The End Of The World

[Burp]

Predictions made by scientists on 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

“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

“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

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

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009.

-----

I believe the term is: pwned

 

[KittenKoder]

As I call it "moving the goal posts". They make these predictions to scare people into funding the companies that fund them ... then when they don't happen they have to make up something scarier to trick people a little while longer.

 

[KittenKoder]

I love this link in the comments:
25 Global Warming Debunking Videos Al Gore Doesn’t Want You To See

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's a good thing people woke up and the 70's and 80's brought about anti-pollution legislation that caused these predictions to be thwarted...

Do y'all think we can handle the challenges we face today?

-Joe

 

[Burp]

It's a good thing people woke up and the 70's and 80's brought about anti-pollution legislation that caused these predictions to be thwarted...

Do y'all think we can handle the challenges we face today?

-Joe

So even though none of those predictions came try, it's good they made them because everyone got scared and, hence, anti-pollution legislation?

 

[KittenKoder]

It's a good thing people woke up and the 70's and 80's brought about anti-pollution legislation that caused these predictions to be thwarted...

Do y'all think we can handle the challenges we face today?

-Joe

You do realize that all that legislation did was force people to use certain products and services, many of which were worse than the pollution they were creating. Oh wait ... the prophet (who never seems to live what he preaches) said it's so.

 

[Iriemon]

Predictions made by scientists on 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

“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

“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

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

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009.

-----

I believe the term is: pwned

Maybe the term is logical fallacy. The fallacy in your point is the presumption that these warnings were all ignored and therefore they were all mistaken. Some predictions were silly. On the other hand, dynamic changes altered the predicted course, some of which were based on these warnings; which doesn't mean the prediction was invalid because it was based upon a continuation of present trends.

Population rates declined in industrialized countries, though overpopulation is still a huge problem in many parts of the world. The passage of pollution controls has vastly improved air and water quality (even though as I recall it was supposed to bankrupt business). Wildlife preservations efforts have saved a number of critters from extinction.

 

[Iriemon]

It's a good thing people woke up and the 70's and 80's brought about anti-pollution legislation that caused these predictions to be thwarted...

Do y'all think we can handle the challenges we face today?

-Joe

So even though none of those predictions came try, it's good they made them because everyone got scared and, hence, anti-pollution legislation?

Exactly. If there was a prediction that thousands would die from air pollution if things didn't change, and as a result pollution laws were passed that cleaned up the air so thousands didn't die, that didn't make the prediction and its warning invalid.

 

[Burp]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUatnbaNfEo[/ame]

 

[KittenKoder]

It's a good thing people woke up and the 70's and 80's brought about anti-pollution legislation that caused these predictions to be thwarted...

Do y'all think we can handle the challenges we face today?

-Joe

So even though none of those predictions came try, it's good they made them because everyone got scared and, hence, anti-pollution legislation?

Exactly. If there was a prediction that thousands would die from air pollution if things didn't change, and as a result pollution laws were passed that cleaned up the air so thousands didn't die, that didn't make the prediction and its warning invalid.

The flaw ... since they did nothing has apparently changed according to the scientists, this is why they don't focus on those anymore. Not to mention that none of their unalterable events (there are many) ever happened (CFC delayed effects for the most prominent example). The legislation hasn't caused any decrease in pollutants according to the same scientists, so these should have still happened. Now you are spinning completely.

 

[k2skier]

Crude oil, limited? Don't be silly, there's enough to last forever

Pollution? The planet can handle ANYTHING we throw at (or in and on) her, no worries

 

[KittenKoder]

Crude oil, limited? Don't be silly, there's enough to last forever

Pollution? The planet can handle ANYTHING we throw at (or in and on) her, no worries

The first part ... meh ... when we run out it will suck if all we have is "solar" and "wind" power since every vehicle will have to go electric and all oils will have to be synthetic.

Second part ... well at least you're slowly getting it.

 

[jillian]

I believe the term is: pwned

Nope... the term is you've been duped...

because interestingly, a lot of CHANGES were made after 1970, genius...

1970
Twenty million people celebrate the first Earth Day.

1970
President Richard Nixon creates EPA with a mission to protect the environment and public health.

1970
Congress amends the Clean Air Act to set national air quality, auto emission, and anti-pollution standards.

1971
Congress restricts use of lead-based paint in residences and on cribs and toys.

1972
EPA bans DDT, a cancer-causing pesticide, and requires extensive review of all pesticides.

In 1996, the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list, reflecting its recovery since the 1972 DDT ban.

1972
The United States and Canada agree to clean up the Great Lakes, which contain 95 percent of America’s fresh water and supply drinking water for 25 million people.

1972
Congress passes the Clean Water Act, limiting raw sewage and other pollutants flowing into rivers, lakes, and streams.

In 1972, only 36 percent of the nation's assessed stream miles were safe for uses such as fishing and swimming: today, about 60 percent are safe for such uses.

1973
EPA begins phasing out leaded gasoline.

1973
OPEC oil embargo triggers energy crisis, stimulating conservation and research on alternative energy sources.

1973
EPA issues its first permit limiting a factory’s polluted discharges into waterways.

1974
Congress passes the Safe Drinking Water Act, allowing EPA to regulate the quality of public drinking water.

1975
Congress establishes fuel economy standards and sets tail-pipe emission standards for cars, resulting in the introduction of catalytic converters.

1976
Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal.

1976
President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks.

1976
EPA begins phase-out of cancer-causing PCB production and use.

1977
President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health.

1978
Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers.

1978
The federal government bans chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as propellants in aerosol cans because CFCs destroy the ozone layer, which protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

1979
EPA demonstrates scrubber technology for removing air pollution from coal-fired power plants. This technology is widely adopted in the 1980s.

1979
Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, increases awareness and discussion about nuclear power safety. EPA and other agencies monitor radioactive fallout.


In the 1980s

1980
Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Polluters are made responsible for cleaning up the most hazardous sites.

1981
National Research Council report finds acid rain intensifying in the Northeastern United States and Canada.

1982
Congress enacts laws for safe disposal of nuclear waste.

1982
Dioxin contamination forces the government to purchase homes in Times Beach, Missouri. The federal government and the responsible polluters share the cleanup costs.

1982
A PCB landfill protest in North Carolina begins the environmental justice movement.

1983
Cleanup actions begin to rid the Chesapeake Bay of pollution stemming from sewage treatment plants, urban runoff, and farm waste.

1983
EPA encourages homeowners to test for radon gas, which causes lung cancer.

To date, more than 18 million homes have been tested for radon. Approximately 575 lives are saved annually due to radon mitigation and radon-resistant new construction.

1985
Scientists report that a giant hole in the earth’s ozone layer opens each spring over Antarctica.

1986
Congress declares the public has a right to know when toxic chemicals are released into air, land, and water.

1987
The United States signs the Montreal Protocol, pledging to phase-out production of CFCs.

1987
Medical and other waste washes up on shores, closing beaches in New York and New Jersey.

1988
Congress bans ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste.

*MORE*

Environmental Progress | Earth Day | US EPA

And THAT is what is known as being pwnd.

Cheers.

 

[Iriemon]

So even though none of those predictions came try, it's good they made them because everyone got scared and, hence, anti-pollution legislation?

Exactly. If there was a prediction that thousands would die from air pollution if things didn't change, and as a result pollution laws were passed that cleaned up the air so thousands didn't die, that didn't make the prediction and its warning invalid.

The flaw ... since they did nothing has apparently changed according to the scientists, this is why they don't focus on those anymore. Not to mention that none of their unalterable events (there are many) ever happened (CFC delayed effects for the most prominent example). The legislation hasn't caused any decrease in pollutants according to the same scientists, so these should have still happened. Now you are spinning completely.

I don't quite understand your point. Are you claiming for example that all the EPA laws and regulations in the 70s had no effect on air and water quality? Are you saying that preservation efforts had no effect on survival of certain species?

 

[KittenKoder]

Exactly. If there was a prediction that thousands would die from air pollution if things didn't change, and as a result pollution laws were passed that cleaned up the air so thousands didn't die, that didn't make the prediction and its warning invalid.

The flaw ... since they did nothing has apparently changed according to the scientists, this is why they don't focus on those anymore. Not to mention that none of their unalterable events (there are many) ever happened (CFC delayed effects for the most prominent example). The legislation hasn't caused any decrease in pollutants according to the same scientists, so these should have still happened. Now you are spinning completely.

I don't quite understand your point. Are you claiming for example that all the EPA laws and regulations in the 70s had no effect on air and water quality? Are you saying that preservation efforts had no effect on survival of certain species?

They are trying to preserve species that are going naturally extinct in most cases now, which just upsets the natural order of things. As for the EPA laws, no, they haven't had an effect, the water has more crap in it now than ever, one could argue it's worse. The air quality is worse now as well. To top it off they are creating more things to use as fear factors, with no other purpose than to endorse specific products and services which many are being funded by taxes or forced purchases now.

 

[Iriemon]

They are trying to preserve species that are going naturally extinct in most cases now, which just upsets the natural order of things.

That depends upon how you define the natural order.

As for the EPA laws, no, they haven't had an effect, the water has more crap in it now than ever, one could argue it's worse. The air quality is worse now as well. To top it off they are creating more things to use as fear factors, with no other purpose than to endorse specific products and services which many are being funded by taxes or forced purchases now.

Your contention that environmental laws have had no impact is, IMO, either very misinformed or is based on a anti-regulation bias that supersedes your ability to look at the facts objectively.

It's been since the mid-70s that I've read about Lake Erie catching on fire.

 

[KittenKoder]

They are trying to preserve species that are going naturally extinct in most cases now, which just upsets the natural order of things.

That depends upon how you define the natural order.

As for the EPA laws, no, they haven't had an effect, the water has more crap in it now than ever, one could argue it's worse. The air quality is worse now as well. To top it off they are creating more things to use as fear factors, with no other purpose than to endorse specific products and services which many are being funded by taxes or forced purchases now.

Your contention that environmental laws have had no impact is, IMO, either very misinformed or is based on a anti-regulation bias that supersedes your ability to look at the facts objectively.

It's been since the mid-70s that I've read about Lake Erie catching on fire.

No, all I have seen the scientists for environmentalism and legislation do is endorse (usually by force or bully) specific products and services from companies that would normally fail since they have no real use or purpose.

 

[k2skier]

Crude oil, limited? Don't be silly, there's enough to last forever

Pollution? The planet can handle ANYTHING we throw at (or in and on) her, no worries

The first part ... meh ... when we run out it will suck if all we have is "solar" and "wind" power since every vehicle will have to go electric and all oils will have to be synthetic.

Second part ... well at least you're slowly getting it.

Sarcasm, right? You couldn't possibly be serious, could you?

Concentrating solar, geothermal, wave and ocean current....the list goes on don't get stuck in a rut on power sources, fuel cell....

 

[Old Rocks]

The flaw ... since they did nothing has apparently changed according to the scientists, this is why they don't focus on those anymore. Not to mention that none of their unalterable events (there are many) ever happened (CFC delayed effects for the most prominent example). The legislation hasn't caused any decrease in pollutants according to the same scientists, so these should have still happened. Now you are spinning completely.

I don't quite understand your point. Are you claiming for example that all the EPA laws and regulations in the 70s had no effect on air and water quality? Are you saying that preservation efforts had no effect on survival of certain species?

They are trying to preserve species that are going naturally extinct in most cases now, which just upsets the natural order of things. As for the EPA laws, no, they haven't had an effect, the water has more crap in it now than ever, one could argue it's worse. The air quality is worse now as well. To top it off they are creating more things to use as fear factors, with no other purpose than to endorse specific products and services which many are being funded by taxes or forced purchases now.

I see. The American Bison was just naturally going extinct, had nothing at all to do with the Sharps rifles. And then there is the Passenger Pidgeon. We are the agents of one of the great extinctions.

 

[KittenKoder]

Crude oil, limited? Don't be silly, there's enough to last forever

Pollution? The planet can handle ANYTHING we throw at (or in and on) her, no worries

The first part ... meh ... when we run out it will suck if all we have is "solar" and "wind" power since every vehicle will have to go electric and all oils will have to be synthetic.

Second part ... well at least you're slowly getting it.

Sarcasm, right? You couldn't possibly be serious, could you?

Concentrating solar, geothermal, wave and ocean current....the list goes on don't get stuck in a rut on power sources, fuel cell....

There is a simple law of physics which you want to ignore. Energy is never created or destroyed, it merely changes form. You are still taking energy from the planet and converting it into energy we use, no matter how it's done, it WILL have just as much an impact. Solar ... do you think that the radiation just came through the atmosphere and vanished? It plays an important role in the ecosystems and is just as important to the planet. Wind ... so we will absorb all the power from the wind, essentially killing it, creating a stagnant atmosphere and making it no longer possible for most species of plants to pollinate correctly. Geothermal ... earths natural heat source ... seems you REALLY want that ice age huh? At least with oil or nuclear we are not taking energy directly from nature, we are taking it from concentrated sources. Every species impacts the environment negatively in some way or another, there are just too many humans do our impact is too much. We can't change the impact without changing our population, period.