The sky is NOT falling after all boys- smile and be happy- life is GOOD!
Your friendly pal,
Uncle Galt
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 9230563446
Environmentalists Still Can't Get It Right
By WALTER E. WILLIAMS | Posted Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore's hero and mentor, predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
Ehrlich forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and that by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million.
Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50% of the world's resources and "by 2000 they (Americans) will, if permitted, be using all of them."
In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75% and 85% of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong.
In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association: There's a 1,000- to 2,500- year supply.
Here are my questions:
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man-made global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
In 1939, when the Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to man-made global warming?
Here are a few facts:
More than 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.
Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse-gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.[/b][/url]
Environmentalists Still Can't Get It Right
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Environmentalists Still Can't Get It Right
DAR
Oh, this one is going to be easy. Another drive by from gutless Galt is gonna get a well deserved roast. I only wish Walter Williams were here to receive the roast in person. This might take 30 minutes.
Who said the sky was falling? How come you never give a single example? How come when I challenge global warming deniers to give a single example of supposed exaggeration of the effects of GW, they run away? I don't doubt there are examples. I may even agree with you on them. Why don't you even try to find one you can post?
A completely uncredible and disreputable source. Any list of loons, and Walter has simply made a list of loons, not necessarily environmentalists, should include Walter (Limbaugh substitue) Williams. None of it is sourced and I don't doubt that some of the quotes are complete fiction. But even if they are not, it is hardly difficult to data mine fifty years of material and glean some absurd comments. Anyone can do that. Perhaps I should post a list of absurd comments from Walter. Maybe later.
It's curious and rather ironic that Williams would choose Calder to pick on. He's known to be a science popularizer, not an environmentalist. But more the point, he has been making an idiot of himself recently by positioning himself as a global warming denier. He even appeared on that stupid bit of propaganda "The Great Global Warming Swindle." I have roasted his claims on this forum a few times. He's a loon alright, but a loon on Walter Williams side of the fence!
I am going to snip most of these cause they are just dumb and really old. Such as:
"C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940..." who cares.
That's true. Paul R. Ehrlich (not the Paul Ehrlich who won the noble in 1908), made several exaggerated and ridiculous predictions regarding over-population. I have never found the "population explosion" arguments persuasive. However, as his wiki blurb notes:
"Professor Ehrlich and his wife Anne have been praised for raising awareness of environmental matters and for bringing to public awareness issues regarding population, resources and environment, as well as making ecology a household word."
There were lots of over the top environmental claims in the '70's. Mountains of them. Walter cherry picks a choice few, hoping his more simple readers (i.e. Galt) will be fooled into thinking this has something to do with our current scientific claims regarding global warming. Nice try. I am sure there is a name for this fallacy but I don't know what it is.
Well that's not true. I am sure they had doomsayers around during the black plague, and they would certainly have been very right. There have been lots of other instances of doom experience by mass numbers of people.
If I cared I would make a list of things Walter has been wrong about. Maybe later.
Anyone else notice how far back Walter has to go to get most of this stuff?
I wish Walter had sourced this one. It's most certainly false. If the US has a multi-millennia supply, why does it import 16% of it's natural gas right now? Why don't we just convert our cars to run on natural gas and tell the middle east to get stuffed?
If we really have this much supply why does the Department of Energy say this:
"In 2006, Canada remained the largest natural gas exporter to the United States (and is expected to stay the largest for some time), ... LNG imports from overseas, expected to be the most likely supply source to meet future increases in U.S. consumption, grew rapidly during the early years of this decade."
LINK
Oh now, on to Walter's "questions." My favorite.
Walter is even more blatant in his attempt to smear together two issues and dishonestly taint one with the other. The claim of millions of Americans starving to death occurred in a pop culture book and was rightfully ignored.
The man-made cooling claim is a bullshit red-herring global warming deniers try to pass around. I have roasted it in this forum many times. Walter is simply misinformed or dishonest. You can read the debunk here. Or not.
Answer: The exact steps they did take.
Ditto. And predictions of oil supply are related to GW in what way? Walter is suggesting, some times predictions are wrong, even astonishingly wrong, therefore, global warming is wrong? That does not follow (non sequitur). This is what global warming deniers are reduced to now?
Now he gets to his dishonest point. "Environmental alarmism" begs the question. He assumes, without a drop of evidence that his silly, moldy, cherry-picked quotes going back to 1885 have anything to do with todays claims regarding GW. He even pretends it is the same people who have just switched to a different tune.
