Our Planet Is NOT a Fragile Snowflake


Our Planet Is NOT a Fragile Snowflake

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” The people at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree, saying that to avoid some of the most devastating impacts of climate change, the world must slash carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 and completely decarbonize by 2050.

Such dire warnings are not new. In 1970, Harvard University biology professor George Wald, a Nobel laureate, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist, predicted in an article for The Progressive, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” The year before, he had warned, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Despite such harebrained predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' highest award.

Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as “The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile.” “The 3rd rock from the sun is a fragile oasis.” “Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.” These and many other statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmentalists. Worse yet, this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation's youth from kindergarten through college. That's why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

Let's examine just a few cataclysmic events that exceed any destructive power of mankind and then ask how our purportedly fragile planet could survive. The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, in present-day Indonesia, had the force of 200 megatons of TNT. That's the equivalent of 13,300 15-kiloton atomic bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II. Before that was the 1815 Tambora eruption, the largest known volcanic eruption. It spewed so much debris into the atmosphere that 1816 became known as the “Year Without a Summer.” It led to crop failures and livestock death in the Northern Hemisphere, producing the worst famine of the 19th century. The A.D. 535 Krakatoa eruption had such force that it blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and is said to have led to the Dark Ages.

Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions — Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) — spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activities during our entire history.

Our so-called fragile earth survived other catastrophic events, such as the floods in China in 1887, which took an estimated 1 million to 2 million lives, followed by floods there in 1931, which took an estimated 1 million to 4 million lives. What about the impact of earthquakes on our fragile earth? Chile's 1960 Valdivia earthquake was 9.5 on the Richter scale. It created a force equivalent to 1,000 atomic bombs going off at the same time. The deadly 1556 earthquake in China's Shaanxi province devastated an area of 520 miles.

Our so-called fragile earth faces outer space terror. Two billion years ago, an asteroid hit earth, creating the Vredefort crater in South Africa, which has a diameter of 190 miles. In Ontario, there's the Sudbury Basin, resulting from a meteor strike 1.8 billion years ago. At 39 miles long, 19 miles wide and 9 miles deep, it's the second-largest impact structure on earth. Virginia's Chesapeake Bay crater is a bit smaller, about 53 miles wide. Then there's the famous but puny Meteor Crater in Arizona, which is not even a mile wide.

My question is: Which of these powers of nature could be duplicated by mankind?

For example, could mankind even come close to duplicating the polluting effects of the 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption? It is the height of arrogance to think that mankind can make significant parametric changes in the earth or can match nature's destructive forces. Our planet is not fragile.

Occasionally, environmentalists spill the beans and reveal their true agenda. Barry Commoner said, “Capitalism is the earth's number one enemy.” Amherst College professor Leo Marx said, “On ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”

Walter E.Williams
Walter E. Williams

About Walter E.Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Williams is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa's War Against Capitalism, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty Versus The Tyranny of Socialism, and recently his autobiography, Up From The Projects.

  • 25 thoughts on “Our Planet Is NOT a Fragile Snowflake

    1. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opens her mouth to speak she should think better of it and just shut it. The woman has already embarrassed herself on numerous occasions by blurting out nonsense.

    2. Right on the money Dr. Williams. This orb we inhabit is incredibly resilient. It’s better at self-cleaning than a Mini-14 gas system. The entire earth (and our surrounding atmosphere) are ginormous filters-dirty stuff in, clean stuff out. My wife and I were discussing this just last night (she’s a retired middle school teacher). We have an entire generation that has been purposely mis-educated. They “know” these untruths as fact. No one is going to change their minds, even with irrefutable facts. They will, I’m afraid be our downfall. I won’t be here to see it, thankfully but I don’t believe our great country will be here, as we know it in 50 years. Not because of the wrath of nature exterminating us for our being irresponsible stewards of the earth, but because of this generation of AOC’s that we have allowed Hollywood, via cartoons, TV, movies, and socialist/elitist educators to raise.

    3. Right on the money Dr. Williams. This orb we inhabit is incredibly resilient. It’s better at self-cleaning than a Mini-14 gas system. The entire earth (and our surrounding atmosphere) are ginormous filters-dirty stuff in, clean stuff out. My wife and I were discussing this just last night (she’s a retired middle school teacher). We have an entire generation that has been purposely mis-educated. They “know” these untruths as fact. No one is going to change their minds, even with irrefutable facts. They will, I’m afraid be our downfall. I won’t be here to see it, thankfully but I don’t believe our great country will be here, as we know it in 50 years. Not because of the wrath of nature exterminating us for our irresponsible shepherding of the earth, but because of this generation of AOC’s that we have raised.

    4. It has been proven (through science) that the average temperature of the Earth during the “Age of the Dinosaurs” was about 90 degrees.
      The Earth is a “living, breathing” entity that will change whether or not we inhabit it. Right now we are entering a Solar Minimum in which there will be fewer flares or sun spots and the temperature will drop accordingly as shown over the past centuries when they had the Ice Age and mini-Ice Age which led to the Potato Famine in Ireland during the 18th & 19th Centuries leading to European Immigration to the North American Continent.
      We might have some kind of impact on the climate, but, in the long run, it will be minimal.

    5. We need better arguments than this to refute climate change control. I am a big fan of Dr. Williams and agree that there have been a whole lot of false prophecies on the end of humanity and the world – why believe current ones. However, he missed the target on this one. He is using examples of one time events in the earth’s history to justify a position to ignore the potential impact of long term constant effects of human activity. These are old arguments used against every effort to control impacts of human activity where there has been a financial cost – controlling clear cutting of forests, water quality control, and air quality control; among others.

