ECO Exaggeration is the Hallmark of Environmentalism

Remember the global cooling scare from the 1970s? Here’s Newsweek on April 28, 1975:

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Here is an extensive compilation of news and magazine articles from the 1970s predicting a coming ice age.

This video from 1978 predicts that all of America will become Buffalo, New York:

Here is a list of some of the things environmentalists were demanding back in the 1970s:

  • Outlawing the internal combustion engine for vehicles and outlawing or strict controls over all forms of combustion.
  • Rigid controls on the marketing of new products which will be required to prove a minimum pollution potential.
  • Controls on all research and development, to be halted at the slightest prospect of additional pollution.
  • Population controls, the number children per family prescribed and punishment for exceeding the limit.
  • We will be forced to sacrifice democracy by the laws that will protect us from further pollution.

Notice the word “control” appears throughout [I added the bold]. Giving liberals control over others has always been the purpose of ECO exaggeration.

I’m proud to say that I have a good bull shit detector, and I never believed the global cooling nonsense, and certainly didn’t believe a word of the global warming hysteria that followed on the heels of the complete discrediting of the global cooling rubbish. Now that global warming has been shown to not be happening, the goofs in the extremist environmental movement have reacted much the same as before and substituted climate change for global warming.

It was always smart to be skeptical of the need to ban CFCs because of a supposed hole in the ozone. It’s the sun that makes ozone, and the sun is a lot more powerful than the tiny bit of refrigerant that might leak out of your air conditioning. Removing very efficient R-22 freon and replacing it with much less efficient R-410A Freon was just stupid.

Science writer Matt Ridley has written a piece on the state of the ozone hole:

The ozone layer is healing. Or so said the news last week. Thanks to a treaty signed in Montreal in 1989 to get rid of refrigerant chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the planet’s stratospheric sunscreen has at last begun thickening again. Planetary disaster has been averted by politics.

For reasons I will explain, this news deserves to be taken with a large pinch of salt. You do not have to dig far to find evidence that the ozone hole was never nearly as dangerous as some people said, that it is not necessarily healing yet and that it might not have been caused mainly by CFCs anyway.

Read the whole article, it’s good.

I once subscribed to Skeptic Magazine. It was the name that interested me. I’m skeptical about a lot of stuff, and so it seemed this magazine was going to be a good read. Turns out, the only thing the writers in that magazine are skeptical about is God. The magazine that calls itself Skeptic is all in for global warming/climate change hoopla.

%d bloggers like this: