Climate Change

Paul Ehrlich Goes Up Against "Well-Funded, Merciless Enemies" to Save the Earth from Certain Destruction. Again.


well-funded, merciless

By now, talking smack about environmental doomsayer and neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich should fall solidly under the heading "dead horse, the beating of." But Ehrlich is some sort of zombie pony: no matter how many times he is proven wrong, he rises again as a commentator, consulted and quoted by otherwise discriminating people. He was wrong about global starvation, wrong about pesticide-induced riots, wrong about race war, and wrong about nuclear annihilation. Now, naturally, he has taken up the cause of global warming.

Here are Reason, we have done our fair share of Ehrlichbashing (and its converse, Norman Borlaug promoting). But the folks at Hot Air are taking another run at the old boy, driven to it by emails from Ehrich—recently dug up and made public by The Washington Times—arguing for a major public relations campaign against global warming skeptics, funded and organized by folks at the National Academy of Sciences. Here's Ehrlich:

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

The way the folks at Hot Air see it, anyone worried about global warming should take heart: Every catastrophe predicted by Ehrlich has failed to come to pass, so we're probably good to go.

NEXT: The Other Broken Windows Fallacy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Okay, I have to ask–are you intentionally misspelling his name in different ways to piss him off? If so, I like it.

    1. By brain is smarter than yours, it corrected all of those for me.

      1. All of them? Are you sure?

  2. Including “By” instead of “My”.

  3. She chose a brief passage from the final chapter of Population Bomb to show that Ehrlich had discussed an extreme solution to extreme cases of overpopulation: “compulsory birth regulation… (through) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size.”[11]

    Ehrlich wanted to put birth control into the water supply to control the population of undesirable. He is sick fucking bastard that should be reduced to ranting in laundromats.

    1. We don’t want his fucking ass.

      *American Association of Laundromat Owners

  4. This is the definitive proof that global warming is not true.

    1. Come on guys you have to admit that we do need to get the population down a couple billion though right? So waht if the climate change, co2=evil stuff was a bit much and we misrepresented some of the data…we still need to cull the herd right?

      1. Of course we do; first, we’ve gotta wipe out all the population control “experts” calling for these measures. Then we’ve got to eliminate abortion and euthanasia supporters and all their murderous ilk. Finally we’ve got to exterminate any remaining noisome commie leftists the first two sweeps somehow failed to catch.

      2. Won’t global warming reduce the population?

        1. No, because then the problem would solve itself. Which means Environuts don’t get to “do something”, and that’s just not gonna happen.

      3. Cosmo shows his ignorance one again by trying to say that Reasonoids believe in AGW and Malthusianism. Retard.

      4. Methinks you would do better bitching at India and China than in the US.

    2. No, it’s the definitive proof that global warming will not destroy us. Ehrlich prophecized that hunger would destroy us. Hunger still exists, but it has not destroyed us.

      1. Also, his doomsaying hinged on us not being able to even make enough food. Anyone who’s starving could probably be fed, right now. We’ve got the food. It’s a matter of getting it to the people who need it though…and ofcourse, they’ve got to pay for it. Unless us giving it to them for free would keep them in a permanent state of poverty, in which case we need to keep giving them free food.

        Go Haiti!

  5. He does look like a “zombie pony.”

  6. Marin Landau should sue Ehrlich for defamation of his likeness and force him to grow an Amish beard.

    1. Marin Landau Mr. Ed should sue Ehrlich for defamation of his likeness and force him to grow an Amish beard a pair of balls.

  7. I’d comment, but it’d be like shooting fish in a barrel.

  8. Ehrlich!

  9. Paul Ehrlich and G-Man from Half Life, separated at birth.

  10. I saw the headline and thought, “Dear God, how can anyone even listen to that monkey anymore?” Then I read the first paragraph and my blood pressure went back down to normal. No work here for me.

  11. Ehrlich serves a valuable purpose.

    If he supports a cause, you know its utter crap.

    Seriously, if he became a libertarian tomorrow, I’d probably start voting Democrat, just to be safe.

    1. Seriously, if he became a libertarian tomorrow, I’d probably start voting Democrat Communist, just to be safe.

      Safer bet maybe.

  12. The way the folks at Hot Air see it, anyone worried about global warming should take heart: Every catastrophe predicted by Ehrlich has failed to come to pass, so we’re probably good to go.

    This is the Constipated Zombie Fallacy.

  13. Would you take investment advice from a financial analyst who was repeatedly wrong?

    Would Chony do that?

    1. Would Chony do that?


      And would be arguing that he was smarter than everyone else for doing so.

    2. Past performance is not an indicator of future results.

  14. I’m not worried about global warming from fossil fuel consumption. A tenured Rutgers professor told me that we’re running out of oil by 2008 anyway. Err, would you believe 2012?

  15. Isn’t it bizarre that in America, once you reach at certain level of notoriety in no matter what field (though particularly in governance) it becomes completely irrelevant whether or not you are ever right about anything and failure carries no consequences? In government particularly you can fail spectacularly, costing the country billions of dollars, you can promote policies that destroy millions of lives, but all you ever do is fail up.

  16. If anyone ever deserved a visit from Steve Smith, it’s that guy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.