on the IPCC.

        The example from their own report: in the IPCC 2013 SPM, footnote bottom of page 14 (of the report, or page 20 of the pdf) – https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf they state: “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

        Yet on the very next page they claim: “It is extremely likely [ie 95-100% certain] that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

        So they admit to not being able to zero in on the actual climate response to CO2 but are 95% – 100% certain that “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” That’s not objective science, it’s something else – advocacy, propaganda, sloppiness – take your pick. But it isn’t an objective conclusion.

        To tackle just one of your misconceptions, you claim: “Two-thirds of this global warming has happened since 1975. These temperature rises are not natural and cannot and should not be justified as a natural occurrence.”

        The first sentence may be accurate – I don’t know the actual numbers and the historical temps keep getting adjusted so even if false 2 years ago it might be true now. The second falls into the “unprovable” category as per the above IPCC admission, though there is more evidence negating than supporting it. Also, Phil Jones himself (of Climate Gate fame), has said “As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.

        Links to the source of the quote and other info showing no statistically significant difference between those two periods can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6AFlVr1W0Mrb1FnYXlnXzBNck0/view

        You seem sincere in your quest to get to the truth. To do so you will need to spend more time on WUWT or other skeptical sites to get “the other side” of the debate (see the sidebar for a good list). If all you ever read, watch and hear confirms what you posted, it is because you have placed yourself in an information cocoon. Do yourself a favor and consider the sKeptic’s side with an open mind.

        P.S. Regarding the chart DB posted…You say it contradicts data found on NASA and it might. None of the government data collators have data that agree with each other. I forget if that chart uses Hadcrut, NOAA or Met data but it is based on one of the government data sources. I duplicated it myself a while ago with the data in the file linked to below and Excel. What you interpret as a discrepancy is nothing but scale. That chart is drawn using the scale you might find on a back yard thermometer whereas most climate data charts you see exaggerate that scale by a factor of 10 or so making even the smallest changes seem very large.

        Here’s a link to a data file you can download and play with in Excel or other charting program to see how changing the scale flattens the temperature variation as shown in DB’s chart: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/12/10/1880-2015.csv?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1881&lasttrendyear=2015

      • ” Then in 2005, their status was changed from ‘least concern’ to vulnerable’, demonstrating that their populations have been steadily declining. Now today, 3 populations of Polar bears are in decline still, but due to incredible work from various foreign powers 1 population is increasing and 6 populations are now stable. ”

        I think this information is inaccurate. Can you provide any links to show the ‘incredible work from various foreign powers’ that you speak of? The only thing I can think of that would be reasonably close would be the International Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat, 1973, but, the US (as well as the former USSR) is a signatory on that Agreement and, to be honest, it doesn’t really require any of the signees to perform any ‘incredible’ work to preserve Polar Bears and it was directed more at the circumstances under which Polar Bears could be hunted/gathered for scientific research.

        – In the ESA (1973) there is no such classification as ‘least concern’ or ‘vulnerable’ (in the entire 44 pages of the Act there are only ‘threatened’ and ‘endangered’ classifications (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESAall.pdf) and certainly no such change was made under ESA in 2005. An interesting side note from reading the act is that the term ‘endangered’ is explicitly defined in the Act but the term ‘threatened’ is never defined, nor are the criteria for establishing a specie as ‘threatened’ vs ‘endangered’ ever defined.

        “in 1973 the US government classified the Polar Bear as an Endangered Species (Under the ESA act)”

        — 1973 is when the ESA was signed into law and Polar Bears were NOT classified as an endangered species in 1973 and, to this day, they are still not classified as ‘endangered’. https://seaworld.org/Animal-Info/Animal-InfoBooks/Polar-Bears/Conservation-and-Research, “As of 2008, polar bears are listed as “threatened” on the U.S. Endangered Species List.

        If your sources (WWF?) told you they were classified as endangered in 1973 and that the ‘classification’ was changed in 2005 from ‘least concern’ to ‘vulnerable’, I would be very concerned about the accuracy of anything else that source claims.

        Under the ESA, threatened’ is a precursor to being classified as ‘endangered’ but it is not the same thing. The classification was made based on, in the words of DOI Sec Kempthorne, “The decision was based on evidence that sea ice is vital for polar bear survival, that this sea ice habitat has been reduced, and that this process is likely to continue; if something is not done to change this situation, the polar bear will be extinct within 45 years, Kempthorne said. He pointed to computer models he and his colleagues studied that project a 30 percent decline in sea ice by 2050”.

        Reference Dr Susan Crockford’s work on Polar Bears (she is an evolutionary biologist who’s specialty is Polar Bear evolution) – http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf – that establishes that level of sea ice is NOT ‘vital’ to Polar Bear survival, in fact, thick sea ice has been demonstrated to be far more of a threat to Polar Bear populations than thin sea ice (1974 Beaufort event, when thick sea ice decimated Seal populations and Polar Bears starved in large numbers as a result). The ‘models’ used have not, to this day, been validated as to being in the least reflective of observations of actual Arctic Sea Ice behavior.

        You seem to be a well meaning person interested in reasonable discussion. I salute your willingness to discuss the issues here.

      • You can tell yourself that none of those things have come true, but that’s not entirely accurate. Some of them certainly have not come to pass (submerged cities), but other are happening or in the process of happening. Sea level rise has been accelerating and you only have to look at the data.

        We’ve been taking sea level data for more than 100 years and in the last 20 years it’s risen at double the annual rate of the preceding 80 (about .15″ a year). That doesn’t sound like much, but over 100 years that’s added up to about a 6 inch rise in the global mean sea level. Small changes have big impacts especially on soil erosion and storm strength for coastal cities. Higher sea levels make for more powerful storm surges that can damage structures and sensitive environments.

        Sea levels have risen for a few reasons. Emissions of heat trapping gases, both natural and man-made, have caused global temperatures to rise. About half of the sea level rise can be attributed directly to this heat as water expands as it warms and oceans are a huge absorb lots of heat. Longer summers and reduced snowfall has led to Greenland/Antarctic ice sheets melting more in the summer and not replenishing themselves as much in the winter. Warmer sea temperatures work to melt ice sheets that extends out from Antarctica from the bottom so they weaken and break off.

        And lastly, severe weather events have absolutely become more frequent, ask any meteorologist. Heat waves are more frequent, prolonged and intense, while cold waves have been shorter and more mild. Flooding and droughts are more commonplace, especially in the western US. Downpours have become heavier which sounds great in light of the other stuff, but it contributes to increased erosion and flooding.

        The end of the world isn’t upon us, but it helps to have some facts to go with those claims of yours

      • Jason,

        You’re misrepresenting my comment: I wrote that none of the “scary” predictions have come true.

        And there is nothing “in the process” of happening that is alarming.

        Your assertion regarding accelerating sea levels is flat wrong. Where do you get your misinformation from? An alarmist blog? It figures.

        Next, snowfall is well within past parameters; that’s just another of your misrepresentations. And “downpours have become heavier”?? Please. That’s just a baseless assertion. A “downpour” is an extremely local, and usually a fast moving event. How is that measured and quantified?

        Severe weather events have been steadily declining for decades. Where do you get your misinformation? You’re spreading pseudo-science. Please do it elsewhere. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. We don’t need alarmist parrots here, we need verifiable facts.

        I can provide links to corroborate every comment I’ve made here: there is nothing either alarming, unusual, or unprecedented happening with global temperatures, or severe weather events, or snowfall, or with sea level rise. Everything currently being observed has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.

        But of course, if the alarmist crowd can’t scare the public, the public will lose interest. That’s why climate alarmists lie about “dangerous man-made global warming”. If they told the truth, no one would be alarmed.

      • Your observations are a bit off base. Global warming, sea level rising, polar ice disappearing and increasing severe weather (Cyclones in Far East) are facts of today’s life. Take off your dark glasses and look at what’s going on around you. Everything that you and your crowd says is not beneficial to anyone. Why don’t you all try thinking of what to do about Greenland melting? Try a little creativity.

    • Global thermonuclear war
      Well, they (and the “news” people) had to find something to replace the mostly new-forgotten fear of that particular boogeyman, so…

    • bobthebear,

      I think your ‘observations’ are off base here

      Worldwide cyclonic energy (Hurricanes, Typhoons, & Tornadoes) are at 30 year lows in both intensity & frequency, 2015 being a record low for tornadoes in the US, ‘severe’ weather is not increasing – not that we have any way to measure such a thing, although I would submit that total cyclonic energy comes closest to being a measure of ‘severe’ weather. Sea levels are rising, but at the same rate they have been since the end of the little ice age in the 1700’s, polar ice is NOT disappearing (overall worldwide sea ice levels are at about the same level they were in the 70’s), & lastly Greenland is not melting, it is adding ice mass in the center as is the West Antarctic ice sheet.

  6. Oh well, it would have been bad IF we were right and IF we hadn’t said anything, none of this would have changed.

    Ha!

      • If you think that’s impressive, You should check out my facebook and see how many jobs I have claimed to save personally for the economy. If you have a job, I probably saved it for you…

  7. Can they find ANY predictions that did come true?
    Back in the ’70s, it was Global Cooling.
    I will always remember that as soon as Freon was banned, talk of the ozone hole completely disappeared.

    • And 25 years later, the Natural Phenomenon known as the “Ozone Hole” is statistically unchanged. The Freon Alarmists proclaimed that we need another 25 years to see the effects of the Freon Ban! But we can see the effects today — Higher energy consumption because the Freon Replacements are less Efficient resulting in higher energy consumption. And, of course, everyone had to replace their old tech with new because the Freon replacements won’t work in the older equipment. DuPont Chemical prospered mainly because instead of producing the old Freon Compounds at Pennies per ton, they now charge Dollars per pound for the new stuff.

      • Rickboom You do know that the ozone hole is over the south pole don’t you. So while I’m sunning myself outside at the south pole where the temp never gets above -30 I will were some sunscreen. /sarc

      • Yeah – flying cars – and we were all supposed to be speaking Esperanto, weren’t we?

      • Yes this is an animation. Their current actual model is no way near as cool. (No VSTOL for instance). This one is in development and they have actually started forming carbon though they aren’t at the test flight phase yet (that I have heard.) But I definitely want one once they are produced if I can only get my big oil checks so I can afford the “high end sports car” price tag. (still waiting on those checks!!!!)

      • Nah – all the engineers trained, and then were eventually replaced, by their replacements: $10/hour CAD operators clicking buttons on centally-controlled Big Buck Software in Beijing and Mumbai. “High Value Engineering”, they call it.

  8. I am old enough to remember when those predictions were made. As I am still here, Ehrlich et al and et nauseam were not quite right. It is rather like various evangelical religions preaching to me a bit earlier that Jesus was coming back in the early 1970’s. As neither occurred, I rather lack faith in either group’s preaching.

    • These guys gave dire warning about current behaviour in the 70’s. today we wrork on renewable resource for energy reducing our need for oil, which was not mentioned as contributer to this oil glut, we reycle more and conserve more. these are the changes needed in behavuor to keep us going. if we had not made these changes, for example in the 70’s los angeles had smog so bad thatyou couldn’t see the hills, with changes in in thpuhght and behavour patterns l a now has cleaner air, so these guys warning were on the mark and UI for one am glad these people raised the alarm so we can survive today!

