Epic Fail: Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

The Federalist ^ | 04/24/2015 | Robert Tracinski

[SeekAndFind]

I recently discussed what it would take to prove that global warming is actually occurring, that it is caused by humans, and that it will be catastrophic. But that’s not the full picture. To understand why so many of us are so skeptical about global warming, you have to understand the environmentalists’ larger track record: a long series of failed predictions and bogus prognostications of doom.

It has been 45 years now since the first Earth Day. You would think that in this time frame, given the urgency with which we were told we had to confront the supposed threats to the environment—Harvard biologist George Wald told us, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken”—at least one of the big environmental disasters should have come to fruition. Fifteen years ago, an article in Reason took a look at claims like this from the first Earth Day in 1970. The specific quotations have been helpfully excerpted here and have been bounced around a lot on the Internet and on conservative talk radio for the last few days. It is a comical litany of forecasting gone wrong.

The author of that old Reason article, by the way, was Ronald Bailey, who has since turned alarmist, in the style of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and who is the one asking what it would take for us to accept the reality of global warming.

He should remember what he reported back then and recall how thoroughly and irrevocably the environmentalists burned up their scientific credibility.

As a refresher, here’s a look at seven big environmentalist predictions that failed.

[Vendome]

Chlorofluorocarbon is 7 times heavier than air and when I ask stoopet friends who love to disgust this how it is that something that much heavier than air can get clear into the ozone level I usuall get “Ever hear of an airplane?” Kind of idiocy.

Of course my response is “Ever hear of thrust?”

And please don’t compound yer stoopetety by saying “Hot Air Balloon?”

I swear, I’m a high skrewel dropout and these people with their college pedigrees amaze me.

[Sherman Logan]

I’m so positively ancient that I remember when one of Jimmy Carter’s big answers to the impending shortage of oil was to increase federal funding for research on how to extract oil from shale. It ended the way you would expect: it went nowhere. But some decades later, private oil companies did find a way to more economically extract oil from shale—and environmentalists promptly made it public enemy #1.

Carter tried to develop oil shale, not shale oil.

Oil shale is a type of rock. Shale oil is more or less ordinary petroleum, just trapped in rock.

[hadaclueonce]

We banned R12 because Dupont had a new product.

[hadaclueonce]

and Iowa loves them some Ethanol from Corn! Thanks Jimmy!
they need to build a Jimmy Carter statute taller than their mountain of Corn.

[Vendome]

I was going to type that but, was interrupted.

The patent ran out and they needed a new product, so they destroyed the market for the old one and eliminated competitors

[hadaclueonce]

The patent ran out and they needed a new product, so they destroyed the market for the old one and eliminated competitors

We both know how our system works.

[Windflier]

...they did not read the entire article before posting.

Few of us have the necessary amount of time and attention it would take to read every source article posted here, before commenting.

A large percentage of us still work or run businesses, have families at home, other social obligations and activities, or even other worthwhile pursuits.

That said, in most cases, the core bit of information (or opinion) from any article can be summed up in a paragraph or less. The hard part, is sifting through all the other word chaff to find it. If the OP is a skilled poster, they'll make sure to post that one nugget of info in the excerpt, which saves everyone else the time of having to dig it out themselves.

If not, most old hands around here can get the gist of the article from only reading the excerpt and the first handful of comments.

[BwanaNdege]

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

[Pajamajan]

Bookmark

[lulu16]

Here’s the list:

1) Global Cooling (deforestation causes new glacial age)
2) Overpopulation (growth out paces production)
3) Mass Starvation (agricultural depletion)
4) Resource Depletion (peak oil)
5) Mass Extinction ( meteor crash)
6) Renewable Energy ( dealing with problem that does not exist)
7) Global Warming (If the current trend continues...)

[uglybiker]

Indeed, it's very rare we get high-level smog alerts in the Los Angeles Basin anymore.

And more than once those smog alerts was caused by pollution blowing across the Pacific from China.

[lulu16]

Windflier check my post further down the thread. I did that before I read your comment. I agree, it is nice when a summary or list is provided.

[Windflier]

I agree, it is nice when a summary or list is provided.

One of the biggest, most long-standing pet peeves I have with articles posted at FR, is that so many posters fail to include the gist of the article in their excerpts.

If the topic is of extreme importance or interest to me, I'll click through to the original article to get the needed core info, but often enough, some other Freeper has already done that, and has posted the meat of the article downthread.

[Vendome]

Called it when they did it.

My brother had just been certified on HVAC and he called it too.

[rockinqsranch]

Obviously you didn’t read the collective commentaries to the point of my comment prior to posting your excuse, or more than likely you wouldn’t have commented.

[CyberAnt]

BTTT

[Windflier]

Obviously you didn’t read....

You're snarling over a civil reply explaining why so many don't click through to read source articles?

Good grief. Go out and get some fresh air. It'll do you good.

[rockinqsranch]

“You’re snarling over a civil reply............”

You apparently have a vivid imagination.

“Go out and get some fresh air. It’ll do you good.”

I’ve been out in the fresh air working here at the ranch, and find it quite invigorating. It’s good to see you at least have that correct. Have a nice evening.

[Windflier]

Have a nice evening.

Yeah.......have a nice evening yourself, grumpy.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

The author of that old Reason article, by the way, was Ronald Bailey, who has since turned alarmist, in the style of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and who is the one asking what it would take for us to accept the reality of global warming.

style of Invasion of the Body Snatchers