Previous post
To kick of 2023, 60 Minutes decided to bring discredited climate hack Paul Erhlich on to once again tell us that the only way to save the planet is to kill humans. Once again Erhlich was handed the opportunity to peddle his climate/population doom and gloom schtick he’s yammering about since the 1960’s.
“The next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we’re used to.”
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) January 2, 2023
Humanity is consuming 175 percent of what the earth can regenerate. Biologist Paul Erlich says that our current way of life is unsustainable. https://t.co/AwaKLZFGsj pic.twitter.com/MU1jHpuMwI
From the transcript of this atrocious piece:
In what year will the human population grow too large for the Earth to sustain? The answer is about 1970, according to research by the World Wildlife Fund. In 1970, the planet’s 3 and a half billion people were sustainable. But on this New Year’s Day, the population is 8 billion. Today, wild plants and animals are running out of places to live. The scientists you’re about to meet say the Earth is suffering a crisis of mass extinction on a scale unseen since the dinosaurs. We’re going to show you a possible solution, but first, have a look at how humanity is already suffering from the vanishing wild.
Now WHERE did the World Wildlife Fund get the idea that we are and will be in the midst of the worst mass extinction ever? Why, it was Paul Erhlich himself, the author of the completely discredited “Population Bomb” book. And, needless to say, he’s been wrong on EVERYTHING for the last 50+ years.
“The oceans will be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade.”
— Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) April 16, 2022
“America will be subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.”
Paul Ehrlich, the media’s longest-standing environmental “expert,” 1970#Catastrophizing
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
— Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) January 24, 2022
Paul Ehrlich, the media’s longest-standing environmental “expert,” 1970#Catastrophizing pic.twitter.com/9IddzsnX3H
The problem is, he’s not the only one peddling that our world is over populated. He’s not the only one peddling crap about saving the planet that includes ideas such as not irrigating to grow crops.
Rebecca Shaw: The thing that undermines species populations globally, the number one thing is habitat destruction. And that habitat destruction usually comes from the expansion of agricultural land. So mowing down the tropical rainforest to plant soy, or to plant corn, or to graze cows. We no longer have the services that those rainforests give us, like stabilizing the planet’s climate, like stabilizing weather patterns, like producing food and fresh water. We use 70 percent of all the freshwater on the planet to irrigate our crops.
This is where 60 Minutes is just off the rails. Pelley doesn’t even ask her to explain WHERE she got that irrigation water statistic. Think about it. If it takes 70% of the worlds freshwater to grow crops, wouldn’t that mean not enough water for laundry, cooking, and bathing in our homes??
This is the dangerous thing about what 60 Minutes peddled last night. These climate hacks with Paul Erhlich in the lead want to take us back to PRIOR to the industrial revolution! All advancement to grow better crops is BAD. But we need to stop having babies, growing crops to feed our world (bugs and processed fake foods instead), and have windmills and solar panels blanketing the planet.
The alarm Ehrlich sounded in ’68 warned that overpopulation would trigger widespread famine. He was wrong about that. The green revolution fed the world. But he also wrote in ’68 that heat from greenhouse gases would melt polar ice and humanity would overwhelm the wild. Today, humans have taken over 70% of the planet’s land and 70% of the freshwater.
All of the climate hacks 60 Minutes interviewed are totally wrong about the population issue.
In fact, the world’s crude death rate per 1,000 people fell from 12.9 in 1965-1970 to 8.1 in 2020-2025. That’s a reduction of 37 percent. Famines, which were once common throughout the world, have disappeared outside of war zones. The world produces (or produced before the Russian invasion of Ukraine) record amounts of food. Hundreds of millions of people did not starve to death in the 1970s or thereafter. Quite the opposite happened; the world’s population rose from 3.5 billion in 1968 to 8 billion in 2022. That said, some 400 million people were prevented from being born in China because of the misbegotten one-child policy (1978-2015), which the writings of Paul Ehrlich helped to inspire.
Yet today, we have climate activists blocking traffic, glueing themselves to priceless paintings, and pushing for farmers to stop farming because of that dangerous fertilizer that helps crops resist disease and grow faster/healthier sooner. Furthermore, we have climate hacks and so-called scientists pushing for the world to DE-populate.
Jane Goodall at the World Economic Formum… We can solve climate change by depopulating the earth by a mere 7.5 billion people.
— Pelham (@Resist_05) December 31, 2022
pic.twitter.com/wIHmmlpBBd
That would be a hard NOPE from me. In the name of saving the climate from global warming, global cooling, the hole in the ozone, too much nitrogen, good crops that use fertilizer, farming to GROW FOOD so we can eat, heat our homes, cool our homes, use gas stoves, and drive gas guzzlers; the recommendation is to kill off the people in order to save the bugs, whales, fish, pastures and forests.
60 Minutes promotes a guy and others who want to save the planet by killing off the humans. The atrocious part of this is FAR too many in our governments around the world believe in this crap. They’ve adopted Soylent Green as a freaking how-to guide instead of the warning it was intended to be.
As far as the “journalism” 60 Minutes engaged in by bringing on these alarmist climate hacks… as noted above any statistics peddled were presented as fact.
Some scientist lamenting the extinction of the California Grizzly Bear. The California Grizzly Bear went extinct 100 years ago. You’re a hack @ScottPelley
— Joe Gabriel Simonson (@SaysSimonson) January 2, 2023
Yep, I checked as well, and sure as shit, it’s true. Furthermore, as Michael Shellenberger details here, there are many other things Erhlich consistently gets wrong.
60 Minutes promoted highly discredited climate hacks to continue the work of pushing their world-killing climate agenda. Paul Erhlich has been the long-discredited leader of this crap. Yet, just as with people like Fauci, we are supposed to believe THE EXPERTS because we are told they are experts.
They are experts alright. Experts at always getting it wrong while spreading the gospel of bad news.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Feature Photo Credit: Marco Verch Professional/FlickR/Creative Commons/Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)/Cropped
Scott says: Good post Nina. That being said, I could get on board if we were just talking about these globalist pukes like soros, gates, etc, and the commies like AOC and other fools…
Cameron says: I figure we kill about one thousand of them and see if things improve. If they don’t, it’s obvious that we have to get rid of more of them.
GWB says: “What’s a thousand progressive power-brokers at the bottom of the ocean?”
“Either a super-villain’s lair or a good beginning.”
Jeffery Alberter says: My response is a simple one. Set an example and dispose of yourselves first.
Jack_of_Spades says: You realize that Goodall is basically calling for genocide, right?
James Jones says: Yup. She wants 15/16, or 93.75%, of the world’s people dead.
Scott says: As long as she gets to play with gorillas, she’s happy… people, not so much..
Howy says: A large population is the only way to generate the wealth and interest required to provide funding for her research. With a world population of only 500k, no one would give a shit about gorillas.
Sgt. Steiner says: Actually we’d go back to eating them.
Anyone who checks NASA’s climate plot for the last 800,000 years will see that humans do NOTHING to influence climate fluctuations. Yes, they’ve been going on all that time — and millions of years earlier (!!!) as a plot of the Concentration of CO2 and Temperature Fluctuations reveals.
Ralph Gizzip says: Sure, Paul, you go first.
Howy says: A large population is the only way to generate the wealth and interest required to provide funding for her research. With a world population of only 500k, no one would give a shit about gorillas.
GWB says: A prosperous population is the only way to generate the excess wealth required to do that kind of research.
A moral population is the only way to see that research is oriented properly (and not about proving animals are people too, or other malarkey) and prevent these sorts of people from taking charge.
Howy says: Misinformation? Where are all the warnings and social guidance we normally get on social media?
GWB says: “The next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we’re used to.”
He’s absolutely correct. But not in the way or for the reasons he thinks so.
We use 70 percent of all the freshwater on the planet to irrigate our crops.
Here’s what you missed about this silly factoid, Nina: just because it’s used to irrigate crops doesn’t mean it can’t be used for anything else. Because that water doesn’t simply disappear once it’s used to irrigate. Some of it runs back off into the environment, some of it gets evaporated back out of the plants, some of it gets processed through the eating of the crops and the mulching of the harvest detritus.
want to take us back to PRIOR to the industrial revolution
Well, kinda. See, somewhere along the way they believe Science! and technology (because we’re always Progressing, dontcha know!) will enable us to live the agrarian lifestyle while also having all those things industrialization gave us, but without all the industry. We’ll wave our hands and nanobots will assemble brand new electric cars for us on the spot; we’ll ingest some nanobots and, voila!, we’ll live forever; we’ll have every conceivable food-providing plant growing prettily – out there somewhere – tended by robots that will treat them and the earth with tenderest loving care.. or, even better, we’ll just say “Tea, Earl Grey, hot” and DING! there’s your drink.We won’t need to grow anything whatsoever. We’ll grow vineyards because we CAN not because we MUST. They (the true believers, not the power-hungry) want to take us beyond the industrial revolution.
Today, humans have taken over 70% of the planet’s land and 70% of the freshwater.
And here is one of the places where the fact of Progressivism’s religiosity is so obvious. Whereas Genesis tells us that man is to have “dominion” over creation, Progressivism tells us that man and the rest of creation are co-equal, and we must yield to it in most circumstances. (Which is really ironic, considering the transhuman BS of transgenderism is in direct conflict with Nature.)
the world’s population rose from 3.5 billion in 1968 to 8 billion in 2022
And I’m with Sarah Hoyt on this: if you believe that number is true, you might want to examine your Gell-Man Amnesia. Governments lie all the time about these sorts of things. And a significant amount of the world’s wealth gets re-distributed to the rest of the world based on population counts. And most of those recipients we already know are “kleptocracies”, so we shouldn’t trust any numbers they give us about anything. And here we have all of these globalists with a vested interest in showing the world is over-populated and the peasants should get on with dying out, and they’re the people putting these numbers together. And you believe these numbers?
Jane Goodall at the World Economic Formum [sic]
Well, she has loved her apes more than humans for a long time, so it’s not really surprising. (/refuses to make any monkeypox insinuations/)
the recommendation is to kill off the people in order to save the bugs, whales, fish, pastures and forests
Again, progressivism is a religion. One that worships creation instead of the Creator.
highly discredited climate hacks
No, they are priests and prophets of Progressivism. They’re not any more discredited than the leaders of the Jehovah Witnesses who changed their claims on the 144,000 when it became clear Jesus wasn’t coming back before they filled that number. Their followers still follow. (Though some were “red-pilled” – and went off and formed their own variants on Jehovah’s Witnesses that just modified or threw out that problematic doctrine.)
The real problem with this?
The progressive indoctrination of public schools means there are an AWFUL LOT of citizens who believe this and desire to be ruled in the Progressive theocracy because it will bring them that utopia of free everything and comfort for all of their eternal lives.
15 Comments