      • The acolytes really do believe this kind of stuff.
        Exactly how much oil per year do we save by recycling? Or does the energy needed to recycle exceed the oil saved?
        Yes, some places have improved marginally, but improvements were already being made prior to the 70’s.
        As to conserving more, do you have any idea how much switching to fluorescent and LED lights has saved?
        Less than 1% of total energy production.

      • You’re ‘renewable resource for energy’ costs more money to build and install the equipment than it ever pays back in produced energy. That’s why it only flourishes with government subsidies and the private sector won’t touch it.
        Oil is the energy of the present and the future.

      • “…renewable resource for energy reducing our need for oil…” Renewables do not reduce our oil dependence.
        “…we recycle more …” Other than aluminum, recycling costs more energy than it saves.

      • There are literally hundreds of millions more cars on the roads worldwide now than there were in the seventies. Demand for oil is higher than ever and yet there’s still a glut.
        Conservation has nothing to do with the glut at all. The fact is we’re pumping more oil than ever and supply is outstripping demand.

      • World oil consumption is at a record level and projected to grow by over 25% in the next 30 years

      • Good points Bob. The predictions were alarmist and missed a few things which did really make a difference. But as you say, they sounded a warning trumpet and many of the technological benefits promoted by these concerns have been a real boon to humanity.

    • A common misconception about these predictions is that people believe that someone is predicting this will definitely happen. However they often mean that under the best scientific knowledge, if humans continue behaving and consuming the way that they are, these predictions will come to fruition. This can be clearly seen under the common cited claim of polar bears becoming extinct. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (commonly referred to as the WWF or World Wildlife Fund), in 1973 the US government classified the Polar Bear as an Endangered Species (Under the ESA act). Then in 2005, their status was changed from ‘least concern’ to vulnerable’, demonstrating that their populations have been steadily declining. Now today, 3 populations of Polar bears are in decline still, but due to incredible work from various foreign powers 1 population is increasing and 6 populations are now stable. This demonstrates my earlier point about how due to changes in legislature, polar bear populations are beginning to stabilize and humans are rectifying the damage they made to this species.

      • kdwankelman,

        Please peddle your eco-scares elsewhere. As usual, all you’re doing is making baseless assertions — and they’re flat wrong.

        The WWF has an agenda, and they support their narrative with propaganda. If you want to actually learn something, put some keywords in the search box, like “polar bears”. Or “WWF”.

        There are polar bear experts who comment here. They have shown conclusively that the predictions of polar bears being decimated by human emissions is rank nonsense.

        Rather than parrot the WWF’s eco-propaganda, try to think for yourself. If that’s too much to ask, then take a few weeks to get up to speed on the issue. The WUWT archives are very helpful — IF you want to learn.

      • As I mentioned, I am reaching old fart status. None of those predictions were made in the mode of “if we don’t stop….., then……”, they were flat predictions. Good try, though in defending the indefensible :-)

      • A good analogy is that we were driving towards a cliff and someone in the back seat warned us, so we turned away. Some people are say we would never have gone off the cliff, someone would have built a bridge or the car would have sprouted wings. But we did take action and benefitted from those initiatives.
        There are further warnings now of danger ahead, but the severity of that danger or exactly what it is is what keep the popularity of this site high. Personally I believe climate science is largely correct, though occasionally over egged. I used to be a sceptic, but many years of reading and participating in this forum convinced me I was wrong, so in a paradoxical way, this forum does work, but sometimes not in the way it is intended.

  9. The thing about eschatology – everyone who has predicted the End of Times has been wrong – since the Beginning of Time.

    • Always remember Tom Lehrer’s, “We will all go together when we go.”. The sheet music has the instruction, “To be sung escatagologically.”

  10. “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.’”

    Extra fail points earned for failing to predict the demise (largely) of the gas pump attendant.

    • Charlie April 22, 2016 at 11:01 am
      “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.’”

      wrong FAIL.

      “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ” Here’s your sign” Mac, its self service.
      (Oregon excluded)

      michael :-D

      • @ Mike the M, 11: 57 am, Nope we still have stations that have attendants, really good ones and their gas is one penny less than the self serve ones as well, they even wash your windows, head lights etc. >!!!! BC Canada , Super Save gas and no ethanol either! ( and no I don’t work for them although I wish they would have car washes).

  11. The force of advocacy-based prediction has always been some small fraction of gravity in the grand scheme of things. It’s the smallest force know to physics.

  12. ENVIRONMENTAL
    They may mince or incinerate birds
    And dice bats into quarters or thirds,
    Still, wind power is “clean,”
    Solar energy “green” –
    If you’re willing to redefine words.
    (2015)

    IXNAY
    Every year when they celebrate Earth,
    The green socialists generate mirth,
    Trying not to betray
    The true aim of “Earth Day,”
    Which from Pig Latin translates as “dearth.”
    (2014)

    SOLARCENY
    Barry’s Bandits have found a new way
    To get rich without working a day:
    They’ve no need for a gun,
    ‘Cause they just use the sun
    To get ‘loans’ that they’ll never repay.
    (2011)

    FAITH IN GORE
    “All you skeptics who try to besmirch
    Our beliefs will be left in the lurch
    As we celebrate dearth
    And increase our net worth
    At St. Albert Gore’s Climate Change Church.”
    (2011)

    ARTIFICIAL FAMINE
    There’s no benefit to coal
    If you cannot dig a hole,
    And the value is nil
    Of oil you can’t drill.
    Who would favor such control?
    (2011)

    CAP’N TRADE
    “Here I come to save the day!
    Everyone will have to pay!
    I will pull a switch
    That will make me rich
    As my stock goes up and away!”
    (2009)

    WELL, WELL, WELL
    Well, I’m not exactly thrilled
    When I get my gas tank filled,
    But it makes my blood boil
    To know that there’s oil
    In reserves of our own to be drilled.
    (2008)

    ABATED BREATH
    Whether sickly or healthy and hale,
    We object when the air gets too stale,
    But what shall we do
    When they ban CO2
    And deny us the right to exhale?
    (2001)

    DIRTY BUSINESS
    “When we measured no parts per million,
    We raised standards to parts per billion.
    We’re the new EPA
    And we’ll have it our way,
    Finding parts per trillion and zillion!”
    (2000)

    TREE AMIGOS
    You can have all your hullabaloo
    And ‘arbor illusions too,
    You can care about trees
    As much as you please,
    But the trees still won’t care about you!
    (2000)

    GRASS CONSCIOUSNESS
    My neighbor’s a tree-hugging pain,
    But he’s unsympathetic to grain:
    If I chance not to mow
    And my grass starts to grow,
    He’s the first on the block to complain!
    (2000)

    ECO-MANIACS
    Their abiding misanthropy shows
    What’s behind the Earth Firster’s pose,
    For these mopes without mirth
    Have no love for the earth
    And are nothing but Mean Green Joes.
    (2000)

    CHICKEN LITTLE
    Doomsday deadlines bear recalling
    When they’ve passed and we’re not sprawling:
    If dreaded fate
    Is running late,
    Then perhaps the sky’s not falling.
    (2000)

    MATERNITY CASE
    Once more, for what it’s worth:
    Your mother is not the Earth!
    And that’s because
    Your mother was
    The woman who gave you birth.
    (1998)

  13. I call these people Purveyors of Apocalypse, their predictions of disaster are off the wall and crazy but they
    get rich making them. Ehrlich and Gore are only two of many examples of liars who sold a lot of books and made a lot of paid speeches to enhance their wealth. Now, of course, it’s an industry.

    • Rust resistance and dwarfing can be one once. Borlaug deserved his Nobel for the green revolution. But it lies in the past.
      Take all the worlds major crops, take the FAO rates of best practices yield improvement (including GMO corn and soybean), take the net of gain/loss in arable land (gain in Indonesia and Brazil as jungle is sacrificed, loss in India as irrigation salt build up increases) (and assume cotton does not increase acreage), assume global spread of best practices (seeds, fertilizer, weed and pest control, makes a big difference in rice), assume fewer calories than now on average but still healthy diet (less beef, more poultry to maximize total food calorie use), take the UN’s population growth projections, and it is possible to roughly calculated what the maximum food sustainable global population is. About 9.1-9.3 billion. Maybe 9.5. Not more. Hardly Ehrlich’s foolish population bomb stupidity. But a soft carrying capacity limit that is reached around 2050. Certainly by 2060. Its a long tedious calculation slog. Laid out and illustrated in Gaia’s Limits. Water is not a problem overall given virtual water. Anthropogenic climate change for sure isn’t a problem. Food and liquid transportation fuels look to be the eventual pinch points.

      • Your estimates regarding future food increases are pessimistic by at least an order of magnitude.
        PS, you left out resumption of farming on millions of acres that were abandoned because other lands were easier to farm.
        As to population growth, the UN estimates have always been way, way off on the high side.
        If the world’s population hasn’t peaked already it will do so in the next 5 to 10 years.

      • Population is automatically self controlling thru war or starvation, though this process is not likely in self supporting countries. In some ways permanent food relief is similar to saving troubled animals (liked beached whales) as maybe they are in trouble because of defective organic systems and saving them will only pass those on to offspring. Unless those starving countries internally solve their political problems they just become fodder for corruption and continuous non-resolving aid.

      • MarkW, you are welcome to redo my calculations and prove rather than assert an order of magnitude error difference. If you find my error, please publish it. My guess is that I did the detailed calculations, and you are bloviating a belief. Might start your recalc with all the references in my first book. Saves a lot of time, on a lot of crops and related issues. As for reclaiming previous ag land (you are thinking primarily US, expressly included with illustrations), nope globally. What, you want to bulldoze northern Illinois houses to plant corn? Or deforest New England to plant hard scrabble low yield crops? You cannot touch my Northbrook Il town home on Mission Hills golf course, even if those acres were once pioneer farm land a bit NW of Chicago. And in Indonesia orangutangs are threatened by jungle turned to palm oil plantations. And in northern India, irrigated late is becoming infertile due to groundwater salt build up. Reality check!

        As for your assertion that world population peaks in 5-10 years, that might be possible given catastrophic spread of Ebola and Zika, plus maybe a comet strike, plus maybe a North Korea nuclear attack. Not otherwise. Do you have any source at all for such an absurd claim concerning South America, Africa, and most of Asia? UN says best case 9.2 billion in 2050. US census Bureau says best case 9.3 billion. Both are best case SWAGS.
        A suggestion. You want to dispute my facts here, bring counter facts. With references. Otherwise, you are (skeptically) no different that the watermelons on the other side of this debate. Facts rule.

      • The forces of the market cannot be resisted for long. Land that is used for cattle, bio- diesel, sugar cane etc. will go over to food once prices are high enough. If it gets bad enough people will grow in roadway ditches, back yards and rooftops. If we take advantage of cheap energy to raise living standards then population will top out around 2050 and things will never get that bad. Poverty and ignorance are the big dangers to humanity.

      • JH, I agree with you about poverty and ignorance. Both relate to best agricultural practices, one of the big global disconnects.
        But I cannot agree about your ideas on land, ditches, and such. You simply do not comprehend the scope and scale of modern agriculture needed to feed the world’s existing population. See a comment to Janice below on hectares/capita.
        As for cheap energy, depends on which kind and under what CAGW scenario. I maintain that transportation fuels (think diesel tractors and combines for just ag) will become much more expensive than $100/bbl in the next 20-30 years. And that is a big problem. See reasoning above. Or read my cheap ebooks. No way will there ever be a battery powered tractor except in Buck Rodgers scifi. Understand battery electrochemistry. Understand tractor power. QED.

