By Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-cortez claims that "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change." The people at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree, saying that to avoid some of the most devastating impacts of climate change, the world must slash carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and completely decarbonize by 2050.
Such dire warnings are not new. In 1970, Harvard University biology professor George Wald, a Nobel laureate, predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist, predicted in an article for The Progressive, "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years."
The year before, he had warned, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Despite such harebrained predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' highest award.
[size=150]Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as "The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile." "The third rock from the sun is a fragile oasis." "Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day." These and many other statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmentalists. Worse yet, this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation's youth from kindergarten through college. That's why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-cortez.
[/size]
Let's examine just a few cataclysmic events that exceed any destructive power of mankind and then ask how our purportedly fragile planet could survive. The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, in present-day Indonesia, had the force of 200 megatons of TNT. That's the equivalent of 13,300 15-kiloton atomic bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in the Second World War.
Before that was the 1815 Tambora eruption, the largest known volcanic eruption. It spewed so much debris into the atmosphere that 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer." It led to crop failures and livestock death in the Northern Hemisphere, producing the worst famine of the 19th century. The A.D. 535 Krakatoa eruption had such force that it blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and is said to have led to the Dark Ages[size=200]. Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions — Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) — spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activities during our entire history.[/size]
Our so-called fragile earth survived other catastrophic events, such as the floods in China in 1887, which took an estimated one million to two million lives, followed by floods there in 1931, which took an estimated one million to four million lives. What about the impact of earthquakes on our fragile earth? Chile's 1960 Valdivia earthquake was 9.5 on the Richter scale. It created a force equivalent to 1,000 atomic bombs going off at the same time. The deadly 1556 earthquake in China's Shaanxi province devastated an area of 520 miles.
Our so-called fragile earth faces outer space terror. Two billion years ago, an asteroid hit earth, creating the Vredefort crater in South Africa, which has a diameter of 190 miles. In Ontario, there's the Sudbury Basin, resulting from a meteor strike 1.8 billion years ago. At 39 miles long, 19 miles wide and nine miles deep, it's the second-largest impact structure on earth. Virginia's Chesapeake Bay crater is a bit smaller, about 53 miles wide. Then there's the famous but puny Meteor Crater in Arizona, which is not even a mile wide.
My question is: Which of these powers of nature could be duplicated by mankind? For example, could mankind even come close to duplicating the polluting effects of the 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption?
It is the height of arrogance to think that mankind can make significant parametric changes in the earth or can match nature's destructive forces. Our planet is not fragile.
Occasionally, environmentalists spill the beans and reveal their true agenda. Barry Commoner said, "Capitalism is the earth's number one enemy." Amherst College professor Leo Marx said, "On ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument."
To validate their existence, the Left needs a "cause"...a pre-requisite the Right is exempted from.
Without a cause (worker's rights, women's rights, racism, the environment), the validity of leftist political policy making collapses.
So, in their sphere of ideology, if you haven't got a cause make one up. Quickly.
Socialism is built on deception and lies, and despite the fact that the Right usually meets those lies head on, and dispenses them with fact, logic and reason, they still take hold, because the Left's capacity for subversion is exemplary.
When you think about it, we like the thought of an impending doom..
There is always something that is gonna wipe us out... Just waiting around the corner.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Without a cause (worker's rights, women's rights, racism, the environment), the validity of leftist political policy making collapses.
So, in their sphere of ideology, if you haven't got a cause make one up. Quickly.
Socialism is built on deception and lies, and despite the fact that the Right usually meets those lies head on, and dispenses them with fact, logic and reason, they still take hold, because the Left's capacity for subversion is exemplary.
That would mean they have no interest in fixing problems..
If you fix something, you lose a cause right?
Quote from: "Odinson"
There is always something that is gonna wipe us out... Just waiting around the corner.
There is some truth to that Odi..
I remember the hysteria around Y2K.
Quote from: "Odinson"
There is always something that is gonna wipe us out... Just waiting around the corner.
I suppose I am one of those in a way. I don't think that we are going to destroy the earth, but I do think the left are going to destroy western civilization and put a totalitarian soviet type system in its place. I wish I didn't think that though. :sad:
I agree with Dennis Prager's quote "I am far more in fear of global leftism than global warming"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Without a cause (worker's rights, women's rights, racism, the environment), the validity of leftist political policy making collapses.
So, in their sphere of ideology, if you haven't got a cause make one up. Quickly.
Socialism is built on deception and lies, and despite the fact that the Right usually meets those lies head on, and dispenses them with fact, logic and reason, they still take hold, because the Left's capacity for subversion is exemplary.
That would mean they have no interest in fixing problems..
If you fix something, you lose a cause right?
That's what happened with the racial gender stuff. That's why we are seeing things like fake hate crimes and "micro-aggressions"
What do you do with a cause when its mostly solved but you want to keep the cause going?
