Earth Day Countdown: Environmentalism’s Ten Biggest Scams, Hoaxes, Myths and Frauds

Photo: Pixabay (CC0)

#10 – Agenda 21

Agenda 21 was written by foreign nations where people are property, for foreign nations where people are property.  It does not recognize, and if fact detests, your right to own a home, drive a car or have private property.  It achieves the phony goal of “sustainable development” by declaring much of the United States off-limits to human use.

It is radical environmentalism in its purest form, a guttural hatred of humanity expressed in international policy jargon.  Sustainable development is the new label they slapped over the old, faded word ‘socialism’ when it became too ugly to use.

This isn’t some dark conspiracy where UN lawyers drop into small town America and rewrite laws.  This is typical liberalism, where American liberals look to socialist-leaning international bodies that share their hate of the American ideals of private property and individual prosperity and adopt their teachings.  Incorporating U.N guidelines into their local planning authority is just their way of sneering down their noses at neighbors they consider inferior.  It’s typical abusive liberal arrogance, and it’s targeting your right to own property, a home and a car.

Agenda 21 is a land use planning mechanism developed by the United Nations to guide national and local policymakers in creating so-called “sustainable development.”

It does not recognize private property rights, restrictions on government abuse of eminent domain or other restrictions on government power Americans enjoy under the United States Constitution.

Despite that, American policymakers at the national, state and local levels are inserting portions of the abusive plan into local land use planning frameworks.  In 2012 the Republican National Committee adopted a resolution formally condemning the UN scheme.

The text of the resolution follows:

RNC Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

#9 – The Antiquities Act land grab spree

The Antiquities Act of 1906 was signed into law over 100 years ago to protect tiny, individual Indian archaeological sites from looters.  In one of Gang Green’s most brazen displays of abuse of power, the Act is now being used to snatch up millions of acres of land at a time and declare it a “national monument” – without congressional approval.

Under “national monument” designation, natural resource development and most recreational activities are outlawed, a move that eliminates badly-needed jobs and robs citizens of property rights.

The Clinton administration notably used the Act in 1996 to shut down clean coal development in 2,600 square miles of southern Utah.

The Obama administration also undertook multiple abusive land grabs under the Act.

The intended product of Antiquities Act land grabs?  Shut down resource development and eliminate jobs created by employers Gang Green considers their enemies.

#8  – Environmentalism’s campaign of terror against safe, clean hydraulic fracturing

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Environmentalist “founding father” Dr. Paul Erlich

“[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University and Obama adviser Stephen Schneider

Don’t believe Gang Green when they openly admit they must destroy any form of clean, affordable energy, and lying is a perfectly acceptable means to environmentalist ends?

Always ready to destroy any form of clean, affordable energy by any means necessary, Gang Green is waging a nasty multi-million war of lies, smear tactics and outright terror in an effort to stop the safe, clean practice of hydraulic fracturing, in which high-pressure water is used to break shale and capture the natural gas inside.

The practice not only creates thousands of jobs and provides millions of Americans with affordable energy, the practice is 100% safe and clean.

But Gang Green’s war on working families includes paid agitators who travel to communities to terrorize families with debunked urban legends and even a fake documentary whose multi-million dollar publicity campaign bought it an Oscar nomination, despite the fact it was utterly falsified.

Because as with virtually every effort of Gang Green to limit energy and prosperity, it’s all based on admitted lies.

Gang Green openly admits they are lying about hydraulic fracturing.  For example, there is this exchange between “Energy & the Environment TV” and the Environmental Defense Fund’s Scott Anderson:

E&E TV: “Do you believe that [hydraulic fracturing] can be used safely?” (5:23)

EDF’s Scott Anderson: “Yes I do. I think in the vast majority of cases, if wells are constructed right and operated right, that hydraulic fracturing will not cause a problem.” (5:19) [ATP notes: Wells ARE constructed and operated correctly, with no proven cases of contamination whatsoever.]

E&E TV: “How difficult is it for states to regulate this practice? And should it be done on a state-by-state bases, a region-by-region bases or nationally?” (2:11)

EDF’s Scott Anderson: “The states actually have a lot of knowledge and experience in regulating well construction and operation. We think that states have every reason to be able to tackle this issue and do it well. We also think that if states fail in that and the federal government has to takeover, the states will have no one but themselves to blame.” (2:00)

E&E TV: “Without this practice of hydraulic fracturing, what would our natural gas supplies look like?” (1:38)

EDF’s Scott Anderson: “Our natural gas supplies would plummet precipitously without hydraulic fracturing. About 90 percent of gas wells in the United States are hydraulically fractured, and the shale gas that everyone talks about as being a large part of the future of natural gas production is absolutely dependent on fracturing in each case.” (1:33)

E&E TV: “So you would say that this is a necessary part of our energy future?” (1:09)

EDF’s Scott Anderson: “Yes. At the Environmental Defense Fund we don’t pick fuels, we are realist, we recognize that fossil fuels will be around for a while, a long while most likely. We recognize that natural gas has some environmental advantages compared to other fossil fuels, so we do believe that natural gas will be around, and has a significant role to play….” (1:05)

Tennessee State Rep. David Hawk also notes hydraulic fracturing is absolutely safe and clean.