      • JH and MarkW, do you not realize that much range land used for cattle (seasonal grass grazing land) is too dry to grow any summer cereal crops? Both in Nebraska and in Africa? Which is why it remains arable rangeland. Mongolia is a good example. Yaks and goats, sure, foraging on seasonal grasses. Corn, soy, wheat, not so much. I even provided pictures of Mongolia, Nebraska, and Switzerland high Alpine summer pasture in the ebook.

        Most arable land is not crop substitutable as you seem to presume. Rice paddies will not grow wheat. Winter wheat will not grow much where spring wheat does (a latitude thing). Potatoes have, OTOH, proved remarkably adaptable, as has wheat generically given cultivar adaptation. But the devil is in the ag details. Always. Read about those details in my ebook Gaia’s Limits.

        Bonus questions: which country is the top potato producer? Which country is second? If you don’t already know, you know next to nothing about the agriculture required to feed modern humanity. Both the two leading country answers and their potato yields over time are illustrated graphically in my ebook Gaia’s Limits. Hint. Not good recent calorie news.

      • Talk of sustainable “climate practices” with one driving input characteristic (CO2).

        Silly

        Talk of of worldwide sustainable/linear population numbers with one input characteristic (food)

        Silly.

    • Especially note the section in the Wikipedia article on Borlaug where it says:

      environmental groups that were opposed to Borlaug’s methods campaigned against his planned expansion of efforts into Africa. They prompted the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the World Bank to stop funding most of his African agriculture projects. Western European governments were persuaded to stop supplying fertilizer to Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Production_in_Africa

      Yet another example of the “compassion” of the Social Justice Warriors for people of color. Black lives matter, right?.

      Let’s see how long it takes their damage control teams to edit that out of Wikipedia.

      • Great spot. Borlaug is amongst my truest science heroes. Had no idea he had been opposed by Greens. CYMIT, his Mexican Institute, has done great things in Africa concerning drought resistance maize (corn) and UG99 wheat rust. Continuing to try to save the world from starvation.

  14. Let us make up our own predictions. It sounds like fun. I predict that in 20 years time, climate science will be a banned discipline in universities, and all the climate scientists will be jailed or executed for crimes against humanity.

    • I predict that when the world gets good and hungry, the vegetarians will be eaten first (eat your veggies), they’re too weak to defend themselves.Next will be the pacifists- they’re practically asking for it. After that it’s the environmentalists (eat your greens). After all those are gone take a look around the table. If you’re the fat one, start running.

  15. I predict that the weather will change dramatically somewhere over the earth in the 7 days. Be prepared. You have been forewarned. Now give me my prize money, bros!

  16. And we need an alternative to earth day like we do to earth hour I will be trying to emit CO2 – I don’t drive a lot, but it might be a good day for one ;)

  17. You don’t even have to go back to 1970. I was purging some magazines and came upon a “futurist” mag from 1999, full of dire predictions for the millennium. Not one came even close (at least the ones for ten and fifteen years out. That’s the problem with predictions: eventually, like “psychics” one will come close on a very long time-scale, and be counted as a “win”).

  18. I remember those scares. I was in the Cub Scouts and we did these huge ” clean ups” and then got the communist green and white striped flag with the “e” on it to sew on our uniforms. They started the indoctrination early.

    • I first noticed the indoctrination in high school. We had to read “Fate of the Earth”, and “Entropy”, as well as watch “The Day After”.

      Unfortunately, too many classmates are obviously still drinking the kool-aid, if their FB updates are any indication.

  19. “Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.””

    “Optimistic”- predicting near-term (a couple of decades) catastrophes and environmental apocalypse.

    I suppose the opposite is then…
    “Pessimistic”- predicting near-term improvements in societal and environmental well-being.

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
    -Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride

    • Chris, my dim recollection is that the name is Indigo Montoya (?)

      “my name is indigo montoya; you killed my father, now prepare to die!”

      • afonzarelli-

        I checked an NPR transcript- “Mandy Patinkin: 25 Years After ‘The Princess Bride,’ He’s Not Tired Of That Line”
        8:20, October 5, 2012

        The N…P…R states that his name is Inigo Montoya.
        And as we know, N…P…R = Q…E…D

        Happy EAarth Day :-)

  20. I suspect that you could pick any topic, go back 50 years to find the most extreme statements made on the topic, and have a good laugh. But this is useful as an antidote to the extreme claims being made now.

    • Give me ONE example, extreme or not, of a prediction made by an environmentalist that has actually come true. Just one.

      • As a Civil Engineer specializing in Water and Pollution, I have always considered myself and environmentalist – just not the raving kind.

        In the 1960’s the beaches in Vancouver, BC were often closed. We “predicted” that pollution control would fix it and it did. One of hundreds of examples I could give. Extremism will always be an outlier.

        Engineers are often called the “invisible profession” since if the design works properly, you never hear about them. Yet we do water and sewage treatment, roads and bridges that make the lives of millions easier; we save the lives of millions who would otherwise have died from water or air pollution. We build extra habitat for wildlife/fishes when we build roads and bridges. Environmental considerations are always a consideration in every project. When I graduated, there were many beaches in Canada that were often closed due to contamination. That hardly ever happens anymore. Engineers work around the world to make things better for people. I am long retired but the work goes on.

        Environmentalism has gotten a bad name from all the eco-loons who are against everything. But good engineering involves environmental considerations, including people, who are also part of the environment.

      • Thanks to Wayne Delbeke for a calm response. I was about to respond with snark, but I will try to follow Wayne’s example: Pollution controls on cars reducing smog, sewage treatment plants turning virtual open sewers into streams that you can fish in or canoe down, pollution controls on smoke stacks meaning that you can hang your laundry on a clothes line without worrying that it would get filthy, and so on.

        The calm “predictions” are self denying, since they lead to action to fix the problem. The rubbish ones just give people something to laugh at a few decades down the road.

      • We are responsible for the damage we do. One of the things that bothers me most about this topic is the good we could do on real issues with the effort that goes into AGW nonsense and the very real harm that will come from chasing this ghost. It’s sad. Privileged, educated people with mediocre minds and outsized egos who can’t question themselves. In the face of great questions we need learners – not teachers.

  21. The mega mistake in all this was horribly incorrect population forecasts. Somehow it was imagined that the strange brew of overspill of 19th Century fecundity and 21st Century visions for things like health care, economic growth, etc, which intersected for a brief time mid 20th Century, would continue on and one. But in reality it was a blip. The post war spikes in fecundity died out by the 70s and after that reversed. Meanwhile the hyper growth also ceased, never to be restored. So instead of a population bomb we face a pending population cliff and the economy, already quasi deflationary, is not going to fuel increasing consumption. Of course this is also a type of dark future (but one that Greenies probably hope for).

  22. Green River Oil Shale
    For a review see: Coaxing Oil from Shale
    Mary Fallin comments on: More Drilling Options
    Jeremy Boak commented

    The total potential oil in place in the Green River Formation is actually 4.29 trillion barrels. Only about 1.1 trillion barrels of this are contained in rocks with >15 gallons per ton richness. The actual recoverable amount depends heavily on the method applied. It is likely that currently technically viable techniques could recover several hundred billion barrels.. . . While Shell and Chevron have stopped work in the Green River Formation, ExxonMobil and Total remain committed to testing of in situ methods and, for Total, moving ahead in Utah on a production scale test of novel technology. That large test follows successful small scale testing, and is under construction now. Shale oil has been produced from oil shale for about eighty years in Estonia, as well as in Brazil and China. Shell continues to explore development of oil shale in Jordan, where the government is not furtively stifling development. Other projects are proceeding in Mongolia, Australia, and Morocco. Production is relatively modest (~35,000 BOPD), but consistently growing for the last decade. If all projects now sufficiently advanced to make projections of their production were to come to fruition, production could exceed 500,000 BOPD by 2030. There is no clear evidence that oil shale production in the Western United States could not be executed in compliance with existing environmental regulations for air pollution and habitat preservation.

    • Production of syncrude from kerogen shale requires water. There isn’t any to spare in Colorado river basin, of which the Green is a major tributary. You would have to pipe it up over the continental divide from the Mississippi basin. Maybe when oil is over $200/ bbl. Maybe, if the mined rock waste disposal problem can be solved. Or the water table issues with in situ retorting. Shell tried in situ retorting inside a freeze wall. Just a few engineering details with hot thermal catagenesis inside an ice cube. Just a few.

      • Who would have thought fracking would produce this much oil? Engineering issues can be resolved – too bad nuclear power was killed by the lunatics. A large number of power plants could fuel electric cars making oil much less important, But we’ll never know now will we?

  23. 6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless the Parents Hold a Government License.”

    Ah the Government , that Camelot of superhuman wisdom and righteousness .

    • Just re-reading Larry Niven’s “Ringworld”. Part of the plot is that there is a government lottery to breed. After 6 generations or so, it turned out that those born through this program are actually genetically “lucky”, in that they are, literally, lucks of the draw.

      Weird, but no weirder than what passes for science these days.

      But, as they say, the difference between fiction and nonfiction is that fiction has to make sense.

      • I love that series. Actually I like most of Larry Niven’s and his sometime co-author Jerry Pournelle’s books. Ring world is a great book based on a Freeman Dyson idea.

      • Haven’t read those … luck as a tangible evolutionary trait :)

        My parents were lucky enough to find someone to buy them alcohol before they were of age … and I was always lucky enough to find the same sort of person when I was in high school. Maybe there is something to it :)

  24. There are several grave factual inaccuracies in point 7.
    1. US oil production did peak in 1971 as Hubbert predicted in 1955. Even after the fracking revolution, in 2015 the US imported 2.7Bbbl, 38% of total crude consumption of 7.08Bbbl.
    2. Global conventional oil production peaked in 2007 or 2008 depending on whether you leave ~10%NGLs (like butane and propane) in. Properly, they should be excluded since not used for transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, Jet kerosene) which is ~70% of crude use globally. Conventional is defined as API>10, reservoir porosity >5%, reservoir permeability >10 darcies. That includes everything except the Orinoco extra heavy tar sands in Venezuela, the Athabascan bitumen sands in Canada, and source rock shale oil everywhere.
    3. US has the worlds largest oil and natural gas shale reserves. (China is probably second on gas. Russia may be second on oil.) Most recent EIA estimate (2014) is 15-18Bbbl shale oil US TRR. It was a mistake to previously include Calfornia’s Moneterey Shale, since it is folded and cannot be horizontally drilled. By itself ALL US shale oil TRR amounts to less than 2.5 years US consumption.
    4. The Green River shale formation has been called oil shale. It isn’t. It is a kerogen shale that has not reached the oil window for catagenesis. It can be mined and cooked, or cooked in situ. But that takes 3-5 barrels of water per barrel of syncrude produced. The Green River is a tributary of the Colorado. There is no extra water in the Colorado watershed. It is all bespoke by the Colorado Compact, and the total flow is now substantially below the Compact estimate. That is why Reagan cancelled US development of kerogen shale production processes. No water.
    5. Watt was an idiot. Peak oil is not about running out. It is about maximum annual production. we will be producing oil for at least another 150 years–just at post peak defining rates at ever increasing prices.
    Oil yet to be discovered can be estimated using creaming curves or profit transforms. USGS says about ~80% of everything that will ever be discovered (conventional and unconventional) already has been. According to BP, since 1950 recovery factors have improved 25%, 1.25X. For major fields, about 35% today, for all fields, about 26%. (Shale oil is 1.5-3%). Decline rates are known for producing fields. The 2008 IEA survey of 800 fields comprising >65% of all crude production, that rate was -5.1%/year. Those facts and either a logistics function (symmetrical, probably not correct) or a gamma function (long future tail) can be used to estimate global peak for all oil, all types. Gives pretty much the same peak. About 2025.
    Many details in my ebooks Gaia’s Limits and Blowing Smoke.

