Sunday, April 23, 2017

13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

Ricochet ^ | 4/21/2017 | Jon Gabriel 

Saturday is Earth Day — an annual event first launched on April 22, 1970. The inaugural festivities (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.
Sound familiar? Behold the coming apocalypse, as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

  1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
  2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  3. “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
  4. “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.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [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
  6. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  7. “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.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  8. “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
  9. “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.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
  11. “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.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine
  13. “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

I never want to hear from Bernie Sanders again!

deathandtaxes ^ | April 22, 2017 | Steve King 

I was always a big Bernie Sanders fan. In the darkest days of the Bush administration, he was a big deal. I still remember in 2006 when he won his U.S. Senate seat and thinking it was just the beginning; democratic-socialism was finally blowing up the way it should and that he was a legend in the making.
Last year I learned some things that made me question why I always loved Bernie Sanders. He was playing dumb about knowing or helping up-and-coming populist Democrats such as himself, and was instead letting the DSCC and the Obama administration pick safe, boring, centrist primary candidates who could barely skate by to win a close election. Many of them went down in flames, but Sanders had crossed a psychological rubicon of betrayal. His silence spoke volumes. How could a man who claimed to be leading a revolution leave so many of his own people on the field and still maintain the veneer of being a man of the people?
He did endorse a couple candidates in 2016 — after the primaries, of course. Among them, two congressional incumbents, one of whom is pro-life, and the other Russ Feingold, an old Senate friend and perfect human.
It ruined my whole idea of not only what kind of man Sanders was but what goes into making a heroic politician. I waited until the primaries were effectively over and wrote a post about it, calling Trump and Sanders cult leaders. I started trying to tell my friends that he wasn’t the saint they thought he was, but a charlatan masquerading as a revolutionary. What I encountered (and still do) was a mix of either blind hero worship, outright denial, or a form of bargaining. Or I was just called a neoliberal shill.
Now, after the disastrous defeat of Hillary Clinton at the pussy-grabbing hands of Donald Trump, the Democratic Party is slowly pulling itself back together. New Obama-approved DNC chair Tom Perez has purged the party of the idiots who missed the boat last year and is again reassembling the old Howard Dean 50-state strategy that won Democrat majorities in 2006 and 2008. Except now Bernie Sanders is being trotted out with Perez in their “unity tour” to hopefully quell the Democratic civil war.
And, wouldn’t you know it, the man who spent a lifetime never calling himself a Democrat is botching the whole unity thing. He can’t help but turn the whole operation into something about himself. Politics is a business of relationships and compromise, neither of which Sanders seems very good at. The only thing he’s shown a true talent for, besides last year’s incomprehensible treachery, has been pointing out what he perceives as the insufficient values of people who would otherwise be his allies.
While Democrats have started cursing more (Perez, Gillibrand, Waters, Lieu), and taken a more aggressive stance against Trump, Sanders is still the jonny-come-lately to primary endorsements, and a lukewarm supporter of those who would stand a chance in these off-year special elections, most recently with his botched Jon Ossoff support. And his “Our Revolution” PAC has done next to nothing in broadening what would be the progressive comeback. There still has been no sharing of his massive email list with the DNC, something nearly every politician does with their political party.
The other thing that kills me about the numskullery of Sanders and his obnoxious true believers: They make the deadly mistake of ignoring that there is an equal number of people on the other side of the ideological spectrum who wholeheartedly believe the complete opposite of what they do, and they are just as passionate about it. Let’s say Sanders hadn’t lost to Clinton by three million votes, had somehow beaten Trump, and won the presidency — there still would have been a ton of Republicans in Washington and around the country who are diametrically opposed to everything he stands for. Left-wing magical thinking isn’t about to make the Republican half of the country just disappear, and playing to white anger over economic insecurity only gets you so far.
After years of doing next to nothing to help his fellow progressives broaden their appeal, Sanders stands today as the most popular senator in the country. Yet there is still no difference between Sanders and Trump. In fact, Trump is more virtuous because when he picked a party in which to run for president, he actually took the name “Republican,” committed to it and ran with it. He even campaigned, without question or qualification, up and down the ballot for other, lesser-known candidates. The same can’t be said for Sanders, who only took the name “Democrat” to run for president, and when he failed, went back to being an Independent, even while attending these silly unity rallies.
Which brings us back to where we began and where Sanders ends. Now, here’s the thing. Is it okay to lie and say you’re part of a revolution and get people riled up — even to the point of abandoning their own party — while thinking you’re the hero leading a movement when you’re doing nothing to actually help that movement? This is the cold pragmatism of Sanders’s red-hot radicalism. Is it fair to lie to millions of people if it’s for a good cause, like universal healthcare or free college? The answer would be yes, of course. He’s obviously not doing it all for money. And if we’re naive enough to think it’s not all for ego, then it must be the furtherance of his populist agenda, right? Yet that agenda is no closer to reality now than it was when he ran in 2016, and being the cynical operator he is, Sanders knows this.
Therefore, his pursuit isn’t his stated goals; it’s his unstated goals. It’s his own station in history, ego, and popularity. It’s his desire to be a liberal Goldwater; a standard of uncompromising political courage and rock hard superior values. To be generous, we could say that his goal to inspire countless generations of progressives makes him an honorable man. He just so happened to go about achieving that goal in the most dishonorable way possible by backstabbing, lying, and sacrificing his own people, and helping hand the country over to a creature like Trump. Maybe that’s what makes political legends in America. You can’t make a historic omelet without breaking a few contemporary hearts and, if you’re really good at it, they won’t even notice.
Last year, a couple days after I called Sanders a cult leader, when he was still refusing to leave the race and rallying with his deluded and self-serving supporters, slightly different chants broke out from the normal ones. His supporters leaned pretty hard into the whole cult thing and started shouting “shun the non-believers.” It was surreal. These people will never be able to be reached. Sanders’ lies and Clinton’s loss guarantees that. But rather than railing against reality and pretending their revolution is pure (or even existent), maybe they could do something really radical. Listen to the non-believers.

