Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Environmental Wacko Predictions From 1970
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 5, 2010
Author: Wackos
Post Date: 2010-03-05 10:46:57 by dont eat that
Keywords: None
Views: 23903
Comments: 51
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
“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.”
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
“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….”
“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.”
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
“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.’”
“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.”
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. 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.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 44.
#1. To: dont eat that (#0) (Edited)
HEre's one from 1980: We can CUT taxes INCREASE defense spending and BALANCE the budget.
How'd that one work out?
BTW, most of those predications were a) opinion based on b) current trends and assuming no intervention.
#2. To: war (#1)
The House lied about spending cuts. That's how it worked out.
“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.’”
LOL
#12. To: dont eat that (#2)
The House lied about spending cuts. That's how it worked out.
So Reagan didn't read the bills he signed?
#13. To: go65 (#12)
Reagan used the veto 78 times including shutting down the government. Of course, unlike Clinton, the press blamed him for the shutdown.
#16. To: dont eat that (#13)
I laugh every time one of my liberal 'friends' tries to use Ronald Reagan to 'shield' our idiot POTUS. Especially the ones like GO65 or my antigroupie, who for years posted some of the most disgusting things I've ever read about RR.
They inadvertently admit what they long claimed was false, that Reagan is the 'gold standard' for what a President should be.
#20. To: Badeye, don't eat that (#16) (Edited)
See tagline:
#22. To: go65 (#20)
These "patriots" who call Reagan the gold standard of presidents would call him a terrorist appeaser when he was smart enough to pull the marines out of Beruit after the terrorist attack.
#30. To: Bartcoprules (#22)
These "patriots" who call Reagan the gold standard of presidents would call him a terrorist appeaser when he was smart enough to pull the marines out of Beruit after the terrorist attack.
False dumbass. Most of us were 100% against putting the Marine's on the ground in Beirut.
#31. To: Boofer (#30)
Most of us were 100% against putting the Marine's on the ground in Beirut.
What's this "most of us" crap. You're all over LP supporting the decision.
#33. To: war (#31)
Most of us were 100% against putting the Marine's on the ground in Beirut.What's this "most of us" crap. You're all over LP supporting the decision.
LP was around in 1983?
Who knew.
#35. To: dont eat that (#33)
LP was around in 1983?Who knew.
No one can make a comment on a historical event or cite historical context at LP.... or any other forum? I know, I know.... thinking in less than the concrete is not your forte.
#39. To: mininggold (#35)
You people need to take the stick out of your butt and get a sense of humor.
#42. To: dont eat that (#39)
Apparently its all about the sexual thrill...(laughing)
#44. To: Boofer (#42) (Edited)
Apparently its all about the sexual thrill...(laughing)
Apparently you didn't get padlock's joke either...
You were FOR the deployment, Boof...you were against the ROE once they got there...
That is a huge difference from being against the deployment...
Replies to Comment # 44.
There are no replies to Comment # 44.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 44.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]