    • I’ll have to check it out. But, as they say, the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. I doubt the oil age will end because we ran out of oil.

      • CJ, researched this since 2010, since family were in oil business and I have a small energy storage business. First book took three years to reseach and write. Stone age gave way to bronze gave way to iron gave way to steel. First shift took millennia, second took hundreds of years, third took Andrew Carnegie most of his adult life.
        Unfortunately, electrification (partial, Prius, total Tesla or Europe trains) doesn’t work for planes, trucks, construction and ag and forestry equipment. And there is not enough terrestrial annual biomass even if we had the conversion technology. KiOR has apparently failed. Calculated that in both books. Doesn’t look like genetic engineering of photosynthesis is going to get there. CO2 concentration problem is very fundamental. Dunno the answer. Do know we have maybe 30 years to find it and roll it out before big problems arise.

      • It would be more scholarly, Mr. Ristvan, for you to cite an authoritative source for each of your oil reserves assertions. Not only that, but it would be helpful for you to cite references to give the full and complete picture. For instance, re: your assertion about the USGS: USGS says about ~80% of everything that will ever be discovered (conventional and unconventional) already has been. Does NO one dispute this? A good attorney anticipates the other sides’ arguments and cites authority to counter it in advance.

        I have not been researching this since 2010 as you have and I do not have the time right now, but, I recall reading petroleum industry facts within the past 2 years which counter some (if not most) of what you wrote above.

        I am not writing this to simply be picky — I am interested in the WHOLE truth about petroleum reserves. Mainly, because the “sustainability” sc@mmers regularly use “peak oil” or like arguments to try to prematurely cripple the U.S. (and other lands’) economy and, thus, endanger our freedom (“peace through strength” depends on a strong economy).

        Thanks!

      • Janice, the references are in my books and their footnotes. I cannot reproduce hundreds of pages of text and footnotes in a blog comment. Thats why I wrote the books.
        Lest you doubt, the USGS ‘to be discovered ~20% more’ is sum of: conventional USGS fact sheet 2012-3024, unconventional USGS fact sheet 2009-3028 plus EIA global shale oil TRR 6/10/2013 (cause at the time of publication, EIA had but USGS had not corrected the Monterey shale goof). Total Summarized and confirmed by EIA, Today in Energy, 1/2/2014. Just checked and report to you four footnotes to just one paragraph in essay Peeking at Peaks in ebook Blowing Smoke. All 4 references are available on line via google should you wish to verify them.

      • Janice, a step further back to a gentler, bigger picture.
        Fossil fuels are just that, so finite. The question is only, when does that finiteness begin to bite our modern civilization and economy? The biggest issue is crude oil because of its importance for liquid transportation fuels.
        Trees do not grow to the sky, any more than humans can expand population ad litem. There is some human carrying capacity to planet Earth. Not a precise number, but certainly some soft limit bound. (Carrying capacity is a well understood ecological concept. Deserts have less, jungles have more. See Desmond Morris’ book book Guns, Germs, and Steel for some historical regional human examples worked in depth both positive and negative.) Gaia’s Limits covers global human carrying capacity for three biggies: water, food, and fuel, in the context of modern society. No Club of Rome computer models. (Ancillary chapter on climate change mainly works AR4 impacts on water and food, shows they are piddling, and uncovers much CAGW dishonesty. How I originally got into climate change stuff. Was offended by the lies. My first post here and at Judith Curry’s, back in 2011.) Concludes food calories and transportation fuels are the carrying capacity pinch points. Blowing Smoke addressed just energy and climate, more topical to WUWT readers.

      • I would think, dear Mr. Ristvan, that if the research is at your fingertips, one link per assertion would not be too difficult. Well, until I can do my own research, I will just assume you are mistaken, but not conclude that. The sources I read were very good ones.

        Thank you for directing me to your fine book to do my own study of the matter.

        Just FYI: to some (many?) of us your conclusory statements are just not persuasive (if that matters to you).

        *********************************
        Thinking out loud…

        You are clearly “making the case” for the anti-oil crowd. I wonder why… . Why, I mean, it is of such importance to you that you write at length and repeatedly here to support the “peak oil”-type view.

        For me, freedom is a great motivator. What is motivating you? We have plenty of oil, per many industry analysts (and for decades — long enough for it to be highly likely that technology will take care of the problem). …………. Ah, ha! I just figured it out! (maybe — just a guess, I realize)

        You said that your family is in the oil business. A resource that is on its last legs …….. will have a price increase! It’s about oil being priced high. Got it!

        That’s why oil co.’s often do not tell what they know about their likely reserves. Gotta keep supply low so price is high. And that’s okay! Free market competition will make it all even out. There are always, ALWAYS, defectors in any cartel (formal or informal).

        Best wishes making money. (seriously — I think that is a great thing)

        #(:))

      • Mr. Istvan — the carrying capacity of the earth (and remember, no elements, no resources are ever “lost”) is SO GREAT that, given the current leveling off of the population of the earth, it is highly unlikely that we humans will ever come even CLOSE to reaching that far, far, far off boundary condition.

        The earth is a very large place.

        Malthusianism was disproven long ago. (production per acre figures, etc…)

        Re: “Gaia” (lol) — water-food-fuel are virtually ENDLESS in supply. I think you may need to read Peter Hubers, Hard Green. You sound very much like you have fallen victim to “soft greens” un-science assertions.

        Why do you even assert such a far-fetched idea? (that we might possibly reach the carrying capacity of the earth)

        Really — why?

      • Janice, I am very much NOT anti-oil. I am simply worried there won’t be enough around in a few decades, and literally all hell will break loose. I drive a hybrid car already since 2007. Trying to be a realist, very pro modern civilization, very pro my grandkids (2, third on the way) having a better life than I did. But above all, I try to be a realist and invest/proact where realism suggests. Oil is a looming future problem, IMO. Climate is not. Have made both clear in now three ebooks.
        BTW, my sister on Medicaid because of lupus and an unfortunate divorce owns all the residual oil interests in the family. Helps her scrape by.

      • Janice, invest $9 in Gaia’s Limits. Read chapters 1 and 3 (Carrying capacity and food). Nuff said.
        I know that probably offends your and James Inhofe’s beliefs. At least ponder it. I give lots and lots of illustrated examples. Anybody can follow the arithmetic. No fancy models at all. Just lots of illustrated facts you can go check for yourself. The copious illustrations are why it could only be published as an ebook. Print with color, just print on demand, would have been over $80/copy.

      • We can turn coal into oil at about five bucks a gallon. We have enough coal for thousands of years. This process has been known for more than 100 years.

        This fact alone destroys the peak oil myth since the price of oil can only rise above five bucks a gallon for a short period of time before we start burning coal in our gas tanks.

        now oil Barron’s love to talk about peak oil all the time because they wrongly believe that they are the only game in town. That will only be true while it’s cheaper than other options

      • Yes BFL, IF the Siluria Technologies nano catalysts for OCM and then ETF prove out. OCM is looking very promising in the industrial scale pilot plant in Texas. ETF is looking good at lab scale so far. The horizontal drilling/fracking of natural gas shales, plus Siluria, would be a very welcome development. Not postponing peak oil, but definitely postponing its consequences for several decades. My fingers are crossed that this proves out. If Siluria ever goes public, I am in.
        The FT process (PEARL in Qatar) is simply too expensive and inefficient to be realistic. Discussed in the books.
        Forgive me if in a simple blog comment about a wrong point 7 I did not cover the entire oil waterfront in detail.

    • Janice, one last late friday night factual reply to your beliefs.
      Water. Yup, effectively limitless thanks to the sun. I completely agree
      Food, nope, because of arable land limitations given irrigation and best practices and yield improvements. Did you know (its in the book) that arable land per capita declined from 0.42 hectares per capita in 1961 to 0.2 in 2009? Or that FAO considers 0.25H/capita the absolute minimum for a healthy diverse diet? All in the book.

      Fossil fuels plus annual biomass. You have to be joking, or are unaware of energy density. Sorry. We humans are presently consuming roughly 2 million years of photosynthetic biomass insolation per year. Your math just does not work. Earth took about 400 million years to deposit what remains of fossil fuels (a lot got lost in translation). Lets see, 400/2 means we will (rough approximation) use it all up in something about 200 years (at current average annual consumption). We have been pecking away at fossil fuels at an increasing rate since about 1800. There is not another 200 years to keep pecking away. They are fossils. They are finite. Period. And modern society depends utterly on them.

      Greens are dead wrong about global warming. They latched onto the wrong problem in the wrong time frame. Nuclear (gen 4 fission is my preference) is a partial energy solution. Hybrid vehicles (partial electrification) are a partial energy solution. (I have driven a full hybrid car since 2007. Paid for itself with the initial subsidy, and then about twice since on fuel economy.) Conservation is a partial solution. (My farm house is now mostly R40. We cannot redo the old 1880s log cabin part. Chicago R35 town home is now a 90% efficient new gas furnace–could not go to 95% without rebuilding the chimney thanks to condensation. The new farm propane furnace is 95%.) Biofuels are a partial solution. (We heat my farm with a wood fired double walled furnace, intra wall heat electrically blown into the propane furnace plenum, whenever possible. Lots of oak and maple deadfall to cut, and the diesel 4WD tractor snakes it all out of the woodlots easily with professional grade logging chains. Problem for the world is that most people do not have 3 woodlots equalling 100 acres per family/house, or a diesel tractor, or gas powered chain saws.)

      Wind and solar are NOT solutions because of cost and intermittency.
      Regards.

      • And we definitely do not live on your budget but we live on a small acreage barter with neighbors for goods and services and so on, the acreage? it is .5 of an acre, large garden, fruit trees and so on, oh we also still know how to preserve our own stuff something of a lost art these days.

      • From what I have read recently materials science is steadily and substantially improving catalysts to make methanol from CO2 and H from water. Our knowledge of chemistry is enhanced by our knowledge of physics and is presently in a phase of revolutionary advancement. I appreciate your scholarly approach Ristvan but you are in the mindset of Malthus or pre 1905 physics. Have you read “The Singularity is Near”? Slightly optimistic I grant but I believe correct on a slightly longer time frame.

  25. “issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

    Leftwingers have always been closet totalitarians.
    And often, they don’t bother staying in that closet.

  26. Boo. All from 1970. All from the same magazine article? If so, pretty lazy. What about the predictions of sinking islands since then? Al Gore’s BS. Lazy, lazy.

  27. And one that always comes true:

    Earth Day rallies will result in millions of taxpayer dollars spent on cleaning up trash, removing graffiti and repairing vandalism.

  28. Earth Day is a stupid “holiday” invented by a bunch of smelly, draft-dodging hippies. Nobody cares about it but them.

  29. Famous Quotations Made Throughout World History:

    Global Warming is real. The science is settled.
    Phrenology is real. The science is settled.
    Drapetomania is real. The science is settled.
    Alchemy is real. The science is settled.
    Astrology is real. The science is settled.

    • The studies done by alchemists lead directly to the modern science of chemistry.
      They were doing the best that they could with what was known back in the day.
      At least when they did an experiment, they took sufficient notes that they, or their students could repeat those experiments and get the same results.

  30. It’s amazing how many people believe these doomsday predictions. A couple of interesting trends that occur should be noted:

    A. In the US, we reached peak oil consumption 20 years ago. Deceases have occurred not just to greater fuel efficiency, but also technology. The information revolution has cut down on the aggregate need for travel – including to work (it’s easy to work from home), to documentation (emails, texting, chat, etc. don’t need a person to deliver them) to buying (one FedEx or UPS van delivering Amazon-purchased products uses a lot less fuel than having all those customers going to the mall or big box store) to some products themselves (people can get the material from a book via download, and don’t need the physical item shipped). Also, better transit systems have helped cut down on individuals commuting. And companies can open small satellite offices, cost effectively, for shorter commute times (which will be necessary to obtain good employees, who cannot afford to live near code downtown areas and will choose jobs closer to home. This trend is likely to improve if 3D printers take off – a large amount of plastic to “print” a lot of items requires a lot less trips than the purchase of those small items.
    2) The demographic problems won’t be an increasing population, it will be a shrinking population. Developed countries have long had birth rates below replacement levels, and those governments are very concerned about population declines – like Japan (exacerbated by the fact that their society doesn’t permit immigration).Now, two of the regions that once had the largest source of population increases are near or below replacement levels – east Asia and Latin America (this is why Mexican immigration has almost ground to a halt, as there are fewer people to send since their birth rate is just above replacement levels, and the economy has improved to the point where there is little difference in standard of living if they stay, or come here). Kids are costly, especially for urbanites, and as societies urbanize the population have less kids. The only two regions left with population rates above replacement rates – Africa and the Middle East. And even there those are declining, due again to urbanization. In the largest countries there there are demographic problems – in Iran, the population replacement rate is below 2.0. Even in India, the rate is just barely above replacement levels.
    I suspect we could very well see a worldwide population decline in out lifetimes, simply due to the fact that people won’t have kids. China dumped it’s one-child policy because couples happily follow the principle without coercion, and China is now concerned about a population crash. Same goes for much of the world.

    • A fact correction to your point A. 20 full years ago was 1995. According to EIA, 1995 US consumption of crude oil was 6.47Bbbl. In 2015 it was 7.08Bbbl. You are correct it has declined since the peak in 2005 at 7.59Bbbl. Main factors are more efficient vehicles, closure of old resid fueled electric power plants, and offshoring to Middle East of petrochemicals. FPL shut its last two oil generating stations in Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale in 2013 (total almost 4 GW) in favor of CCGT at same locations fed from a new Florida pipeline. Oil at $100/bbl, gas at $2.50/mbtu made that a no brainer. Good for a maybe a hundred thousand barrels/yr all by itself. ~20% of the swing since 2005.

  31. I remember my science teacher (the cool one that everyone loved) parroting these predictions back in 1970 when I was in the 10th grade and it had a devastating effect on me and my classmates. We had private discussions about why even bother going to college and thinking about the families we were(n’t) going to raise. Some of my classmates became very despondent … some suicidal. I was freaked out and frightened for what lay ahead. It wasn’t until almost a year later, while working on a summer construction job that a construction worker set me straight — something I will ever be thankful for.

    I have nothing but contempt for these idiots who briefly stole our optimism for the future. May they rest in hell.

  32. While infinite growth with finite resources is impossible, the current consumer society isn’t going anywhere for a while.

      • MarkW. You are correct. But knowledge also constrains. So far as we know, nothing can go faster than the speed of light, even though sicfi disagrees. So far as we know, natural photosynthetic efficiency is about 1% in the tropics, and about 1/3 to 1/2 less in temperate zones except where crops are optimally spaced (a shade thing). (See book references.) So far as we know, the laws of thermodynamics govern heat to electricity/motive power conversion efficiency.
        Magic thinking is interesting, but not knowledge. And energy physics is not internet/Moores Law physics. You are hopeful. I am less so. An energy crunch is coming, followed by a food crunch. Around 2050 plus or minus a decade or so. Regards.

  33. Experts of all types should have to take an ethics exam like the one that engineers take. One of the most important things is that engineers must restrict their work to areas where they have actual expertise. For instance, civil engineers should not design Wheatstone bridges. :-)

    Experts must be made to understand their limitations. To that end, they should have to pass an exam proving that they understand “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” by Philip E. Tetlock. In it, Tetlock demonstrates that a dart-throwing monkey is better at predicting the outcome of chaotic situations than are experts. They should also be held liable for inaccurate predictions.

    The media should also be held responsible for publishing predictions that don’t come true.

    It won’t happen … but it should.

  34. Do not confuse meteorology with climatology. The former is a true science of predicting near-term weather patterns and has a success rate of well over 50%. Climatology on the other hand is a semi-religion and overt political movement with zero scientific underpinning. As a religion, it is akin to Astrology except Astrology has a vastly better prediction record. As a political movement, it is a constant stream of outright lies, all aimed at bolstering the anti-Capitalist, pro-Marxist agenda.

  35. To be fair:
    1) They still had lead in gasoline
    2)Population growth was on a steep curve
    3) Pollution was being emitted without scrubbers

    So, these people made us change our ways. They were not idiots.

    • They were indeed idiots.

      Reasonable identify and fix problems. For example the worst air pollution was caused by heating with coal.

      Of course there was a time when only rich enjoyed central heating with a coal furnace.

      • In some places the worst air pollution still comes from combusting coal, not because it is coal but because it is not combusted properly. In other places they solved the coal combustion problem and the worst air pollution comes from biomass combustion. In yet other places they burn the biomass properly so the worst air pollution is from vehicles. At least in the case of ‘vehicles’ we correctly blame the combustor and not the fuel. So in further places they burn the vehicle fuels properly and the worst air pollution comes from road dust, farms and desert winds. There is always something that is a source of ‘air pollution’. The Sahara Desert is a massive source of PM2.5 air pollution. Without it there would be a lot less rain west of Dakar. If the EPA ran the world there would be a lot less rain. Fact.

        For those worrying about inherent emissions from fuels consider that sulphur-free liquid fuels are made from coal! And who leads that technology? Little South Africa. Necessity is a mother. Oh yeah, of invention. South African coals are really rubbish for the most part but they have enough to last for several millennia. The coal belt from Tajikistan to Mongolia has hardly been touched, trillions of tons of it. In a thousand years we will still be mining these resources to fashion the materials and fuels needed to sustain life.

        We have no clue as to the inventions that will occur in the coming millennia, particularly regarding energy. We know darned well that the transmutation of elements is a limitless source of energy. Plug ‘limitless energy’ into the ‘sustainability equation’ and see what changes in the prophecies. It completely overturns the doomcaster’s eschatological fantasies.

        The biggest threats to peace, security and life on Earth are the false gods of nationalism, communism and materialism. Catastrophic climatism is a form of materialism that uses the false flag of ‘custodianship’ as an excuse to devalue human existence.

        If you shake hands with a climate catastrophist count your fingers afterwards. The Paris Accord is going to cost us $15 trillion. Follow the money to find out who is behind it. Some of them really do believe in the creation of a ‘fiat climate’, fiat currencies and fiat ethics. Fiat ethics of course leads to fiat morality and the fiat authority necessary to enforce it. The Copenhagen Agreement outlines that fiat authority. The Paris Accord prescribes the fiat morality. As was the case in the USSR, they will work out an ethical foundation upon which it is based, later. The short term plan is more practical and material: grab the fiat currency and run.

    • Even if nothing had been done, none of the catastrophies they predicted would have come about.
      PS, assuming that what is happening today will continue unchanged forever is the ultimate idiocy.

      PS: Nobody did anything to reduce the population growth rate. It did so on it’s own as prosperity spread around the world. Something these idiots wanted to stop. (and still do)

  36. Don’t forget how many regulations have required that we improve the environment since 1970. We now have the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, emission standards for vehicles, and on and on – yet still we have incidents like Flint Michigan that should embarrass us beyond measure. In 2016 we are still poisoning our children.

    • We are not poisoning our children. Please go to the CDC website and show me where were we are poisoning out children.

      I suspect that Susan is clueless about regulations and a drama major at her junior college. Save levels are several orders of magnitude below the level where and adverse affect is detected and many more levels below what would be considered a poison.

      • I’m willing to bet that Susan is one of those people who thinks any radiation, no matter how little, will result in death.

      • Stop beating up Susan. We are poisoning our children, with their minds being the major affected organ. The food supply is full of junk. The world of medicine, for all it could and should do, has gone berserk. The spiritual foundations of society are askew. We are being reduced to ‘consumer units’, a modern, less rebellious version of the ‘worker unit’. Children are the victims of everything from Ritalin to ‘Your father’s car kills polar bears.’ Oh yeah, there’s plenty of poison about.

    • The problems at Flint were because the govt holds itself above the law and wasn’t following the regulations that were in place.

      The legislative acts that you mention were the equivalent of killing flies with sledgehammers, causing way more damage than the prevented.

  37. Earth is unforgiving, it will take everyone you love, give you hope and take it from you, Earth will consume you just to let you know there is an “earth day” or something! Ironic!

  38. Well, they’ve improved their “science”. They are now stretching their predictions out to the year 2100, when everyone alive now will be dead.

  39. If you live in Beijing then #5 is may seem true.

    I grew up in southern california during the 70s. The pain in my lungs after swimming or running was terrible. It is so much more beautiful now, I sometimes consider moving back!

      • I grew up in LA during the 70’s, and there were days where the ozone levels got high enough to cause breathing problems in those exercising hard, or who already had breathing problems.
        The fixes to that problem were fairly minor and could have been had at a tenth the cost of the regulations that were actually passed.
        The biggest problem was that they went after hydro-carbon emissions first, leaving NOx to later. Unfortunately it was later discovered that nature was the largest contributor to hydrocarbons in the air, making the first round of pollution control devices virtually useless.

      • Yeah, I remember flying into LA in that time period, the stench and reddish smog coming down thru 5K was eye watering. But, gee, never knew it was almost all natures fault; thanks for informing….

      • ,,,BFL…….” the stench and reddish smog coming down thru 5K was eye watering.” ? In a plane ? Were you seated outside on the wing or something ? D’oh !

  40. From the founder of the Weather Channel, “The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.”

    I knew something was up with this whole Global Warming nonsense when all the dissenting scientists were instantly silenced and ignored by the media. The public was not allowed to hear their views. Then we hear of emails where their so-called scientist were caught red handed admitting to manipulating the data. Even NASA is in on the hoax and they got embarrassed by an ordinary individual several years ago who showed them that their official weather data and findings were wrong.

