The Air Is Clearer, But The Alarmists Move On

Posted on Fri 03/12/2010 by

1


By Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

For my comments on this, see at the bottom of the post.

Professor Mark Perry skewers another alarmist, this time Paul Ehrlich:

Earth Day (April 22) is only six weeks away, and I just noticed that the (US) EPA recently updated air quality data for 2008 and thought it was worth featuring now in anticipation of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day:

The following predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970:

“Air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich in an interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970. Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.

The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970….

Here we are 40 years later, the U.S. population has increased by more than 50%, traffic volume (miles driven) in the U.S. has increased 160%, and real GDP has increased 204%; and yet air quality in the U.S. is better than ever – nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead have all decreased between 46% and 92% between 1980 and 2008 (see chart).

Erlich, incidentally is the author of the wrong-wrong-wrong The Population Bomb, and is now a warming worrier.

TonyfromOz adds …..

I want you to read again those predictions made in 1970, some of them by a person who now supports man made Global Warming, and I want you to consider them with some logical thinking, not on what he said then, but on the Science aspect itself.

These predictions were considered to be Science at the time, and going on today’s attitudes of belief, where if something is said by a Scientist, then it must be right, because after all, that is the job they are (or were then) trained to do, and they should know, and we should then trust them to know.

Look at the statements, (not hypothetical guesses, but quoted as statements of fact) on life expectancy, reduction in sunlight, then on extinction, and then on the cooling temperature driving us into an Ice Age, all caused by air pollution.

Now scroll forwards 40 years, and none of those things have transpired, and in fact have been proved to be 100% wrong. Now, however, we are told that the man made emissions of CO2 are causing the World to inexorably heat up. Should we not be asking questions, raising doubts, and not just accepting blindly that it must be true. If what they said then has proven to be (patently and astoundingly) wrong, then what makes what they say now 100% correct?

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog