Cheyenne
Ms. Smarty Pantsless
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2000
- Posts
- 59,553
Scared new world
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20010817-45235744.htm
It is very difficult to speak ill of
those who supposedly do nothing but good.
Christopher Hitchens, the left-wing
controversialist, manages it with flair.
Not long ago he wrote a book depicting as
a scoundrel the late and now beatified
Mother Teresa. Yet I can think of no one
else successfully engaged in such arduous
undertakings.
Perhaps that explains the enduring
affection the world has for those famous
false prophets who for 40 years have
almost always been wrong, the
environmentalists. They claim to be doing
so much good. How can one possibly hold
their many erroneous pronouncements and
botched prophesies against them?
For instance, who out there would call
Paul Ehrlich, president of Stanford
University's Center for Conservation
Biology, a humbug or a fool? Admittedly
he has been stupendously wrong about most
of his environmental declarations. Yet
protecting the world from famine and
depletion is a noble thing. Hence the
public admires and forgives him his
errors and the occasional nervous
breakdowns they have caused among the
environmentally sensitive.
In the 1970s, Mr. Ehrlich predicted that
the world was at the threshold of mass
starvation. In his 1968 best-selling
compendium of imminent catastrophes, "The
Population Bomb," he predicted "hundreds
of millions" of people were going to
starve to death owing to overpopulation
and agriculture's inability to feed the
masses. His readers popularized wearing
buttons prophesying "Famine '75." He was
wrong. Yet because he was wrong in a good
cause, he went on to become widely
admired, and who out there speaks ill of
him today? Maybe Mr. Hitchens has an
expose coming, but few others would dare.
In 1980, he put his money behind his
claim that industry was pillaging the
world's natural resources, making them
scarce and expensive. A critic, Julian
Simon, bet him that by 1990 any five
metals that Mr. Ehrlich considered headed
toward extinction would actually become
cheaper. Mr. Ehrlich took the bet, chose
the metals, and lost on all five. He is
honored today and Mr. Simon is forgotten,
though Mr. Simon's predictions of the
planet's happy longevity free of
starvation and depression proved to be as
accurate as R. Ehrlich's gloom proved to
be inaccurate.
One is more admired for claiming to do
good than for proving to be right.
Thus I worry about the fate of Bjorn
Lomborg, a 36-year-old Danish political
scientist and statistician from the
University of Aarhus. In his new book,
"The Skeptical Environmentalist," he
demonstrates just how wrong Mr. Ehrlich,
has been and he throws in the Worldwatch
Institute, the World Wildlife Fund,
Greenpeace, and all the other
environmentalist alarmists as traffickers
in error.
Mr. Lomborg demonstrates that the global
warming statistics used, for instance for
the Kyoto accords, are based on
falsehoods; and "the typical cure of
early and radical fossil-fuel cutbacks is
much worse than the original affliction."
He accuses the environmentalist hysterics
of basing their hysteria on selective
short-range studies that ignore
reassuring long-range studies of
environmental improvement. Sometimes they
are aware of the misinformation they
spread.
"We are not running out of energy or
natural resources," Mr. Lomborg
demonstrates in a book that includes
3,000 footnotes, "there will be more and
more food per head of the world's
population. Fewer and fewer people are
starving. In 1900, we lived for an
average of 30 years; today we live for
67. According to the U.N. we have reduced
poverty more in the past 50 years than we
did in the preceding 500, and it has been
reduced in practically every country."
All this is a consequence of a rapidly
improving worldwide environment.
So what will happen to Mr. Lomborg? Will
he slip into oblivion as did Mr. Simon
and others who have made accurate
predictions about the environment whereas
the environmentalists, so-called, have
been wrong? Possibly not. Mr. Lomborg
began his career on Mr. Ehrlich's side.
Now though in disagreement with other
environmentalists he steadfastly
identifies himself as an
environmentalist. He is doing good but
with accurate information.
Mr. Lomborg reminds us that most
intelligent people are environmentalists.
Almost everyone wants a healthy
environment. Moreover, the American
environmental movement did not begin with
Mr. Ehrlich or any of the other 1960s
zealots. It began with our
conservationists a century ago. It has
proved to be a success worldwide. Or as
Mr. Lomborg says in "The Skeptical
Environmentalist," "Mankind's lot has
actually improved in terms of practically
every measurable indicator."
Apparently there have been more people
out there worthy of the public's
admiration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'd also throw in that the U.S. is heads above the rest of the world in some environmental issues. Standards are higher, and we in the private sector spend much more money to be in compliance with those standards than the average layperson will ever know.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20010817-45235744.htm
It is very difficult to speak ill of
those who supposedly do nothing but good.