  41. Is nobody celebrating the birthday of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov? He would have been 146 years old today. I guess it’s just coincidence that his birthday falls on the same day as earth day? Ulyanov once said, “If the workers and peasants don’t wish to accept socialism, our reply will be: Why waste words when we can apply force?” Ulyanov’s birthday falls just just two days after the birthday of that other monster who might have been known to history (or maybe not) as Adolf Schicklgruber (127 years old today). They are two of a handful of people (?) who did much to reduce the world’s population. When eco-fascists say that the world’s population must be reduced, be worried, be very worried! I’m going to celebrate earth day as I did earth hour by turning all the lights on in my house. Use the energy available to you before they take it away. In other news: Norway and The Netherlands announced they are going to ban sales of new automobiles that use gasoline or deisel engines by 2026.

  42. “Seven Earth Day predictions that failed spectacularly”

    That’s because they were issued by professing ‘scientists’.

  43. 7.2 Billion people are the only problem. Ideal sustainable Earth population is about 4 Billion. Only the top 10% can say that “life” is getting better! THE CULLING IS COMING!

    • “Ideal sustainable Earth population is about 4 Billion.”

      Who says? Where? Why? What were they studying exactly and more importantly HOW did they achieve that number?

      • JR,No. Way way too low. I calculated two scenarios in Gaia’s Limits. Food, about 9.2-9.3 billion. Maybe 9.5 billion. Chicken/beef makes a big difference.
        For liquid transport fuels, about 7.3-7.3 billion. The ebook has all the calculation details. You are free to differ, just provide the alternative facts and arithmetic. No models, just simple arithmetic on well established trends.

      • Ideal earth population is me, Amanda Seifred, Charlize Theron, Cindy from high school and further considerations.

  44. Apparently my boys must sacrifice the lives they are accustomed to for the good of the planet. Orders courtesy of the New World Order Catholic Religion via the Earth Day justice speech part of the morning announcements. School sucks has a whole new meaning for them. Wow! These extremists are becoming very bold. I think a good old fashioned smokey bonfire will cheer the boys up.

  45. “4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, the Entire World … Will Be in Famine.”

    Obese!! We meant obese!! That ‘famine’ deal was a typo!! We meant the entire world will be obese!!!

    • Funny how people have this habit of producing enough food to go round, decade after decade. Maybe we should place farmers in charge of a Lot More Things instead of the useless eaters that seek to direct and control society.

  46. Seems like we have made some necessary improvements with polution abatement, green energy, etc. Seems like we still have things that make sense to do…. what to do with styrofoam…must be a better altenative…. solar power and wind power are getting less expesnive… mileage on cars is increasing… battery life is getting longer…so the end did not come when they predicted… but I think we have done some good things that only makes us better stewards of the earth, less junk in landfills, less gunk in the air….chicken little will always see the sky falling…. not yet I guess…

    • What pray tell is wrong with putting junk in land fills? All of the things that make up the junk came out of the ground. It only makes sense to put it back where we got it when we are done with it. Green energy is a long way from “Green”. Solar and wind are worse than useless a complete and total waste of time and an awful lot of our tax money. If you want to see what happens to wind power after a few years take a look at South point Hawaii and the wind turbines installed in the Clinton era. There are pictures and video on the net.They finally removed the rusted junk just last year As for Styrofoam if you leave it out in the sun the ultraviolet rays will destroy the foam in a short period of time.

  47. Speaking of Paul Ehrlich predictions, it has been awfully quiet at the WH science office lately.

  48. In March of 2011, Anthony Watts appeared to stake his entire stance on the reliability of surface temperature data on a single upcoming study: the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST), an independent temperature record to be constructed using over 39,000 unique stations. On March 6th, Watts said on his blog:

    … I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.

    However, when BEST’s results confirmed the reliability of preexisting surface temperature records, Watts backpedaled.[7] Apparently, he was only willing to stake his claims on an independent study if it came to the conclusion he wanted.

    [that might be your simplistic interpretation, but BEST blundered their use of Watt’s data, his most recent results speak for themselves and contradict BEST. See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/ -mod]

    • Trent

      You repeat an old saw about the BEST project. I, like many, followed the whole story as it unfolded so you won’t get much traction with the ‘Anthony backpedaled’ line. I ‘backpedaled’ too when I saw what went on with that whole ‘Muller: skeptic turned believer by the evidence’ crap. Another show at the Berkeley Carnival.

      We have also learned since that pristine rural temperature measurements in the continental US show general cooling since about 1940. Was anyone surprised? I wasn’t. The temperature of Waterloo Ontario hasn’t budged in 100 years. It seems global warming isn’t.

      If you want to debate the worth of temperature data sets this is probably the best place for it. We host several world class experts on the subject.

      Oh…that means that trite dismissal and innuendo won’t carry much truck. Thought it best to forewarn you.

  49. The three greatest environmental presidents were republicans. They changed how we thought about the environment.

    The first was Teddy Roosevelt. We in North America were hell bent in following Europe’s lead in cutting down every tree. After Roosevelt we managed our forests and set aside some truly beautiful places.

    Nixon put in place the EPA with the charge of protecting the environment with regulatIons. It has worked very well. Too bad some have made things worse by using the EPA for their political agenda.

    George Bush brought successful policies started in Texas to the national level as POTUS. Unlike Clinton who backed doored industry by using the courts, Bush worked with congress to update the laws so that legislation would catch up with technology and be consistent state to state. For example, old coal plants built before the clean air act had to install pollution control equipment.

    I would never have predicted that we would have been so successful at cleaning the environment. When I was little, we went swimming in Lake Erie. In high school, it was too polluted. My children could again swim in Lake Erie.

    • Concur, up until the “Super Fund Siting” which was designed for supporting lawyers and is so far behind and expensive that many will never be cleaned up. Then the EPA slowly became an entity unto itself with stricter and more extensive rules to support bureaucratic enlargement to the point of who really knows what is and isn’t really dangerous anymore. Now that they have become political with CO2 regulation, they have become a laughing stock for those with any intelligence which, unfortunately, tends to create animosity toward all of their rules, even those that make sense.

  50. How hard will they try ??

    /04/21/senator-john-barrasso-climate-change-boondoggle-hits-wall.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

  51. A re-run of a clever 2011 WUWT “Earth Day” thread comment:

    oakgeo:

    Anytime I see these linear projections, I remember “The Simpsons” franchise episode wherein Disco Stu is selling… well, disco to potential franchisees. He has a memorable chart that projects disco’s popularity forward from a few years data in the late seventies. The data cutoff is around 1979, but the projections continue up and up and up. Why these people cannot see that the earth has been self-regulating through positive and negative feedbacks since the atmosphere oxygenated 2.3-2.4 billion years ago is beyond me. But they sure seem to love their Disco Stu linear trends.

    (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/22/failed-mirth-earth-day-predictions/#comment-646608 )

    “The Simpsons” — Disco Stu (see chart to persuade potential franchisees)
    {WARNING: Be ready to hit the “Stop” button — it just loops on and on, lololol}

    (youtube)

    • Hah! Excellent! Reminds me of 1999 and 2000 when projections for the Internet economy were greater than that for the entire worldwide economyI Made a small fortune via cynicism on that baloney.

  52. I remember and believed all the “experts” back when I was young in the 1970’s. I moved to Texas, and figured if we had an ice age, at least we would be the last to freeze. Texas worked out great anyway, but no thanks to the chicken littles.

  53. Worth repeating:

    From the founder of the Weather Channel, “The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.”

    ‘Nough said.

  54. Some of these predictions have come true… In communist China for example: One child laws — people wearing gas masks….In North Korea…Starvation…Perhaps the problem is not environmental but rather, political. When government has too much power these things do happen….Funny, most of the predictions are made by those who prefer central government control of the economy and personal freedoms…These so called experts are wrong about predicting the future and wrong about the best form of government to prevent these catastrophes. When will we learn that we cannot rely solely on academics to determine policy. They are so often wrong it is astounding.

  55. Well, number 5 turned out correct for London. Since Tony Blair’s Dash for Diesel to save the planet from global warming, you can’t walk 50 yards down a London street without getting the most nauseating lungful of diesel fumes. Real, dense clouds of the stuff, and from cars, not just lorries. If you hold your breath when you detect it, you’re holding it in. If you expel your breath and run for it to escape the cloud, you’re in big trouble if you don’t clear it by the time you’re gasping. I’ve been known to dive almost headlong into a shop to escape it when that happens. It’s known that these large doses cause premature death in the long run. So yes, we now should be wearing masks to survive pollution in London and live longer. And Tony Blair should pay for them.

  56. What this article doesn’t recognize, and what climate change deniers choose to ignore, is that many of the predictions made in 1970 didn’t come to pass BECAUSE of Earth Day. Specifically, the environmental activism that produced Earth Day was also the impetus behind a whole range of environmental legislation including the Clean Air and Water Acts and the Endangered Species Act. The result was that leaded gasoline was phased out, resulting in dramatically lower lead levels in children; DDT was banned, which brought bald eagles and other raptors back from the edge of extinction; air pollution in urban areas declined dramatically; water treatment regulations led to dramatically higher quality rivers and estuaries; NO2 and heavy particles are now routinely filtered in energy plants, leading to lower levels of toxic pollution.

    Moreover, that environmental activism was mirrored in many other parts of the developed world, so many of the salutary policies enacted in North America were also enacted around the world.

    There is no question but that powerful market forces have led to advancements in food production, oil production, and other market responses to changes in the environment, which made predictions about food shortages and famine dramatically wrong.

    However, wrong predictions in the past is not an indicator that predictions today are wrong. The quality and breadth of information available today is much higher, the power of the computers generating environmental models is ten million times greater, and many of the predictions relate to changes that are measurable and accumulate slowly (e.g., warming oceans).

    As a practical matter, I would rather put real energy into understanding whether the concerns being raised today are thoughtful and seem to reflect the available data, as opposed to mocking predictions made 45 years ago.

    • Doug Peters,

      DDT was not the reason for the decline in eagles. And air pollution has declined because as the country became wealthier; we could afford to take the necesary steps. It wasn’t because of the running around in circles by the eco-crowd. It was due to growing wealth.

      Next, not only Nox, but all particulates are removed from coal plants now.
      Coal power is very clean; cleaner than windmill and solar. You probably don’t believe that, but that’s because you’ve heard only one side of the debate. Stick around here and you’ll hear all sides of the debate.

      Next, you say that …powerful market forces have led to advancements in food production, oil production, and other market responses to changes in the environment, which made predictions about food shortages and famine dramatically wrong.

      You’re leaving out the rise in CO2, which has resulted in much greater agricultural productivity. More CO2 means more food. Simple as that.

      Next, you attribute computers (GCMs) for being able to make predictions. True. However, the predictions are generally wrong. So what good are they?

      The alarmist crowd’s predictions are being mocked because they were wrong. ALL of their scary predictions failed; no exceptions. When one side of a debate has been 100.0% wrong, the proper response is to defenestrate the conjecture they are based on, then try to formulate a new conjecture that attempts to do a better job of explaining reality.

      Instead, the alarmist crowd doubles down on their failed predictions. But that’s not science; it’s politics. Scientific skeptics of the CO2=cAGW conjecture won the debate years ago. So now the eco-alarmist clique has moved the debate into the political arena.

      Politics is not science. Neither is “environmental activism”.

      (PS: what’s a “climate change denier”? I’ll tell you what it is: it’s a stupid term that the scientific ignoratii use in place of thinking.)

      • Hey Ron, you do realize the ” Coal Pond” is that thing in the background with the fountains (The part that’s really hard to see in this photograph ) !!