Oh, now Walter is going to share some facts. It's about time. I like facts.
Right. Poor Walter never takes a moment to tell us why this matters or how it somehow nullifies the claims regarding human caused GW. Why? Because he clearly doesn't understand the issue. He has a child's understanding.
Quick roast. Moisture added to the atmosphere lasts on average ten days. C02 added to the atmosphere (humans add 30 billion tons per year) lasts for about 100 years. Consider the difference. ALL global climate models take into consideration the substantial influence of water vapor. Walter is either ignorant or misinformed. You can read the roast of this common water vapor cannard here. Or not.
Actually, it would be -2.2 °F, (-19 C) but close enough for an amateur. His comment is suitable for a kindergarten class. I did mention that Walter often covers for, and is used to talking to the Rush Limbaugh audience didn't I?
Actually, any change caused orbital eccentricities would take place over very long time scales. Walter's making it up again. The "changes in solar output" is just false. He's lying or misinformed. Solar variance is very carefully measured. No trend. Here is a nice chart from the Max Planck Institute:
I don't doubt that. I am sure natural wetlands produce a lot. But it is completely, 100% irrelevant, to the claims of global warming. Walter should know this or he should keep his yap shut until he gets informed. What matters is the net difference caused by humans as they add to the natural carbon transactions already taking place. This amount is in fact considerable and having an incontrovertible, carefully measured, and observable impact on the earth's climate.
So glad you are here Galt. Please come back soon.
D.
Oh, this one is going to be easy. Another drive by from gutless Galt is gonna get a well deserved roast. I only wish Walter Williams were here to receive the roast in person. This might take 30 minutes.
DARThe sky is NOT falling after all...
Who said the sky was falling? How come you never give a single example? How come when I challenge global warming deniers to give a single example of supposed exaggeration of the effects of GW, they run away? I don't doubt there are examples. I may even agree with you on them. Why don't you even try to find one you can post?
DARUncle Galt wrote: Environmentalists Still Can't Get It Right
By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
A completely uncredible and disreputable source. Any list of loons, and Walter has simply made a list of loons, not necessarily environmentalists, should include Walter (Limbaugh substitue) Williams. None of it is sourced and I don't doubt that some of the quotes are complete fiction. But even if they are not, it is hardly difficult to data mine fifty years of material and glean some absurd comments. Anyone can do that. Perhaps I should post a list of absurd comments from Walter. Maybe later.
DARWW
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
It's curious and rather ironic that Williams would choose Calder to pick on. He's known to be a science popularizer, not an environmentalist. But more the point, he has been making an idiot of himself recently by positioning himself as a global warming denier. He even appeared on that stupid bit of propaganda "The Great Global Warming Swindle." I have roasted his claims on this forum a few times. He's a loon alright, but a loon on Walter Williams side of the fence!
I am going to snip most of these cause they are just dumb and really old. Such as:
"C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940..." who cares.
DARWW
In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore's hero and mentor, predicted that there would be a major food shortage...
That's true. Paul R. Ehrlich (not the Paul Ehrlich who won the noble in 1908), made several exaggerated and ridiculous predictions regarding over-population. I have never found the "population explosion" arguments persuasive. However, as his wiki blurb notes:
"Professor Ehrlich and his wife Anne have been praised for raising awareness of environmental matters and for bringing to public awareness issues regarding population, resources and environment, as well as making ecology a household word."
DARWW
In 1972, a report
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book,"...
In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning,...
Harvard biologist George Wald in 1970 warned,...
There were lots of over the top environmental claims in the '70's. Mountains of them. Walter cherry picks a choice few, hoping his more simple readers (i.e. Galt) will be fooled into thinking this has something to do with our current scientific claims regarding global warming. Nice try. I am sure there is a name for this fallacy but I don't know what it is.
DARWW
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong.
Well that's not true. I am sure they had doomsayers around during the black plague, and they would certainly have been very right. There have been lots of other instances of doom experience by mass numbers of people.
If I cared I would make a list of things Walter has been wrong about. Maybe later.
DARWW
In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced...
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said...
In 1949, the secretary of the interior said...
Anyone else notice how far back Walter has to go to get most of this stuff?
DAR...in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association: There's a 1,000- to 2,500- year supply.
I wish Walter had sourced this one. It's most certainly false. If the US has a multi-millennia supply, why does it import 16% of it's natural gas right now? Why don't we just convert our cars to run on natural gas and tell the middle east to get stuffed?
