Wiz Blab Open Thread: Discredited Enviro Nut Now Says We’ll Be Eating Each Other


SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE, MAN!!

Paul R. Ehrlich made himself famous for writing a book in 1968 titled The Population Bomb. It is a book filled with dire warnings from an author hyperbolically swearing that by the years after 2000 the world would be so over populated that we’d all be dead. Stone cold dead. It’s end of the wrold stuff, man.

Here is how the first edition of Ehrlich’s screed began: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s 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…”

Of course, by the year 2000 humanity has become better fed as a whole than it ever has been and all across the world people have been living longer, healthier lives.

Not only that, but in many parts of the world the “population explosion” this doofus wrung his hands over has disappeared as birth rates have plummeted.

As it happens, not a thing in his book has come true. Ehrlich’s warnings are risible.

Well, if this Chicken Little had any sense of shame over his absurd book he’d have oozed back under the rock from which he came never to raise his fool head in public again. But here he is doubling down on his failed predictions and claiming that the world is turning into Soylent Green.

Ehrlich recently said that it’s “perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry” and then claimed humanity is “moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.”

What a clown.

Aaaaaaaand, Open Thread, so…. GO!

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 23, 2014.
Filed under Open Thread.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • LiberalNightmare

    Soylent green is … delicious!

  • jim_m

    I realy think that Ehrlich was less worried about people starving as he was interested in being the person to decide who got to live. I really think that is the aim of most of these neo-Malthusians.

  • jim_m

    The other day Bruce was contesting that obama and the dems were masters of the internet meme. LOL. Yeah like their new bumper sticker campaign. (scroll down for the photoshops)

    I personally like this one:

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      I saw that. They’re like high school kids, congratulating themselves on being the smartest, coolest and most wonderfulest people they know. And don’t you dare tell them otherwise!

      Like a boss. Right – the sort that takes long lunches, can’t be found when anything bad happens, and doesn’t give a shit about the longevity of the company as long as he can take time off when he wants.

  • Retired military

    I personally look forward to our zombie overlords.
    They will beat the current congress by a long shot and are smarter than Obama’s entire administration.

  • jim_m

    First it was ClimateGate and the warmists fabricating, fudging and misrepresenting data in order to sustain the bogus claims of AGW. Now we have this: Thomas Piketty’s book, ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’ is a complete and utter fraud.

    The data underpinning Professor Piketty’s 577-page tome, which has dominated best-seller lists in recent weeks, contain a series of errors that skew his findings. The FT found mistakes and unexplained entries in his spreadsheets, similar to those which last year undermined the work on public debt and growth of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.

    The central theme of Prof Piketty’s work is that wealth inequalities are heading back up to levels last seen before the first world war. The investigation undercuts this claim, indicating there is little evidence in Prof Piketty’s original sources to bear out the thesis that an increasing share of total wealth is held by the richest few.

    It seems that Piketty added arbitrary numbers into his spreadsheet to make calculations come out the way he wanted. Of course Piketty claims that his data is fake but accurate.

    I see this book going down much in the same way as Michael Bellesiles “Arming America” which the left extolled until it too was shown to be an outright fraud.

    Apparently the left finds math to be hard, but honesty to be even harder.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Figures don’t lie, but liars most certainly do figure.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      And apparently in a lot of the models the climate forcing for CO2 was overestimated.

      “A new paper published in Nature “challenges the current consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year” and finds “semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric CO2.”

      The authors find links between the land CO2 sink in these semi-arid ecosystems “are currently missing from many major climate models.” In addition, they find that land sinks for CO2 are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, thus modeled projections of exponential increases of CO2 in the future are likely exaggerated.”

      Apparently in ‘Nature’, of all places. It’s behind a paywall but you can get the first page of it here… http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature13341

      It’s… odd that they’d have something like this. Could it be because there’s been no warming, and they figure if they don’t start doing real science instead of hysterical fearmongering they’re going to lose credibility?

    • warnertoddhuston

      I wrote a longish piece for Breitbart on the Financial Times’ total take down of Piketty’s failed book. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/05/23/NYT-WaPo-Rushing-to-Defend-Piketty-s-Socialist-Economics-Book

  • IngeC

    Liberalism is a deadly mental disorder!

  • Hawk_TX

    There is currently a lawsuit involving the Pacific Legal Foundation against the ACA in the D.C. Circuit court that is awaiting decision.The case argues that the purported taxes in the ACA are illegal because they were introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills. This allowed the bill through the process of reconciliation to avoid Filibuster.

    When passing the ACA the Senate took a already passed House bill struck the text and title and replaced them with what would be known as the “Affordable Care ACT”. Democrats contend that they merely amended the house bill and thus it does not violate the origination clause. This interpretation would render the origination clause meaningless.

    However, it turns out that Senate Democrats messed up because they chose a non revenue raising bill to amend. Here is an in depth article about the case.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/19/another-specious-defense-of-obamacare/#comments

    I wish I had faith in the judiciary to rule based on the law instead of “penumbras” or “saving constructions”.

    • Ken in Camarillo

      And since there is no severability clause, if the revenue raising provisions are unconstitutional, the whole bill is void.

      A minor detail, which might be not so minor: the original bill was not passed using the reconciliation tactic. The Senate had passed it, and the House was considering it. Then Scott Brown won the senate seat, taking away the 60th seat for Democrats, making the Senate no longer filibuster proof. Therefore, the House had to pass the Senate version without change in order to avoid the Senate having to vote on it again.

      A second bill to clean up some problems in the original bill was passed using the reconciliation tactic, based on the claim that the second bill was arranged to supposedly have a net negative cost, which allows it to be passed with a reconciliation process that doesn’t allow filibusters.

      Interesting question: what happens to the second bill if the original one is voided? Hopefully because there is no longer a structure corresponding to the one that the second bill modified, it too would become non-functional.