      • Mr. Manley:

        “… windmills … don’t have coal ash ponds” (which do not hurt anyone, btw)

        they have this:

        This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines…

        (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html)

        [Note: The commenter ‘Manley’ is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. Therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]

      • Ron Manley on April 22, 2016 at 5:22 pm
        [ … ]
        _______________

        Ron, building, erection, maintenance of windgenerators and PV costs more CO2 producting combustion then they ever return in electro energie.

        Really should more often read here.

        Cheers – Hans

        [Note: The commenter ‘Manley’ is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. Minxey is another screen name used by that sockpuppet. Therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]

      • ‘Ron Manley’, you’re not who you claim to be.

        [Note: True. The commenter ‘Manley’ is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. Minxey is another screen name used by that sockpuppet. Therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]

      • 100 points for using defenestrate.

        [Note: This site pest is a fake who posts under numerous other screen names, including ‘Ron Manley’. -mod]

      • A note to Ron Manley, regarding his over-confident claim, that “large multi-megawatt wind turbines do not use permanent magnets”. Direct drive PM multi megawatt turbines are widespread. And likely to be even more widespread in the future. For example:
        http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/mechanical/gearboxes/6-mw-direct-drive-turbines-the-new-norm-for-offshore/

        [Note: The commenter ‘Manley’ is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. Minxey is another screen name used by that sockpuppet. Therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]

      • Hey Minxey, did you miss the part about “Theoretical” ?? Means not real yet !

        ” .The theoretical magnetic energy product for this iron nitride (Fe16N2) magnet is 130 mega gauss oersteds”

      • To Ron Manley, and now Minxey.
        O.K. then – here is another example of Permanent Magnet direct drive wind turbines.
        In other words – meanwhile in the REAL-world where we all live:
        “Goldwind has 271 MW of wind power operating or under construction in North and South America, bringing our permanent magnet direct-drive (PMDD) technology to communities in both established and emerging renewable energy markets. ”
        If you spend 2 minute doing a search on Google, then you can find plenty more examples:
        http://www.goldwindamerica.com/experience-showcase/track-record/

        [Note: The commenter ‘Manley’ is an impostor/ID thief who is commenting under Mr. Manley’s name. Minxey is another screen name used by that sockpuppet. Therefore, all the impostor’s comments were a waste of time: Deleted. -mod]

    • “I would rather put real energy into understanding whether the concerns being raised today are thoughtful and seem to reflect the available data, as opposed to mocking predictions made 45 years ago.” — Doug Peters

      And in 45 years, if you’re still alive, you’ll be saying the same thing about today’s predictions.

      If the power of computers is much greater today, it simply means they can come up with the wrong answer much faster than ever before. And just because the breadth of information available today is much larger, doesn’t mean the quality of that information is necessarily better. In today’s world, you’re allowed to publish bad data as long as it conforms to the political narrative of the day. In fact, you’re more likely to get future grants if you publish fake research that agrees with the consensus than if you publish real research that disagrees.

      Science used to be a field that overturned the consensus of the day with every major breakthrough. But today government influences the outcome of research by determining who gets funding. Political pressure is gradually subordinating science to politics and turning it into a propaganda wing of government. The very fact that so many people in power measure the validity of scientific thought by how well it conforms to “consensus” proves my point.

    • Doug Peters

      You are talking about the achievements of my generation. All the pluses you list were things we addressed that had happened in the past. We cleaned up the environment and did a really good job of it too. There is much in the current legal framework which keeps us safe and clean.

      The lampooning taking place on this site about Earth Day is about none of the good things we accomplished. It is about the fatuous, idiotic, plain ridiculous predictions of calamity, mass death, life-extincting doom to which we supposedly were already committed by 1970. And it richly deserves such a roasting each year on the anniversary of Earth Day, just to remind us how foolish we can be.

      The reason is simple. There is a broad belief by those who seek leadership that the public is too stupid to know when they are being lied to. I have no doubt there are the perpetually gullible Pollyannas in every corner of society, but what these wannabe kings of the world don’t realise, is it is they who are the gullible, believing each and every scare story dreamed up by those with their snouts in the public trough.

      It turns out the credulous among us, the most easily misled, are those who would leap at the chance to ‘lead’ by yelling about yet another part of the sky falling. Anyone who openly and consciously seeks leadership immediate proves they are not worthy of the position.

      Consider how this same generation, the much-maligned boomers, also blocked the Vietnam War, the unsafe cars, the killer toys, the poisonous paints, the workplace dust, the senseless slaughter of the whales. That’s us. We fixed these things. We didn’t do it by accepting the idiotic policies of our forefathers because we were skeptical. We still are. We know a lie when we hear one. We see a scam when it takes our cash. We have years of experience with carpetbaggers both green and not.

      The Earth Day Prophecies were from those seeking leadership, screaming doom from the rafters. Nothing about the future according to those seeking leadership has changed. They still, now, prophecy disasters at every turn and ask us to believe and obey. This is a very different group from those who are real environmentalists, who cared enough for the planet and mankind to clean it up and set things in order. Those masquerading as ‘environmentalists’ today are largely the same crummy bunch that tried to hijack the movement in the 70’s, still selling their prophetic snake oil.

      We didn’t clean up industry because of the lies of ‘Silent Spring’ or the fulminations of J Hansen and his ilk. We didn’t want clean air because ‘food would run out in twenty years’. We concerned ourselves with the issues of our day: war, the military industrial complex, rampant industrial irresponsibility, suffocating nationalism and the bright light of the emergence of the concept of global citizenship – that we share this planet, and that our ‘neighbours’ are not going anywhere so we’d better learn to get along.

      Thus prepared and experienced, we see clearly the attempts to gain unelected control over the people and resources of the Earth by the use of scare tactics and promises of abomination and desolation. The greatest threat to this nefarious plan is education and understanding for a well educated person will never accept as true what is false.

      CO2 is not going to cause ‘runaway temperatures’ on Earth. CO2 is not ‘pollution’. CO2 is not ‘dirty’. In a few million or hundred million years the Earth may, through natural processes which we already understand, run out of CO2 and nearly all life on Earth will cease. Until then we can have a lot of fun as a species investigating the nature of the universe and the purpose of physical reality. Sit back, enjoy the sunshine and recycle your empties. (We thought of that too.)

  57. The problem with the Green River formation is that the net energy return on energy invested is too low for it to be a useful energy source. It might be useful someday as a petrochemical feedstock but that’s about it.

  58. Lol what about our Lord and Savior AL Gore’s predictions? According to his “convenient lie to push the liberal agenda” we should all be dead by now!

  59. Well, the climate changes. They got that right. They’re just clueless (proofless?) as to the cause.

  60. The only way the leftist’s gloomy predictions will come true is if they are put in charge. I give you Obamacare and the endless famines in the worker’s paradise in the 1930’s.

  61. But the future predictions they’re making today will come true, of course. We must listen or we’re all DOOMED. Doomed I say!

  62. I recall a belief that pure science would be made obsolete because man had discovered all there was to the natural world……wasn’t that ‘prediction’ made in the late 19th early 20th century?

    As Epstein put it so directly: prediction models that fail to predict anything are WRONG (please don’t quote me on that, I’m still reading the book).

  63. Mexico City and Beijing are awash in smog.

    There’s a cold blob in the North Atlantic that is confusing climate science peeps. The warm blob in the Pacific broke up and dispersed a few months ago.

    More rock like limestone is exposed to the atmosphere through glacial melt. Rock erosion assists in absorbing atmospheric CO2. More exposed rock surface, more CO2 absorption. Hmmmm….

    Mt. Everest is six inches higher because of the 2004 Indonesia quake and the 2015 Nepal quake. The Himalaya ridge is just slightly higher. No one has discussed how this slight rise will affect weather patterns.

    Oman (and Yemen) has had heavy rains and severe flooding from tropical storms for the past three years. The ground is supersaturated, hence flooding. The monsoon usually goes northeast into Pakistan and India. Now P & I are having drought issues. Keep an eye on that. It could mean a shift in the monsoonal wind pattern if it continues.

    The eastern side of Antarctica is gaining ice volume. The western side is losing just a little. The western side sits on a volcanic rift zone that has become active under that ice.

    I haven’t checked sunspots a whole lot lately, but does anyone besides me remember that 18-month solar minimum from October 2008 to March 2010? It took the science peeps by surprise.

    So, what does this all mean???? It’s weather. It’s the Earth taking care of herself. It’s a good idea to keep track of your local weather patterns over time. I had a rather normal winter this time after 5 winters (2010-2011 to 2014-2015) of heavy snow, beastly cold, and repeated blizzards.

    135 years of taking weather records (and fudging temperatures to suit modern theories) is not climate, my dears. It’s weather. But it’s nice that they’re at least doing research that gives us better and more accurate weather forecasts. We need that very, very much. I just detest the politics and greed that have crept into it.

    Happy Earth Day!

    • NJGiant

      And they firmly DON’T believe in that elusive nemesis of Einstein’s, the Ether Bunny.

  64. My favorite of their predictions is the one in which they said that we had to do X, or else it’d be too late to save the planet. They made that one several times, and we didn’t do whatever it was they were blackmailing us into.

    So if we take them at their word, it’s already too late. We may as well eat, drink and be merry!

    • Lol, indeed :), Mr. Fine.

      That reminded me of this Abraham Lincoln quote:

      “There is something so ludicrous in … threats of evil, a great way off. — ‘Better lay down the spade you’re stealing, Paddy, if you don’t, you’ll pay for it at the day of judgment.’

      ‘Be the powers, if ye’ll credit me so long, I’ll take another jist.'”

      (Source: Abraham Lincoln — The Prairie Years and The War Years (one vol. ed.), 1982, Harvest, p. 74)

      *************************************

      The commonsense of the average Joe and Maria will save the day. It did in the 1970’s. It is doing it in the 20-whatever-you-call-years 1 – 19. Chevy trucks and Suburbans and barbecue grills and steaks, etc., etc., are doing very well.

      And they will continue to do so.

      CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

      Game over.

  65. Ummm… it’s not very logical to pull out a handful of the worst predictions over the past fifty years, and try to use that as evidence that all predictions are worthless. Anyway….

    #2, #3, & #4 came partially true. Many many millions of souls died of starvation in famines that extended across large sections of Africa and Asia in the 70s and 80s. Even today, millions of people starve to death each year.

    #5 & #6 came true (in China).

    • Appropriate tag. Most (all?) famines in the last 40 years were due to authoriarian (mostly communist) governments, not climate or real shortages.

    • “#5 & #6 came true (in China).”

      Worked in China before retiring. No one needs to wear a gas mask to survive air pollutions. It is sad that China did not adopt policies that cleaned up the air in North America. The one child policy has been rescinded.

      • Retired:

        I am in Beijing at the moment and it is its usual sunny bright self with some haze. The air pollution question was largely solved years ago within the city. The main problem now is pollution from the surrounding countryside and vehicle emissions within the city. The number of electric vehicles is mind-blowing. Today I saw a tiny electric small-wheeled scooter. Perfect personal transportation when not using public transport or a cheap taxi.

        The reason people malign Beijing air is a) they don’t know what they are talking about, b) they have never seen it on TV except the BBC long distance shots of fog and smoke from burning field stubble that blows in from Hebei farms, and c) they have no idea how bad the pollution is in other cities like Harbin and Taiyuan.