If we really have this much supply why does the Department of Energy say this:
"In 2006, Canada remained the largest natural gas exporter to the United States (and is expected to stay the largest for some time), ... LNG imports from overseas, expected to be the most likely supply source to meet future increases in U.S. consumption, grew rapidly during the early years of this decade."
LINK
Oh now, on to Walter's "questions." My favorite.
DARWW
Here are my questions:
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man-made global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
Walter is even more blatant in his attempt to smear together two issues and dishonestly taint one with the other. The claim of millions of Americans starving to death occurred in a pop culture book and was rightfully ignored.
The man-made cooling claim is a bullshit red-herring global warming deniers try to pass around. I have roasted it in this forum many times. Walter is simply misinformed or dishonest. You can read the debunk here. Or not.
DARWhen Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
Answer: The exact steps they did take.
DARIn 1939, when the Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?
Ditto. And predictions of oil supply are related to GW in what way? Walter is suggesting, some times predictions are wrong, even astonishingly wrong, therefore, global warming is wrong? That does not follow (non sequitur). This is what global warming deniers are reduced to now?
DARWW
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to man-made global warming?
Now he gets to his dishonest point. "Environmental alarmism" begs the question. He assumes, without a drop of evidence that his silly, moldy, cherry-picked quotes going back to 1885 have anything to do with todays claims regarding GW. He even pretends it is the same people who have just switched to a different tune.
Oh, now Walter is going to share some facts. It's about time. I like facts.
DARHere are a few facts:
More than 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.
Right. Poor Walter never takes a moment to tell us why this matters or how it somehow nullifies the claims regarding human caused GW. Why? Because he clearly doesn't understand the issue. He has a child's understanding.
Quick roast. Moisture added to the atmosphere lasts on average ten days. C02 added to the atmosphere (humans add 30 billion tons per year) lasts for about 100 years. Consider the difference. ALL global climate models take into consideration the substantial influence of water vapor. Walter is either ignorant or misinformed. You can read the roast of this common water vapor cannard here. Or not.
DARWithout the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.
Actually, it would be -2.2 °F, (-19 C) but close enough for an amateur. His comment is suitable for a kindergarten class. I did mention that Walter often covers for, and is used to talking to the Rush Limbaugh audience didn't I?
DARWW
Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output.
Actually, any change caused orbital eccentricities would take place over very long time scales. Walter's making it up again. The "changes in solar output" is just false. He's lying or misinformed. Solar variance is very carefully measured. No trend. Here is a nice chart from the Max Planck Institute:
DARWW
On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse-gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
I don't doubt that. I am sure natural wetlands produce a lot. But it is completely, 100% irrelevant, to the claims of global warming. Walter should know this or he should keep his yap shut until he gets informed. What matters is the net difference caused by humans as they add to the natural carbon transactions already taking place. This amount is in fact considerable and having an incontrovertible, carefully measured, and observable impact on the earth's climate.
So glad you are here Galt. Please come back soon.
D.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: Environmentalists Still Can't Get It Right
DAR
Thought I would check this claim a closer.
In 2007 the US consumed: 23.0 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas --EIA pdf
And now, three well referenced and detailed estimates from this natural gas supply associationsite:
U.S. Natural Gas Resource Estimates
Below are three estimates of natural gas reserves in the United States. The first, compiled by the Energy Information Administration (referred to as the EIA), estimates that there are 1,190.62 Tcf of technically recoverable natural gas in the United States. This includes undiscovered, unproved, and unconventional natural gas.
Total U.S. Unproved 1023.21
Proved Reserves 167.41
Total Natural Gas 1190.62 (Tcf)
Source: Energy Information Administration - Annual Energy Outlook 2002
***
The following table includes an estimate of natural gas resources compiled by the National Petroleum Council in 1999 in its report Natural Gas - Meeting the Challenges of the Nation's Growing Natural Gas Demand.
Total U.S. Remaining Resources 1779
Source: National Petroleum Council - Meeting the Challenges of the Nation's Growing Natural Gas Demand, 1999
***
Below is a third estimate completed by the Potential Gas Committee. This estimate places total U.S. natural gas resources at just over 1,090 Tcf, the lowest of the three estimates.
Total United States 1090.997
Source: Potential Gas Committee - Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States, 2000
Quote:
"There are a myriad of different industry participants that formulate their own estimates regarding natural gas supplies, such as production companies, independent geologists, the government, and environmental groups, to name a few. While this leads to a wealth of information, it also leads to a number of difficulties. Each estimate is based on a different set of assumptions, completed with different tools, and even referred to with different language. It is thus difficult to get a definitive answer to the question of how much natural gas exists. In addition, since these are all essentially educated guesses as to the amount of natural gas in the earth, there are constant revisions being made."
DAR
So, aside from the irony of Walter Williams quoting (unsourced) a wildly incorrect estimate from the "US Geological Survey" and then assuming his new estimate (unsourced) from the "American Gas Association" is correct, lets do a little simple math.
The US used 23 trillion cubic feet of gas in 2007 (a 6 percent increase, 16% of that imported).
Lets take the highest of the three estimates above: 1,779 Tcf.
1779 divided by 23 = 77 years.
If you take the lowest estimate you get 47 years.
And this does not take into consideration ANY increase in usage (remember we had a 6% increase last year alone). And I should also mention that the numbers used here are the high estimates, not proven reserves. The high estimates given above include all of the imaginary stuff they hope to find. Proven reserves are considerably lower (see the link where it is all carefully itemized).
I am not saying the sky is falling and we are going to run out of gas tomorrow. But it is a non-renewable resource, it is not without limit (the US has perhaps 3% of world reserves). I would say Walter Williams is a nut and my three mainstream carefully detailed scientific sources trump his vague "1,000-2,500" year" unreferenced, "American Gas Association" citation.
Did I mention Walter is a Libertarian?
D.
ps So glad you are here Galt.
Thought I would check this claim a closer.
DARUncle Galt wrote:Walter Williams
"Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association: There's a 1,000- to 2,500- year supply."
In 2007 the US consumed: 23.0 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas --EIA pdf
And now, three well referenced and detailed estimates from this natural gas supply associationsite:
U.S. Natural Gas Resource Estimates
Below are three estimates of natural gas reserves in the United States. The first, compiled by the Energy Information Administration (referred to as the EIA), estimates that there are 1,190.62 Tcf of technically recoverable natural gas in the United States. This includes undiscovered, unproved, and unconventional natural gas.
Total U.S. Unproved 1023.21
Proved Reserves 167.41
Total Natural Gas 1190.62 (Tcf)
Source: Energy Information Administration - Annual Energy Outlook 2002
***
The following table includes an estimate of natural gas resources compiled by the National Petroleum Council in 1999 in its report Natural Gas - Meeting the Challenges of the Nation's Growing Natural Gas Demand.
Total U.S. Remaining Resources 1779
Source: National Petroleum Council - Meeting the Challenges of the Nation's Growing Natural Gas Demand, 1999
***
Below is a third estimate completed by the Potential Gas Committee. This estimate places total U.S. natural gas resources at just over 1,090 Tcf, the lowest of the three estimates.
Total United States 1090.997
Source: Potential Gas Committee - Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States, 2000
Quote:
"There are a myriad of different industry participants that formulate their own estimates regarding natural gas supplies, such as production companies, independent geologists, the government, and environmental groups, to name a few. While this leads to a wealth of information, it also leads to a number of difficulties. Each estimate is based on a different set of assumptions, completed with different tools, and even referred to with different language. It is thus difficult to get a definitive answer to the question of how much natural gas exists. In addition, since these are all essentially educated guesses as to the amount of natural gas in the earth, there are constant revisions being made."
DAR
So, aside from the irony of Walter Williams quoting (unsourced) a wildly incorrect estimate from the "US Geological Survey" and then assuming his new estimate (unsourced) from the "American Gas Association" is correct, lets do a little simple math.
The US used 23 trillion cubic feet of gas in 2007 (a 6 percent increase, 16% of that imported).
Lets take the highest of the three estimates above: 1,779 Tcf.
1779 divided by 23 = 77 years.
If you take the lowest estimate you get 47 years.
And this does not take into consideration ANY increase in usage (remember we had a 6% increase last year alone). And I should also mention that the numbers used here are the high estimates, not proven reserves. The high estimates given above include all of the imaginary stuff they hope to find. Proven reserves are considerably lower (see the link where it is all carefully itemized).
I am not saying the sky is falling and we are going to run out of gas tomorrow. But it is a non-renewable resource, it is not without limit (the US has perhaps 3% of world reserves). I would say Walter Williams is a nut and my three mainstream carefully detailed scientific sources trump his vague "1,000-2,500" year" unreferenced, "American Gas Association" citation.
Did I mention Walter is a Libertarian?
D.
ps So glad you are here Galt.