      1. @Henry, How about these arguments to refute climate change lies: 1. Al Gore made a fortune off global warming. So his mansion uses twenty times the electricity as the average American house hold. When Al Gore traveled, he does not ride in a high gas milage car, he and his entourage drive in a convoy of five huge SUVs, and his private “oxygen burning, pollution belching” jet plane.
        Here is another: the Climate Change “researchers” got caught exchanging emails that discussed among themselves changing the climate data to fit their models because nature was not cooperating with their theories, and they needed bigger research grants.

        1. WB. My fiance’s father is a former premier of a Canadian province. He wrote FOIA’s to The Canadian government in Ottawa regarding any activity involved with “climate change/chem-trails”. Someone made the mistake of sending damning evidence of both the US and Canadian government’s role in this activity. There are a group of attorneys preparing law suits against both governments and within the next year or so will be made public – if their not offed in some way.

          Climate change is “real” but not for the reasons the media is telling everyone. Just look up at the sky and you can see what the real reasons are. They are man-made events of dumping boron, aluminum hydrates, other heavy metals, chemicals and other unknown substances to affect the different layers of the atmosphere. Then you have the HAARP stations at various locations completing the manipulation of “climate/weather” all over the planet. Yeah, it’s man-made by the military and other vested interest groups. I have a Congressional report from 1978 wherein Congress asks the military not IF it is possible to affect weather but how soon can they begin and what is their budget requirements.

    6. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is nothing more than an actress and not a very good one at that. Here is the evidence how she was hired to play the part of a candidate. Her speeches are nothing more than regurgitating the words of those who control/hired her. She has no legitimate brains worthy of independent thinking.


      What is scarier than knowing this new revelation is the fact she was actually elected into office. Now THAT is a revelation! Proof people have no critical thinking prowess at all.

      Lastly,… “The GOAL of socialism is COMMUNISM” – Vladimir Lenin

      “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.” ― Norman Thomas

      “The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideals of socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly.” ― Norman Thomas

    7. Climate change has been going on since day one. If it had not we would be standing on a lava pit! How about we get real and do what we can (within reason). What good is saving the planet if we kill ourselves off in the process?

    8. In my mind this piece, while bearing some truth, misses the point. I am not worried about the the Earth surviving people. Quite the opposite.
      We sh&t where we eat. Never a good idea. The Earth has always, and will always, cycle with or without us.
      At least try to clean up after yourself though. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
      Go to your local non sanctioned shooting range if you need an example.

    9. Forecasting doom, gloom and apocalypse is the new strategy of the left because their century and a half prediction of Utopia through socialism hasn’t turned out so well.

    10. I distinctly remember in 1975 in high school being told that unless we changed our ways on pollution. The oceans would be dead and the climate temperature would average near 100 degrees. This was to happen by the year 2000. Robert Redford gave a speech in the1970″s. I can’t remember where. Spewing all kinds of so called facts and numbers.Claiming the world would be dead in fifty years unless we stop polluting. It was good that he could act because he didn’t know squat about environmental science. So called climate scientists today are not much better. If you want to get an accurate interpretation of what the global warming/climate change is all about and why people believe what they do. Read: A State of Fear by Michael Crichton.

    11. One of the reasons I am such a big fan of Dr. Williams, is because of how hated and vilified he is by the left.
      I always tell the climate change loons I run into, that if they are worried about controlling global temperature, they need to find the thermostat for the giant ball of fire in the sky. Anything else is simply a way to separate me from my wealth and property.

      1. @ WP

        If you like playing with fire, you should go over and speak the truth to that bunch of Enviro-Smut preachers on the Discovery Magazine forum.. It must be owned by Bloomberg lol
        They could make the dead rise from the grave and accuse them of profanity!

        I read recently how some so called scientist, was wanting to create a reflective array, to block the sun from the reaching earth…
        I think we should put them all in a cold dark hole and force them to tend the mushrooms.

        1. @Walter….
          Mr. Teller, father of the atomic bomb, was the guy who wanted the “reflective array”. Soon after,they got the idea that they could crush down the coal ash from power plants to .5 micron size, and aerosol it, and spray it from jet planes. The solution to pollution is dilution. And then they made sure if you talked about it you were a hallucinating bat wing crazy conspiracist. Do you think they might try that with spent nuclear rods ? BTW, I left a message for you and Heed over at the last board. Did you see it, Maroon ?

          1. Let us not forget the research of Bernard Eastlund. I refer you to his patent numbers
            US 20070215946A1,US20070238252A1 The invention patents mentioned, is a method and apparatus for creating artifically ionized regions in the atmosphere utilizing ionization trails of cosmic rays and micro-meteors to ignite plasma patterns in electric field patterns formed by ground based electromagnetic wave radiators. The applications are useful for telecommunications, weather control, lightening protection and defense applications.
            Tie in the aerosol trails we are all familier with, excite the ionosphere with Tera Watts of Radio Waves, could this be an influence in climate? Possibly HAARP?

      2. Hear, Hear!
        First it was global cooling, then it was global warming, now, it’s just climate change. Yes, the largest determining factor to these shifts are related to Our solar systems Sun. Never listen to people who do not have any knowledge in the Earth Sciences, Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, etc. Also Beware of the charlatans of these disciplines that have been tainted with political power, financial driven interests, or both. They are the wolf’s in Sheep’s clothing. They will separate the fools from their money and property. Always try to Verify, Verify, Verify.

        1. Great points!

          Environmentalists make sweeping claims that a huge percentage of “scientists” support the existence of global warming/climate change. Their omitted information is that the “scientists” they quote are ALL “climate” scientists (a new sub-genre of general information only, that is the least exact of all sciences). Not the “classical” hard sciences – the REAL sciences – such as Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Physics, etc.

    Leave a Comment 25 Comments