Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009

Neotrotsky

Council to Supreme Soviet
Dec 12, 2009
10,490
1,281
245
People's Republic
Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009 or Hey, we got it right this time- trust us


Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist


“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“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….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.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: 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….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. 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.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.
 
You mean we're all not gonna die from CO2 poisoning in the not too distant future if the gov doesn't rape up for every dime they can? No, say it ain't so!
 
Well................
World Hunger Notes--Global Issues: World Hunger Facts 2009

Lemme step it up a little more.
One billion people are now starving | National Catholic Reporter

If you really want to see multiple billions starve get your masters to create a " War on hunger"

Hunger is a terrible thing. All said, these links do not show how the bad predicitions from 1970 were correct

As a side note- question,

if the earth was to warm up - do you think it would make more land agriculturally viable and then we could feed even more people?

:eusa_eh:
 
Well................
World Hunger Notes--Global Issues: World Hunger Facts 2009

Lemme step it up a little more.
One billion people are now starving | National Catholic Reporter

If you really want to see multiple billions starve get your masters to create a " War on hunger"

Well, if you want to feed them grow the balls and do it, but quit doing it under the guise of man made global warming.

I don't mind, and think we should, do what we can to help these unfortunate souls, but we can't cripple our economy to do it, or we'll all be fucked and have nothing left to give them.
 
Well................
World Hunger Notes--Global Issues: World Hunger Facts 2009

Lemme step it up a little more.
One billion people are now starving | National Catholic Reporter

If you really want to see multiple billions starve get your masters to create a " War on hunger"

Hunger is a terrible thing. All said, these links do not show how the bad predicitions from 1970 were correct

As a side note- question,

if the earth was to warm up - do you think it would make more land agriculturally viable and then we could feed even more people?

:eusa_eh:

Absolutely. Only on high ground. Mangoes in Minnesota anyone ?
 
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist


“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
Paul Ehrlich has lost every single bet made with Julian Simon.

Simon-Ehrlich wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone, let alone the kook left, takes Ehrlich seriously anymore.
 
Isnt it interesting that the so-called "solution" to all these environmental "problems" is nothing more than the same socialist regulation that the people rejected outright and which has been repeatedly demonstrated to ruin economies? I mean what the heck are the chances that all our solutions are socialist in nature right after these same measures are completely rejected by the population on their merits alone.

There is absolutely no chance that these socialists realizing their agenda was failing are now attempting to mask it as "environmentalism" to scare up emotional support for it. No way that could posibly happen. Because the only solution for our problems is larger more intrusive government. It's just a fact. And only someone who is stupid could disagree with that.
 
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist




I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone, let alone the kook left, takes Ehrlich seriously anymore.

I hear you

Like Papa Obama's science czar, John Holdren who co-authored Ecoscience with Paul R. and Anne Ehrlich.
:eusa_angel:
 
Last edited:
Where were we in 1970 vs where are we today in terms of protecting the environment?

Lake Erie was a wasteland, Hudson River was a cesspool, you couldn't eat the fish in many US rivers and lakes. Anyone remember "Love Canal" ?

Bald Eagles and a long list of creatures were in danger of extinction

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today
 
Last edited:
Where were we in 1970 vs where are we today in terms of protecting the environment?

Lake Erie was a wasteland, Hudson River was a cesspool, you couldn't eat the fish in many US rivers and lakes. Anyone remember "Love Canal" ?

Bald Eagles and a long list of creatures were in danger of extinction

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today


These are issues that are different from their predictions

None became true because they were false

Not because we "cleaned" up the Hudson
:eek:
 
Last edited:
Where were we in 1970 vs where are we today in terms of protecting the environment?

Lake Erie was a wasteland, Hudson River was a cesspool, you couldn't eat the fish in many US rivers and lakes. Anyone remember "Love Canal" ?

Bald Eagles and a long list of creatures were in danger of extinction

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today


These are issues that are different from their predictions

None became true because they were false

Not because we "cleaned" up the Hudson
:eek:

I remember as a kid growing up near the Hudson River. We were forbidden to eat the fish we caught. I remember catching some carp out of there that had lesions on them. We had a local creek that used to run blue or red when a local paper mill would dump crap into it.