In this case get hypersensitive and invent things it seems.
Someone remind me what micro aggressions are.
:confused1:
Quote
I will remember that one. Great info.
I just was reading the other day that there was strong evidence that Greenland was warmer in around 1,000 AD than it is now. The researchers were trying to explain it, they said it might be the earths axis wobbling, or it might be solar activity or something else.
And that's when I thought what would they say is causing our current supposed warming trend? They would say its man made probably. But how do we know the current supposed warming is not the earths axis wobbling, or solar activity or something else?
To me that illustrates the point-- the earth has been both cooler and warmer than now many times and it had nothing to do with man. So IF the climate is changing now, how do we know man is at fault?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
:confused1:
indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
:confused1:
Well take a seat and listen, girl... Papi tells you what micro-aggressions are..
Just dont start PMS´ing if you dont like what you are hearing.
Lets get started...
SPRECHEN SIE ENGLISH!?
ENGLISH! COMPRENDO!?
WHERE ARE YOU FRRROOMMM!?
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
:confused1:
indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group.
In other words, thin skin.
:laugh:
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
:confused1:
indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group.
In other words, thin skin.
:laugh:
Pretty much. :thumbup:
I start speaking in finnish to every1...
You could see the foreign looking girls spirits go through the roof when she was treated as "one of us, one of us, one of us"..
I completely disagree with the OP.
Our planet and its ecosystems are extremely fragile.
We are rapidly depleting our natural resources at an unsustainable rate.
Our oceans are filled with plastic, the quality of the air, the water we drink and our most precious animal and plant species are endangered.
If global warming is caused by human activity then it is merely a symptom of overpopulation.
We can't go on by overpopulating the planet.
If we're going inta the shitter its not surprising as we've added more peole yo the esrth in 60 years than even existed in 1960.
When the forums oldest member was born before that, the world population wasn't even 3 billion
Now its well over 7 billion.
We can't keep going on like this.
One day we'll hit a brick wall
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
I will remember that one. Great info.
I just was reading the other day that there was strong evidence that Greenland was warmer in around 1,000 AD than it is now. The researchers were trying to explain it, they said it might be the earths axis wobbling, or it might be solar activity or something else.
And that's when I thought what would they say is causing our current supposed warming trend? They would say its man made probably. But how do we know the current supposed warming is not the earths axis wobbling, or solar activity or something else?
To me that illustrates the point-- the earth has been both cooler and warmer than now many times and it had nothing to do with man. So IF the climate is changing now, how do we know man is at fault?
The earth has had it's ups and downs for sure..
I have no reason not to believe we are not contributing to climate change..
But, the question is, even if we make huge sacrifices, will it mean we can reverse climate change, and nobody can say with absolute certainty it will.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Odinson"
There is always something that is gonna wipe us out... Just waiting around the corner.
I suppose I am one of those in a way. I don't think that we are going to destroy the earth, but I do think the left are going to destroy western civilization and put a totalitarian soviet type system in its place. I wish I didn't think that though. :sad:
I agree with Dennis Prager's quote "I am far more in fear of global leftism than global warming"
There has always been these traitors..
They are different depending on times..
A bunch of Quislings.
But they will get what is coming to them.. Just like Vidkun Quisling did..
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Without a cause (worker's rights, women's rights, racism, the environment), the validity of leftist political policy making collapses.
So, in their sphere of ideology, if you haven't got a cause make one up. Quickly.
Socialism is built on deception and lies, and despite the fact that the Right usually meets those lies head on, and dispenses them with fact, logic and reason, they still take hold, because the Left's capacity for subversion is exemplary.
That would mean they have no interest in fixing problems..
If you fix something, you lose a cause right?
Give the lady a CIGAR. That is exactly how the Left operates. Modern feminism is a case in point.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
I will remember that one. Great info.
I just was reading the other day that there was strong evidence that Greenland was warmer in around 1,000 AD than it is now. The researchers were trying to explain it, they said it might be the earths axis wobbling, or it might be solar activity or something else.
And that's when I thought what would they say is causing our current supposed warming trend? They would say its man made probably. But how do we know the current supposed warming is not the earths axis wobbling, or solar activity or something else?
To me that illustrates the point-- the earth has been both cooler and warmer than now many times and it had nothing to do with man. So IF the climate is changing now, how do we know man is at fault?
You are referring to the medieval warm period from roughly 950-1250 AD. There is evidence of subsistence farming in Southern Greenland which is impossible today.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
I will remember that one. Great info.
Not a stat alarmists would want to get out even if they know it.
Another is that for 95% of the time the earth has existed, there was NO ice anywhere.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
I heard that. We are actually cooler now that we have been for most of the earth's existence.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
I don't think climate change is as much of an issue ad depletion of our resources and The despoliation of the planet. Our earth isnt a toilet that we can mistreat like we have in the past.
The planet is reaching a breaking point at what we can throw at it or abuse.
Even if manmade activity isn't the cause of global warming, the problem is still there and aling with it conservation of our resources and how to make the best use & to recycle what we have left.
And within the scheme of things, we don't have that much left at our present rates of consumption. Even if we're told that we have hundreds of years left if expendable resources, what about after that? This is why measures to conserve & limit greenhouse gasses make sense.
This is the main takeaway from seoulbro's article.
Quote
I don't think there can be any serious denial that climate change pushers have an agenda that is not environmental.
Quote from: "JOE"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
I don't think climate change is as much of an issue ad depletion of our resources and The despoliation of the planet. Our earth isnt a toilet that we can mistreat like we have in the past.
The planet is reaching a breaking point at what we can throw at it or abuse.
Even if manmade activity isn't the cause of global warming, the problem is still there and aling with it conservation of our resources and how to make the best use & to recycle what we have left.
And within the scheme of things, we don't have that much left at our present rates of consumption. Even if we're told that we have hundreds of years left if expendable resources, what about after that? This is why measures to conserve & limit greenhouse gasses make sense.
Joe, you should have stopped typing after the first three words.
You don't think.
If you DID think, you would realise that the myth of climate being changed by human activity is yet another tool of the left to increase government control, increase taxes to subsidise dead end technologies and distribute wealth from rich countries to poor.
Why did you think ALL third world nations support the need for action against climate change. Said action gives them MONEY, Joe.
China is banking on climate change changing everything. Batteries are made up of four components: anode, cathode, separator, and electrolyte. China currently controls between 50% and 77% of the global market for the raw materials of these components, according to Yano Research Institute. Electric and hybrid vehicle sales are surging in China.
Quote from: "Gaon"
They want to be the world's leading car exporter and they think the future is electric.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
I will remember that one. Great info.
I just was reading the other day that there was strong evidence that Greenland was warmer in around 1,000 AD than it is now. The researchers were trying to explain it, they said it might be the earths axis wobbling, or it might be solar activity or something else.
And that's when I thought what would they say is causing our current supposed warming trend? They would say its man made probably. But how do we know the current supposed warming is not the earths axis wobbling, or solar activity or something else?
To me that illustrates the point-- the earth has been both cooler and warmer than now many times and it had nothing to do with man. So IF the climate is changing now, how do we know man is at fault?
The earth has had it's ups and downs for sure..
I have no reason not to believe we are not contributing to climate change..
But, the question is, even if we make huge sacrifices, will it mean we can reverse climate change, and nobody can say with absolute certainty it will.
if there is global warming and if its mostly man made I don't think the current approaches like reducing CO2 levels by 2% or 3%, or carbon taxes. are going to do anything. I think for a serious difference to be made it would probably take major sacrifices like getting rid of all or nearly all fossil fuels, and there is no way people are going to do that without a realistic alternative, and wind and solar are not going to cut it.
Speaking of--Trump had a funny line in his CPAC speech "Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television."
Fash just wondering, are most of the carbon taxes in Canada spent on environmental related stuff or are they usually spent on other things?
All taxes are spent on
Blame, wash, rinse, repeat.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Gaon"
They want to be the world's leading car exporter and they think the future is electric.
The future of people management (aka livestock) is electric with narrow charging options. That's what they truly want. To limit travel and options.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
I will remember that one. Great info.
Not a stat alarmists would want to get out even if they know it.
Certainly not.
Its also makes me wonder, if we could cap volcanoes, would that be an even better way to cut down on CO2? I have many problems with the climate change movement and that is another one of them. Technology is changing all the time. perhaps instead of sacrifices and taxes (which probably won't do anything) we will find another way eventually, through technology, to deal with climate change (if it is actually happening)
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote
I will remember that one. Great info.
Not a stat alarmists would want to get out even if they know it.
Certainly not.
Its also makes me wonder, if we could cap volcanoes, would that be an even better way to cut down on CO2? I have many problems with the climate change movement and that is another one of them. Technology is changing all the time. perhaps instead of sacrifices and taxes (which probably won't do anything) we will find another way eventually, through technology, to deal with climate change (if it is actually happening)
I find it hard to believe that man can put a real roadblock in front of climate change. Sacrifices are futile. Capping volcanoes makes sense because of the destruction they cause. The best way to deal with a changing climate is adaptation.
A catalogue of the failed predictions of climate alarmists.
//https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
Quote from: "Bricktop"
//https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
Good find. :thumbup:
Yes..
The polar ice cap was supposed to be all melt by now... If you believe Al Gore..
And the globe should have been all dimmed by now..
Quote from: "Bricktop"
//https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
I don't understand why people would not take IPCC predictions with a pinch of salt when they are wrong so often.