“Hydraulic fracturing is routinely and safely performed nationwide. Production is carefully regulated and closely monitored by federal, state and local regulators. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission have examined the process and found it to be safe.” Rep. Hawk writes in the Nashville Tennessean.

“Over the past 60 years, more than 1 million wells in the U.S. have successfully used hydraulic fracturing. This proven process has unlocked access to more natural gas in the U.S. than Saudi Arabia has oil, and has allowed for the success of an industry that supports more than 2.8 million jobs and contributed $385 billion to our nation’s economy in 2008,” writes Rep. Hawk.

#7 – “Clean air” green fuel additive poisons millions

Pushed by the EPA as the magic cure to pollutants in gasoline, methyl-t-butyl ether has instead proven to be a toxic nightmare.

MTBE is supposed to reduce carbon monoxide and high ozone levels caused by auto emissions and has replaced lead as an octane enhancer since 1979.  Beginning in 1992, MTBE use in gasoline was increased to fulfill the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments’ oxygenate requirements.

One problem.  Those environmentalist mandates are now pumping massive amounts of the toxic chemical into the air and drinking water.

When research animals inhaled high concentrations of MTBE some developed cancers or experienced other non-cancerous health effects.  Research also shows when ingested in water MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses.

That’s important because this environmentalist-required chemical is probably in your family’s drinking water.

MTBE is found throughout aquifers in North America, detected in tens of thousands of contaminated sites in water wells distributed across the country.  MTBE’s high solubility and persistence cause it to travel faster and farther than many other components of gasoline when released into an aquifer. Because it is water soluble, it easily moves through soil, polluting both surface and groundwater.  MTBE gets into water through leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines, spills, emissions from marine engines into lakes and reservoirs, and to some extent, from its release into the air.

The San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board reports MTBE is one of the widespread pollutants in local groundwater.  In 1996, the city of Santa Monica found two of its drinking water wellfields were contaminated as high as 610 ppb and 86 ppb.  The toxic contamination, mandated by environmentalists, forced the two wellfields, representing 50 percent of the city’s drinking water supply, to be shut down.  The city began purchasing replacement water.

Removing MTBE from groundwater and soil is estimated to cost from $1 billion to $30 billion.  Recent state laws have been passed to ban MTBE in certain areas. California and New York, which together accounted for 40 percent of U.S. MTBE consumption, banned the chemical starting January 1, 2004.

As of September 2005, twenty-five states had signed legislation banning MTBE.  In 2000, the EPA drafted plans to phase out the use of MTBE nationwide over four years. As of fall 2006, hundreds of lawsuits are still pending regarding MTBE contamination of public and private drinking water supplies.

Have MTBE contamination in your community?  Thank an environmentalist.

#6 – The “Endangered Species Act” has nothing to do with animals

Sold as legislation that would protect vulnerable species, the Endangered Species Act and other wildlife preservation laws are instead routinely abused by environmentalists as weapons against employers.

A favorite tactic is to use junk science and strong-arm tactics to get species that are not threatened or endangered listed as “threatened” or “endangered” to shut down agriculture, homebuilding, energy and timber development and other job-creating activities in targeted areas.

Among the earliest attempts to pull such scams occurred in 1973 when radical environmentalists successfully delayed construction of the Tellico Dam when a University of Tennessee biology professor claimed a rare fish called the “snail darter.”  Greens filed a lawsuit under the National Environmental Policy Act claiming construction of the dam would alter the Little Tennessee River and destroy the “snail darter,” which would be placed on the Endangered Species List in 1975.

They did not succeed in their goal of stopping construction of the dam, but they did succeed in inflicting lengthy and expensive delays in its construction.

Not only did the species not go extinct, it was plentiful enough to be taken off the Endangered Species List less only a year after completion of the dam environmentalists claimed would wipe it out.

In the most famous case of fraudulent use of the ESA, environmentalists petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1986 to list the spotted owl as an “endangered species” in order to shut down timber harvesting across vast areas of the northwest United States.  Waging a ferocious public pressure campaign, environmentalists claimed the bird could only nest in “old growth” forests, and logging would lead to the bird’s extinction.

