Two weeks ago in New York City, Al Gore delivered a stirring speech on the impending danger of global warming.  That same day, temperatures plunged to within two degrees of a 50-year record low. Gore’s explanation? The cold snap was actually caused by global warming. And, he warned, if we don’t do something about it soon, our entire ecosystem is doomed.

Sure, we’re all familiar with global warming, but did you know that just 30 years ago it was global cooling that was all the rage? At Earth Day 1970, California professor Kenneth Watt warned, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” In 1976, author Lowell Ponte: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

Those doomsday predictions sound pretty absurd today, but that hasn’t stopped environmental experts from recycling them time after time, always claiming we’re on the brink of ecological disaster, with mere decades before our natural resources are exhausted. But are things really that bad? Since 1950, proven reserves for oil and gas have increased 700 percent. Our air and water are cleaner than ever. Global food production has outpaced population growth since the 1960s, and U.S. forests cover roughly the same area they did 75 years ago.

Most of us are conservationists at heart and want to see the beauty and abundance of nature preserved for future generations. We recognize that it is possible to balance the growth of civilization with respect for Mother Earth. Unfortunately, many radical environmentalists from organizations like Earth First and Greenpeace don’t share our commonsense attitudes about the environment.

Last August, saboteurs from the Earth Liberation Front torched 20 Hummer H2’s in a California SUV dealership, leaving messages like “I love pollution” on the ruined vehicles. Ironically appropriate, considering the toxic fumes released by the blaze polluted the air more than those Hummers would have in a lifetime on the road. The attack seemed counterproductive, but maybe they were just trying to send us a message.

So just what is the message of environmental extremists? Their stated mission is protecting the planet, but there’s more to it than that. For example, they denounce burning fossil fuels to generate power, supposedly because of the pollution. They also oppose nuclear power, however, which is cleaner, safer and more efficient than either coal or petroleum, and unlike solar and wind power, is capable of economical, large-scale energy production. What do they really want: clean energy or no energy?

Paul Ehrlich, who famously predicted that overpopulation would cause massive starvation in the 1980s, disapproved of nuclear power: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Apparently, eco-nuts don’t want us to have electricity. “The only real good technology is no technology at all,” said John Shuttleworth, author of “Friends of the Earth.  Now that seems a little extreme. Peter Berle, former National Audubon Society president is blunt: “We reject the idea of private property.” Bingo. Radical environmentalism as a disguise for Marxism. Eco-terrorists may not like pollution, but it’s capitalism they’re really after.

And about global warming … leading scientists, including atmospheric physicist and OSU alumnus Dr. Fred Singer, report that average worldwide temperatures have regularly fluctuated several degrees Celsius over the last three millennia with no global catastrophe. As it turns out, atmospheric temperatures, as measured by satellites and radiosonde balloons, have actually trended downward since 1979. 

Temperatures over the past four centuries closely match variations in the sun’s brightness and do not follow the recent rise in Carbon dioxide emissions. The higher carbon dioxide concentrations have, however, been shown to be extremely beneficial for plant growth. That CO2 that Al Gore is so concerned about is not only not destroying the environment; it’s actually helping it heal.

And now, as Paul Harvey would say, “you know the rest of the story.”

Keith Platfoot is a senior in computer science and engineering. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].