Christopher Hitchens, the left-wing
controversialist, manages it with flair.
Not long ago he wrote a book depicting as
a scoundrel the late and now beatified
Mother Teresa. Yet I can think of no one
else successfully engaged in such arduous
undertakings.
Perhaps that explains the enduring
affection the world has for those famous
false prophets who for 40 years have
almost always been wrong, the
environmentalists. They claim to be doing
so much good. How can one possibly hold
their many erroneous pronouncements and
botched prophesies against them?
For instance, who out there would call
Paul Ehrlich, president of Stanford
University's Center for Conservation
Biology, a humbug or a fool? Admittedly
he has been stupendously wrong about most
of his environmental declarations. Yet
protecting the world from famine and
depletion is a noble thing. Hence the
public admires and forgives him his
errors and the occasional nervous
breakdowns they have caused among the
environmentally sensitive.
In the 1970s, Mr. Ehrlich predicted that
the world was at the threshold of mass
starvation. In his 1968 best-selling
compendium of imminent catastrophes, "The
Population Bomb," he predicted "hundreds
of millions" of people were going to
starve to death owing to overpopulation
and agriculture's inability to feed the
masses. His readers popularized wearing
buttons prophesying "Famine '75." He was
wrong. Yet because he was wrong in a good
cause, he went on to become widely
admired, and who out there speaks ill of
him today? Maybe Mr. Hitchens has an
expose coming, but few others would dare.
In 1980, he put his money behind his
claim that industry was pillaging the
world's natural resources, making them
scarce and expensive. A critic, Julian
Simon, bet him that by 1990 any five
metals that Mr. Ehrlich considered headed
toward extinction would actually become
cheaper. Mr. Ehrlich took the bet, chose
the metals, and lost on all five. He is
honored today and Mr. Simon is forgotten,
though Mr. Simon's predictions of the
planet's happy longevity free of
starvation and depression proved to be as
accurate as R. Ehrlich's gloom proved to
be inaccurate.
One is more admired for claiming to do
good than for proving to be right.
Thus I worry about the fate of Bjorn
Lomborg, a 36-year-old Danish political
scientist and statistician from the
University of Aarhus. In his new book,
"The Skeptical Environmentalist," he
demonstrates just how wrong Mr. Ehrlich,
has been and he throws in the Worldwatch
Institute, the World Wildlife Fund,
Greenpeace, and all the other
environmentalist alarmists as traffickers
in error.
Mr. Lomborg demonstrates that the global
warming statistics used, for instance for
the Kyoto accords, are based on
falsehoods; and "the typical cure of
early and radical fossil-fuel cutbacks is
much worse than the original affliction."
He accuses the environmentalist hysterics
of basing their hysteria on selective
short-range studies that ignore
reassuring long-range studies of
environmental improvement. Sometimes they
are aware of the misinformation they
spread.
"We are not running out of energy or
natural resources," Mr. Lomborg
demonstrates in a book that includes
3,000 footnotes, "there will be more and
more food per head of the world's
population. Fewer and fewer people are
starving. In 1900, we lived for an
average of 30 years; today we live for
67. According to the U.N. we have reduced
poverty more in the past 50 years than we
did in the preceding 500, and it has been
reduced in practically every country."
All this is a consequence of a rapidly
improving worldwide environment.
So what will happen to Mr. Lomborg? Will
he slip into oblivion as did Mr. Simon
and others who have made accurate
predictions about the environment whereas
the environmentalists, so-called, have
been wrong? Possibly not. Mr. Lomborg
began his career on Mr. Ehrlich's side.
Now though in disagreement with other
environmentalists he steadfastly
identifies himself as an
environmentalist. He is doing good but
with accurate information.
Mr. Lomborg reminds us that most
intelligent people are environmentalists.
Almost everyone wants a healthy
environment. Moreover, the American
environmental movement did not begin with
Mr. Ehrlich or any of the other 1960s
zealots. It began with our
conservationists a century ago. It has
proved to be a success worldwide. Or as
Mr. Lomborg says in "The Skeptical
Environmentalist," "Mankind's lot has
actually improved in terms of practically
every measurable indicator."
Apparently there have been more people
out there worthy of the public's
admiration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'd also throw in that the U.S. is heads above the rest of the world in some environmental issues. Standards are higher, and we in the private sector spend much more money to be in compliance with those standards than the average layperson will ever know.