The scare tactics paid off in 1990 when the government declared the owl threatened, forcing loggers to leave at least 40% of the old-growth forests intact within a 1.3 mile radius of any spotted owl nest or activity site.

The result?  Timber harvesting was virtually shut down in the American northwest and thousands of loggers lost their jobs.  To add insult to injury, not only is the spotted owl not threatened, it is more than capable of nesting in secondary and newer forests.

Environmentalists were not at all ashamed of their fraudulent use of the Endangered Species Act.  League of Conservation Voters founder and former Sierra Club Executive Director David Brower proudly crowed, “Loggers losing their jobs because of Spotted Owl legislation is, in my eyes, no different than people being out of work after the furnaces of Dachau shut down.”

#5 – Ethanol and biofuels are killing the environment

To environmentalists ethanol and biofuels, which they also coincidentally happen to be heavily invested in financially, are magic potions that will cure an Earth they claim is dying from automobile use.

To the environment, however, they are poison.

* To grow the massive amounts of corn and other crops needed to create ethanol and other biofuels, farmers must use millions of gallons of pesticides and water, burn millions of gallons of fuel to operate farming equipment and convert vast amounts of prairie, forests and other natural environments into farmland.

* Environmentalists, many of whom are invested financially in biofuels, are pushing farmers in environmentally sensitive areas like the Amazon to slash-and-burn vast swaths of ecosystems to plant biofuel crops.

* Biofuels cannot be pipelined, requiring thousands of trucks to burn millions of gallons of fuel to transport it.

* Producing biofuels takes millions of acres of farmland out of food production, reducing the supply of crops like corn, which is not only food itself but is feed for farm animals.  As ethanol and biofuel production rise, the costs of creating food skyrocket.  Starvation spiked in Mexico, for example, when environmentalist efforts to boost ethanol production created a corn shortage and sent the price of food through the roof.

* Biofuels are less efficient than more effective petro fuels, greatly reducing gas mileage.  The E85 blend of ethanol drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA’s fuel mileage standards ( or those of the Dept. of Energy, according to BusinessWeek

* Biofuels also have a nasty habit of destroying vehicle fuel pumps, according to BusinessWeek.  In areas where environmentalist mandates force ethanol on drivers, auto repair shops report a spike in damaged fuel pumps, virtually all of which are traced back to ethanol in fuel.  The average repair bill is between $900 and $1000.  Biofuels are also destroying boat engines and other small engines by drawing water into the fuel system.

* Many biofuels generate as much as, and sometimes more than, the amount of greenhouse gases than petro fuels.

Rather than reduce pollution, producing biolfuels is pollution on steroids.  The EPA’s own attorneys even admitted in court biofuels and ethanol are more polluting than petro fuels (API v. EPA, 1995, Third Circuit Court of Appeals.)

Sadly, use of biofuels and ethanol are only increased as radical environmentalists with large amounts of money invested in the failed, more-polluting technology press government to bail them out by increasing use mandates

#4 – Environmentalists’ DDT ban kills 102 million people, and counting

For Africans struggling to survive against malaria and starvation, DDT was a lifesaver.  The pesticide not only killed the disease-carrying mosquitos that killed millions, it also killed the ravenous pests that ate their crops.

“In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used,” writes economist Dr. Walter Williams.

But riding a wave of public sentiment fueled by Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring,” which falsely claimed DDT would cause many species of birds to go extinct, radical environmentalists pushed for a ban on the life-saving chemical.

The facts didn’t matter.  “A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that ‘should not be banned.’ According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children,” writes Williams.

EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. … The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. … The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”

But armed with falsified environmental “studies,” they succeeded in winning an EPA ban on the chemical 1972, and bans in other countries.  EPA Administration William Ruckelshaus, who was also a fundraiser for the Environmental Defense Fund, overturned Sweeney’s ruling despite never having attended a single hearing on DDT and banned the chemical entirely.

The result?

“In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003,” writes Williams.

An estimated 102 million people have needlessly died from malaria since DDT was banned.

Why would environmentalists push for a worldwide ban on a chemical that saved the lives of millions of people living in Third World countries?  Ask the environmentalists themselves:

“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid

of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.” – Dr. Charles Foster, one of the architects of the ban on DDT

“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” – Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome

And those aren’t isolated cases.  Viewing humans as the parasite to be exterminated is a mainstream view in the environmentalist community:

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” — John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” — John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.” — Economist editorial

“We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight/” — David Foreman, Earth First!