        What I observe is that the Western press uses Beijing as a bludgeon against coal, even though there is hardly any coal burned in Beijing. In other words, the meme relies on ignorance and provincialism.

        One child only applied to some urban areas and was not a national policy as many assume (in ignorance). China has decided to tackle their vast air, soil and water pollution problems. Does anyone think they will not succeed? Devoting treasure to improving the environment is a far better choice that conducting frivolous wars on people and coal.

  66. These scratch the surface – how about acid rain? What happened to that? No one even remembers this – it is like nuclear winter – a nothing issue just so that the media can say thety still own us.

    • Blake Davis…

      Acid rain killed common sense. Some say it was a mercy kill as common sense was just languishing around refusing to die but Frankensteinien physiologists swear that with enough expensive “free” energy, it might be possible to bring it back to life. :)

  67. ONE PREDICTION DID COME TRUE: By the year 2008, a foreign born, Muslim raised, African-American racist will assume the office of President. With the help of the media, this America-hating narcissistic despot will actively seek to destroy the economic system, decimate the military, alienate allies, give aid & comfort to enemies, disarm the American people, and do away with America’s borders. All the while sporting a despicable $hit eating grin on his face.

  68. Think about it. Why write such an article in the first place? The warning of Earth Day founders are far more intelligent and far broader in historical or geologic terms, than your 30-year window of quite citations allow. Why dismiss that now, if they were only off by a few decades?

  69. Only stupid, twisted liberals can come up with stuff like this. Look at all the failed dire predictions about climate change. What is sad is these idiots keep believing this stuff. They just got smarter and made the predictions for 100 plus years from now so no one will be around from today to call them idiots again.

  70. I find it interesting to note that Bill Nye, the ‘Science Guy’, agrees with Bobby Kennedy, Jr., that people who disagree with climate scientists’ opinions should be treated as criminals and thrown into jail for it.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

    As I said, I detest the politics and greed these people have. It shows their true nature when they say things like that. It’s always about money, you know, plus the power that money represents.

  71. What is the point exactly? While the time line on these predictions may have wildly missed the mark, any fool can see that they loom out on the horizon. But this article will no doubt comfort many, as they reposition their heads securely in the sand.

    • The point is that these claims were nothing but alarmist baloney designed to push costly and unnecessary government mandated “solutions”.
      An example was the idiotic concept of “peak oil” that was supposed to show we were running out of fossil fuels and needed governments to provide trillions of dollars to push costly, unreliable and unrealistic renewable energy schemes.

    • They loom out on the horizon? Really? Do they? Are you aware, John Archer, that 7,000 years ago, geological records show that the Alps were bare of ice and snow? Has it occurred to you that this warm period is just a small part of a cycle within a larger cycle? How can you have such narrow vision?

    • Well, something looms on the horizon.
      And you don’t know what it is. And I don’t know what it is either.
      You can not tell me whether I should be most afraid of Islamic expansion into Europe, Vladimir Putin, international socialism, or the growing power of China, or whatever else may bring an end to our comfortable way of life, or that of our children.
      Meanwhile you would probably want me to concern myself with sea level rise or somesuch irrelevant and non-worrying non-problem.
      Perhaps you are comforting yourself by imagining that sea level rise is your greatest threat.
      Perhaps that, for you, is the equivalent of having your head in the sand.

    • And the fools with their heads in the sand instead of in front of open books on the scientific method and proper data analysis will be muttering, “The world is ending and we are all going to die and it is all our fault because we sinned against Mother Nature!”

      Good grief, John Archer, can’t you recognise a scam when you see one? Start with the history of peak oil over the past 120 years. George F Will wrote a pretty good one. There are many others.

      Next look into the amazingly persistent and completely natural Ozone Hole and the brainless claims made about its genesis.

      How about the desertification of the planet caused by rising temperatures and the starvation of millions in Africa as a result, with a particular emphasis on the Sahel? That’s worth discussing.

      The starvation in Ethiopia in the early 80’s was caused by the deliberate policies of the Miriam government which even went so far as to attack UN food convoys killing international volunteer drivers saving his population. The Sahel’s northern farmable border has moved north by more than 500 km since global temperatures started rising in earnest (1977-1997) and continues to move north due to higher CO2 making the flora more water efficient.

      Just review those two items: the Ethiopian drought was natural but the deaths were due to political interference in the mitigation response. The Sahel started taking over the Sahara as global temperatures rose, and after the temperature stopped rising, the desert is retreating still because of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

      The apocalyptic disasters that await us around every corner are the promises of the willingly ignorant and the carpetbaggers trying to turn con into coin. They have always been with us.

      Here is my prophecy of doom: if we give them the keys to the planet the destruction and suffering that follows will be literally unparalleled in human history. They are not interested in recycling your garbage. They are interested in recycling their waning influence in an emerging global society that refuses to be cowed into little pockets of fanatical national isolation. This emerging global society is distinct from ‘globalisation’ which is nothing more than economic hegemony with a cute name. Be clear, very real power is threatened by deep-seated changes in how we perceive ourselves as citizens of planet Earth. Just because someone shouts ‘global’ doesn’t mean they are interested is you or me, any more than shouting ‘green’ means something is environmentally benign.

  72. “The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” Paul Johnson (1928)

  73. A few decades from now, people will be laughing at the greenie weenies and their silly nonsense.

  74. Sea ice at the North Pole will be gone by 2015. Snow will be a rare occurrence. All ski resorts will have gone bankrupt. See, those Global Warming models were spot on.

  75. Ristvan @ 3:57: Deserts have less, jungles have more. See Desmond Morris’ book book Guns, Germs, and Steel for some historical regional human examples worked in depth both positive and negative.

    Rarely, someone cites a book I have actually read. Minor point, Guns, Germs and Steel was actually written by Jared Diamond. But it’s a very interesting book, whether you agree with his opinions or not.

  76. Sometime back in that late 60’s early 70’s era the world’s scientists were seriously predicting another ICE AGE was about to begin within the next several decades and bury the temperate regions of the world in ice and snow! Probably the same people crying about the global warming hoax!

  77. I’m 75 and I was reading these crackpots when they wrote this drivel; I didn’t believe them then and I even have less faith in their “sky is falling” predictions today. Believe it or not these ignorant, arrogant, airheads are still help in high regard by the equally ignorant progressives.

  78. Joi Scientific is a transformational company located at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and has discovered the “holy grail” for a self sustaining source of hydrogen on demand. Ocean water for example can be converted into zero pollution, highly profitable hydrogen fuel and electrical energy. The byproduct of this self sustaining source of hydrogen used for electrical energy extracted from ocean, brackish, toxic, sewage or just plain swimming pool water is a new source of abundant purified and desalinated water. Agess, Inc (facebook page) posted the letter of support from Joi Scientific that will help save the largest lake in California called the Salton Sea. Joi will be able to desalinated ocean water without any external energy required such as reverse osmosis desalination. At the same time generate highly profitable zero emission energy and electricity that can be sold to cities nearby. The Eden Project in partnership with the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Ecomedia Compass and Agess Inc will break ground on the Salton Sea restoration effort that will begin April 30, 2016. Joi Scientific is one of many highly disruptive companies involved in the Eden Project.

  79. Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: *thou shalt not be afraid of him*.

  80. “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving to Death During the Next Ten Years.”

    BTW, the reason we are able to feed so many people is because of the higher levels of CO2 and the warm growing climate. People starved and crop yields collapsed during the Little Ice Age.

  81. This is what comes of making simple, linear predictions of natural or sociological phenomena. Almost nothing in nature is linear, and Malthusian predictions are the least reliable way to do science. They are, however, GREAT ways to do religion and mass hysteria.

  82. Classic “misunderestimating” the human capacity to innovate & adapt & “experts” way to confidnt in their own ability to predict using flawed models!

  83. Another reason to not elect another president, like Obama, who promotes this [pruned]. This scam has enriched a lot of so-called environmentalists.

  84. Below are the Hi and Low temperature records followed by the year for Norfolk Ne KOFK

    Imagine the alarm if the Hi temperature records had occured during the past 15 years.
    All the 2 digit years are from the 20th century per Weather underground data. Most every US location has similiartemperature record responce for the 30’s decade. This is simply a cut and paste of my xl file.

    July Hi yr Lo yr Aug Hi yr Lo yr
    1 102 25 44 95 1 104 18 47 25
    2 104 90 44 24 2 106 30 45 7
    3 111 36 45 8 3 106 30 45 1894
    4 111 36 45 15 4 108 34 41 15
    5 108 36 44 72 5 108 34 48 94
    6 106 37 51 2006 6 98 84 49 74
    7 106 80 43 8 7 100 80 46 89
    8 107 30 48 20 8 110 34 47 89
    9 111 30 44 5 9 107 47 46 27
    10 109 30 45 5 10 105 47 43 85
    11 113 54 46 26 11 102 36 39 2
    12 109 39 50 10 12 104 36 43 64
    13 111 54 47 50 13 102 38 46 64
    14 105 36 46 43 14 101 36 45 2004
    15 108 36 48 12 15 106 37 46 29
    16 112 36 45 12 16 107 83 44 1897
    17 116 36 46 6 17 105 36 40 43
    18 105 36 49 92 18 104 83 42 33
    19 113 34 48 47 19 100 38 41 2004
    20 109 34 47 1898 20 102 47 40 50
    21 108 34 47 44 21 100 14 43 39
    22 107 1 46 42 22 106 38 40 23
    23 105 34 48 9 23 104 38 43 42
    24 113 36 45 5 24 104 36 36 28
    25 114 36 44 11 25 103 55 42 34
    26 110 36 46 62 26 105 55 39 10
    27 108 35 47 2005 27 102 55 38 11
    28 105 35 48 25 28 100 84 38 17
    29 109 47 48 71 29 101 48 40 9
    30 104 35 42 71 30 99 2000 37 15
    31 105 55 48 2009 31 102 22 40 67

  85. Another big fail…I remember seeing the cover of a weekly news magazine my senior year of high school (1970) showing the Washington Monument halfway underwater and a story about that happening by 2000 if we didn’t “save the earth”. What’s up with people buying into all this hype…I guess we have the education (so-called) system to thank for teaching their system of deductive reasoning. Facts don’t matter if you FEEL it strong enough!???

  86. Is Google censoring this story in their news search?

    I just googled the title and this article came in at the top as “news”. When I clicked the News tab for more stories, absolutely nothing! Repeated with Bing and got expected results.

  87. We should strive as individuals to do the most towards efficiency and cleanliness and calling upon others to do so, or not associating with those that are not efficient or dirty.

    Whenever a collective of mankind has tried by directive mandate to completely elminate dirty or inefficient behavior in the past is when it has led to the worst kinds of human climate change has occured.

  88. The problem with this article is that the statement “Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action”, central to the thesis, is patently false.

  89. “China has decided to tackle their vast air, soil and water pollution problems. Does anyone think they will not succeed?”

    Crispin, thanks for your input on China. It is what I observed near Taishan to the Pear River Delta. Lots of agricultural burning in rural areas.

    I only fault China for not starting 40 years earlier.

  90. They were partially correct on no. 7: “By the Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil.”
    On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “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.’”

    Now we don’t drive up to the pump and say “Fill’er up” any more. Now they are truly gas stations, not service stations.

Comments are closed.