Earth day countdown: environmentalism’s ten biggest scams, hoaxes, myths and frauds–“The Population Bomb”-Man-made global cooling”

Earth day countdown: environmentalism’s ten biggest scams, hoaxes, myths and frauds

#3 – “The Population Bomb”

Before there was “man-made global warming,” there was the “population bomb.”

Radical environmentalist Paul Ehrlich caused a global stir in 1968 with the release of “The Population Bomb.”  Written at the request of Sierra Club Executive Director David Brower, an advocate of human extinction, the book claimed human population would soon grow so large the planet could not sustain, and mass death would follow.

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate,” Ehrlich wrote.

Specifically, Ehrlich pointed to India, then-population of 400 million.  “India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980″I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971.”.

The book sold more than two million copies and formed the foundation of much of the environmentalist movement’s legislative agenda.  Radical environmentalists used the “population bomb” threat to demand greater central control and planning of economies, agriculture and family planning programs.

Brower, who inspired the book, founded the League of Conservation Voters, led the Sierra Club and whose teachings still shape environmentalist policy, demanded “childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

But much like the “man-made global warming” conspiracy theory, “the population bomb” throws out an alarmist claim whose implications are so serious they compel environmentalists to demand total compliance from legislators just in case it may be true.

And since you’re not reading this on top of a pile of graves, you know Erhlich’s “population bomb” was completely falsified.  Not only has the world’s population grown drastically since 1968, our ability to produce food has grown even faster thanks to technologies opposed by radical environmentalists.

And India, which Ehrlich claimed couldn’t grow much beyond 400 million people without mass deaths?  They are now at 1.2 billion people and rapidly increasing both their population and standard of living.

In fact, Ehrlich made sure that any copies of his book printed after 1971 had the sentence “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971” removed from the texts, much like how today’s “man-made global warming” conspiracy theorists frequently doctor and omit wildly incorrect predictions and contrary data.

But proving environmentalism is as shameless as it is scientifically baseless, the exposure of “the population bomb” as a hoax did not deter environmentalists from demanding nations convert to socialist, centrally-planned economies where industry, agriculture and family planning are controlled by government.  They simply created a new hoax, the “climate bomb,” if you will.

#2 – “Man-made global cooling”

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it…

…Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

That was Newsweek, April 28, 1975, predicting mass deaths and global catastrophe – from man-made global cooling.

As the United States experienced cooler-than-usual winters in the 1960s and 1970s, the popular scientific theory at the time was that automobile and industry were filling the atmosphere with pollutants that were causing the globe to hurtle toward a new Ice Age.

The prescription was dramatic.  Environmentalists demanded world leaders place strict curbs on industry and impose massive new taxes to redistribute income and stave off the soon-to-happen “Snowball Earth.”

One problem.  Most of their alarmist demands weren’t met, and the Ice Age didn’t happen.

That didn’t stop radical environmentalists, however.  They simply changed their story and now declared the same policies that would stop the Earth from cooling would now somehow magically stop the Earth from warming.

It’s all bunk however.  When considering sheer power of global climate dynamics it is scientifically laughable to claim human emissions can cause climate change on a global scale.  Perhaps that’s why more than 31,000 climatologists and other scientists publicly refute the politically-motivated claim of “man-made climate change” that only higher taxes and a more centrally-planned state can reverse.

source-the sovereignity, katir o, unced, dr paul erlich, edf, mtbe, sierra club, david brower, dr walter williams, judge edmund sweeney, william ruckeishaus, dr charles foster, john davis, dave forman, david graber, reed noss, paul ehrlich, cato, pat michaels, reid bryson, lowell ponte, kenneth watt


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s