“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” — Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

“If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.” — Earth First! Newsletter

“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” — David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

“The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” — Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” — Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.” — Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

#3 – “The Population Bomb”

Before there was “man-made global warming,” there was the “population bomb.”

Radical environmentalist Paul Ehrlich caused a global stir in 1968 with the release of “The Population Bomb.”  Written at the request of Sierra Club Executive Director David Brower, an advocate of human extinction, the book claimed human population would soon grow so large the planet could not sustain, and mass death would follow.

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate,” Ehrlich wrote.

Specifically, Ehrlich pointed to India, then-population of 400 million.  “India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980″I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971.”.

The book sold more than two million copies and formed the foundation of much of the environmentalist movement’s legislative agenda.  Radical environmentalists used the “population bomb” threat to demand greater central control and planning of economies, agriculture and family planning programs.

Brower, who inspired the book, founded the League of Conservation Voters, led the Sierra Club and whose teachings still shape environmentalist policy, demanded “childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

But much like the “man-made global warming” conspiracy theory, “the population bomb” throws out an alarmist claim whose implications are so serious they compel environmentalists to demand total compliance from legislators just in case it may be true.

And since you’re not reading this on top of a pile of graves, you know Erhlich’s “population bomb” was completely falsified.  Not only has the world’s population grown drastically since 1968, our ability to produce food has grown even faster thanks to technologies opposed by radical environmentalists.

And India, which Ehrlich claimed couldn’t grow much beyond 400 million people without mass deaths?  They are now at 1.2 billion people and rapidly increasing both their population and standard of living.

In fact, Ehrlich made sure that any copies of his book printed after 1971 had the sentence “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971” removed from the texts, much like how today’s “man-made global warming” conspiracy theorists frequently doctor and omit wildly incorrect predictions and contrary data.

But proving environmentalism is as shameless as it is scientifically baseless, the exposure of “the population bomb” as a hoax did not deter environmentalists from demanding nations convert to socialist, centrally-planned economies where industry, agriculture and family planning are controlled by government.  They simply created a new hoax, the “climate bomb,” if you will.

#2 – “Man-made global cooling”

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it…

…Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

That was Newsweek, April 28, 1975, predicting mass deaths and global catastrophe – from man-made global cooling.

As the United States experienced cooler-than-usual winters in the 1960s and 1970s, the popular scientific theory at the time was that automobile and industry were filling the atmosphere with pollutants that were causing the globe to hurtle toward a new Ice Age.

The prescription was dramatic.  Environmentalists demanded world leaders place strict curbs on industry and impose massive new taxes to redistribute income and stave off the soon-to-happen “Snowball Earth.”

One problem.  Most of their alarmist demands weren’t met, and the Ice Age didn’t happen.

That didn’t stop radical environmentalists, however.  They simply changed their story and now declared the same policies that would stop the Earth from cooling would now somehow magically stop the Earth from warming.

It’s all bunk however.  When considering sheer power of global climate dynamics it is scientifically laughable to claim human emissions can cause climate change on a global scale.  Perhaps that’s why more than 31,000 climatologists and other scientists publicly refute the politically-motivated claim of “man-made climate change” that only higher taxes and a more centrally-planned state can reverse.

#1 – “Man-made global warming”

So after decades of junk science, scare tactics, alarmist wailing and calls for the death of capitalism, what is the single biggest hoax in environmentalist history?

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” — Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

And you are wrong, Tim.

When the “population bomb” fizzled in the 1970s and “global cooling” was proven to be another lie in the 1980s, environmentalists needed a new vehicle to drive their calls for centrally planned economies and controls on human population.

The solution?  Scratch out the word “cooling” on all their alarmist materials and write in the word “warming.”  They didn’t even bother changing much else.

The Obama administration has jumped in with both feet, declaring the carbon dioxide you exhale a “pollutant” and calling for a “cap and tax” system that places a price on carbon dioxide and forces Americans to pay a tax for the CO2 they emit.

So is the earth warming and is it caused by humans producing carbon dioxide?

No.  That’s silly.

“It is now known that both Atlantic and Pacific temperatures can get ‘stuck,’ for a decade or longer, in relatively warm or cool patterns. The North Atlantic is now forecast to be in a cold stage for a decade, which will help put the damper on global warming. Another Pacific temperature pattern is forecast not to push warming, either…we have simply overestimated the amount of warming that results from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.” writes internationally distinguished climatologist Pat Michaels of the independent Cato Institute.

This isn’t the first time environmentalists have made wildly inaccurate claims human activity is causing global climate change, and the end of capitalism is the only answer.

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” — Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb (1968)

 “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.” — Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

“This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” — Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976