Where I live now in NJ, we have a Bald Eagle pair nesting nearby. In the late 60s, it looked like we would lose them forever.

It was the environmentalists of the 60s and 70s that made the difference and Earth Day was a part of that
 
Where were we in 1970 vs where are we today in terms of protecting the environment?

Lake Erie was a wasteland, Hudson River was a cesspool, you couldn't eat the fish in many US rivers and lakes. Anyone remember "Love Canal" ?

Bald Eagles and a long list of creatures were in danger of extinction

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today


These are issues that are different from their predictions

None became true because they were false

Not because we "cleaned" up the Hudson
:eek:

I remember as a kid ....


That's a nice story

So which one of these predictions became true?
 
Isnt it interesting that the so-called "solution" to all these environmental "problems" is nothing more than the same socialist regulation that the people rejected outright and which has been repeatedly demonstrated to ruin economies? I mean what the heck are the chances that all our solutions are socialist in nature right after these same measures are completely rejected by the population on their merits alone.

There is absolutely no chance that these socialists realizing their agenda was failing are now attempting to mask it as "environmentalism" to scare up emotional support for it. No way that could posibly happen. Because the only solution for our problems is larger more intrusive government. It's just a fact. And only someone who is stupid could disagree with that.
Not surprising, interesting or unexpected to those of us aware of their antics since the 1980's. Irritating, frustrating and now infuriating... yes. This has always been a solution in search of a problem.
 
Isnt it interesting that the so-called "solution" to all these environmental "problems" is nothing more than the same socialist regulation that the people rejected outright and which has been repeatedly demonstrated to ruin economies? I mean what the heck are the chances that all our solutions are socialist in nature right after these same measures are completely rejected by the population on their merits alone.

There is absolutely no chance that these socialists realizing their agenda was failing are now attempting to mask it as "environmentalism" to scare up emotional support for it. No way that could posibly happen. Because the only solution for our problems is larger more intrusive government. It's just a fact. And only someone who is stupid could disagree with that.

The solutions to our environmental problems were socialist. We needed Government to step in and force businesses to do things that were not in their best interest. Corporate America did the same thing then as they do now. Claim they will go out of business, threaten to lay people off, buy off your local right wing politician.
These companies were dumping untreated industrial waste right into our rivers, right into our water supplies. They burned whatever they wanted and dumped it into the air. We needed strong Government regulations to force these companies to do the right thing.
Is that "Socialism"?? Yes it is

And it worked
 
Anyone here live in LA?

I lived there in the late 70"s and saw the impact of the smog. There was a permanent haze that hung over the LA basin all summer long. You don't think we needed the strict emissions regulations on automobiles? Do you think we are better off than we were in the 60's and 70s?
 
Isnt it interesting that the so-called "solution" to all these environmental "problems" is nothing more than the same socialist regulation that the people rejected outright and which has been repeatedly demonstrated to ruin economies? I mean what the heck are the chances that all our solutions are socialist in nature right after these same measures are completely rejected by the population on their merits alone.


Is that "Socialism"?? Yes it is

And it worked

Well, not really

The free market allows for natural monopolies and public goods and their regulation, for example.

Granted, socialist economies use regulation, but regulation by itself does not make one's economy "socialist". However, one can regulate an economy to the point where you have a "socialist" like economy by gov't fiat. We are not there yet; but we are getting closer by the day
:eusa_angel:

The solutions from these false predictions from the 70's and from the ones today, would require so much regulation that we would end up being a "socialist" economy by gov't fiat or if necessary, actual gov't ownership of the means of production.
 
Anyone here live in LA?

I lived there in the late 70"s and saw the impact of the smog. There was a permanent haze that hung over the LA basin all summer long. You don't think we needed the strict emissions regulations on automobiles? Do you think we are better off than we were in the 60's and 70s?
Pollution is not the same as climate change. They are not equivalent or even related. There IS a quality of life and health issue brought about by pollution. This DOES need to be addressed and watched over.

The problem is this thought process has been TOTALLY co-opted by the hard left corporatists who want to use this issue as a method to enslave the world to their insanity.
 

Forum List

Back
Top