Thursday, July 11, 2019

How To Smash Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Climate Scare Lunacy (Using Her Own Method)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
The socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did a great job of exposing the horrible track record by the Federal Reserve in estimating the supposed correlation between the unemployment rate and price inflation in recent years (that is the Phillips Curve).

It brings to mind the idea that the same thing could be done concerning the failed forecasts of her pals, the climate change fear mongers. 

Like this:

So Comrade Cortez, around 1970 when Earth Day was first started, the following climate forecasts were made:
  •  Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
  •  “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
  • “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “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.”
  •  Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
  •  “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
  •  Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “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.”
  •  In January 1970, Life reported, “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….”
  •  Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “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.”
  • Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
  • Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
  • Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
  • Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “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.'”
  •  Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
  • Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “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.”
  • In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
  • Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “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.”
So Comrade, Did any of these climate warnings prove accurate?

Are there any climate warnings of the 1970s or 1980s that have proved accurate?

Thank you, Comrade Cortez,

I yield the rest of my time.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.comand Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bankand most recently Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn. His youtube series is here: Robert Wenzel Talks Economics. More about Wenzel here.


  1. I doubt any have been true or if one has its something trivial. Not from 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s. This is due to the predictions being fabricated from imagination, from incomplete data, from adjusted data, or simply linear extrapolations where the function is not linear. Anyone with half a clue how to handle data should know better than to have made any of those predictions unless of course doing so served their career, a political agenda, or both.

    And the above is a small fraction of the predictions that were wrong.

  2. In 1990 the IPCC predicted the average global mean temperature increase would be 0.3°C per decade. Actual temperatures warmed from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used. The IPCC missed by 58% to 150%.

    In that same First Assessment Report (FAR) the IPCC predicted global mean temperature rise of 1°C by 2025. Actual temperatures increase from 1990 to 2017 was 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. The IPCC missed by 5% to 145% (corrected for the 8 years between 2017 and 2025).

  3. We don't NEED to "smash" this idiot bartender's climate nonsense. The Warmers have been proven repeatedly to be liars and to have contrived what little evidence they've presented. We don't have to KEEP proving them wrong. We need to stop dignifying their stupidity by arguing about it as though it wasn't overtly fraudulent.

    1. I wish you were correct but a few facts keep me from agreeing.

      Climate change is a fact. Anthropogenic climate change is theory. Most that have researched the issue conclude that humans effect the climate; to what extent is debated.

      All US government agencies (NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc) and their European counterparts and of course the IPCC advocate anthropogenic climate change.

      Corporate media swings heavily toward almost all climate change being anthropogenic. Although trust in corporate media has diminished quite a bit, based on a Knight Foundation and Gallup poll released last year US adults trust in “news organizations” is as follows: 1% trust all, 17% trust most, 67% trust some, 16% trust none. Not too bad but not good enough.

      I say we do need to smash climate nonsense when we have the opportunity. If Cortez were still tending bar and blathering about a storm being climate change the smashing would take place as she serves you drinks. As much as I would like her to be ignored she is now in a position of power and influence and receives a lot of media coverage so the stage is huge and the consequence much bigger. She is a useful idiot. Let’s use her.

  4. I find AOC repulsive, almost on the level of BHO.....if that's even possible.

  5. I find AOC repulsive, almost on the level of BHO.....if that's even possible.