Pollsters and the media still have a glaring anti-Trump bias!

The Toronto Sun ^ | April 22, 2017 | Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network 

You’d think the leading voices in the media and among pollsters would have learned their lesson after being so off the mark in their coverage of Donald Trump.
They’re losing their grasp on both reality and their readers. But instead of correcting course, many of them are doubling down in the sanity.
Just last week we saw this in play in the pages of – where else? – The New York Times.
As if not content to let their November election night prediction that Hillary Clinton had a 92% chance of winning the presidency, the English-speaking world’s liberal paper of record reached a new low in overtly politicizing their sports section.
On Wednesday, the New England Patriots visited the White House for a ceremony with President Trump customarily held for Super Bowl champions. The Times posted online and to social media pictures, allegedly showing the turnout for the 2015 event with then-President Barack Obama and the 2017 turnout with Trump.
The 2015 picture shows people crowding around the president and then overflowing up the stairs of the White House. This year’s picture shows fewer people, with only a crowd around the president and nobody standing on the adjacent stairs. At face value, it appears that fewer people attended the ceremony with Trump. The Times was clearly implying that the Super Bowl champions disliked Trump compared to Obama....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

This Earth Day, Remember How Often Environmental Alarmists Are Wrong

The Federalist ^ | 04/22/2017 | Daniel Payne 

Today is the 47th annual Earth Day. On this day, it is worth reflecting on how completely, totally wrong environmental alarmists often are. Few things tell us more about the environmental movement—where it’s been and, more importantly, where it is now—than its dismal track record in the predictive department.
Case in point: Paul Ehrlich, who is as close to a rock star as you’re apt to find among environmentalists. Ehrlich is most famous for his 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” in which he famously predicted that, during the 1970s and 1980s, humanity would suffer mass famine and starvation due to overpopulation. “At this late date,” Ehrlich wrote, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
Spoiler alert: Ehrlich was wrong—so wrong, in fact, that not only did his doomsday predictions fail to materialize, but the exact opposite happened. Readers who were alive during the 1970s and 80s will recall that there was plenty to eat, there was no mass die-off, everything worked out fine, and humanity’s lot continued to improve as it had throughout the rest of the 20th century.

Ehrlich Is Still Making Incorrect Doomsday Predictions

This kind of humiliating embarrassment would be enough to cow even the proudest of men—unless that man is an environmentalist, of course. Incredibly, as NewsBuster’s Tim Graham pointed out this week, Ehrlich was still making his doomsday predictions in 1989—well after the point when it was clear his previous predictions had been utter failures. Ehrlich claimed that, during the 1990s, “We’re going to see massive extinction;” he theorized that rising ocean waters meant “we could expect to lose all of Florida, Washington D.C., and the Los Angeles basin.”
Another spoiler: none of this happened. I visited Florida several times in the 1990s; it was not underwater. I visited Los Angeles shortly after the turn of the century; it, too, was fully above ground. Washington D.C., alas, remains as un-inundated as ever.
For Paul Ehrlich, unfortunately, twice-humiliated does not mean twice- or even once-chastened. Just a few years ago he was predicting that human beings would have to resort to cannibalism to cope with the coming famine. He also claims that “The Population Bomb” was “much too optimistic;” this was a book, mind you, that predicted hundreds of millions of deaths that ended up not happening.

This Earth Day, Rest Assured That Ehrlich Is Wrong

You might imagine that such unprofessional behavior and a miserable track record would render a man unfit for professional scientific society, and that he would be looked upon by his colleagues (if he had any) as “that guy who keeps predicting the end of the world and who keeps being wrong.” Not so: Ehrlich is a well-esteemed professor at Stanford, as well as the president of that university’s Center for Conservation Biology.
A man continually makes outlandishly fake predictions and beclowns himself on the global scientific stage: in what socio-scientific subculture could such a man find any purchase? The answer: environmentalism.
This Earth Day, consider reflecting on the bizarre dichotomy of (a) Paul Ehrlich’s mortifying history of predictive failures regarding the environment, and (b) his continued relevance in the field of environmental studies. Reflect on what that tells you about the environmental movement as a whole, particularly its hysterical climate change wing. And then consider the possibility that you can safely ignore the hysterics and simply live your life without worrying that Tampa, Florida is going to be washed away sometime over the next few decades.
Happy Earth Day!
Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist.