Climate "Experts" are 0-43 with Their Doomsday Predictions

Politics

  • Nolte: Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions

    https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2 ... edictions/

    ADDED: Here’s number 42 and 43.
    For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

    In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.

    And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

    Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.

    Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

    Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

    If you had an investment counselor who steered you wrong 41times, would you hang in there for number 42?

    Of course not. You’d fire him after failed prediction two or three.

    And if that’s not crazy enough, the latest ploy is to trot out a 16-year-old girl to spread prediction number 42, because it is so much more credible that way.

    Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh.

    Anyway, I want you to have the data, so go ahead and print this out in advance of Thanksgiving dinner with your obnoxious Millennial nephew.

    LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT RIGHT

    NONE.
    ZIP.
    ZERO.
    NADA.
    BLANK
    DONUT HOLE
    NIL.
    NOTHING.
    VOID.
    ZILCH.

    LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

    Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

    1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
    1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
    1970: Ice Age By 2000
    1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
    1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
    1972: New Ice Age By 2070
    1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
    1974: Another Ice Age?
    1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
    1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
    1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
    1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
    1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
    1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
    1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
    1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
    1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
    2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
    2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
    2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
    2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
    2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
    2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
    2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
    2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
    2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
    2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
    1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
    1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
    1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
    1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
    1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
    1980: Peak Oil In 2000
    1996: Peak Oil in 2020
    2002: Peak Oil in 2010
    2006: Super Hurricanes!
    2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
    1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
    1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
    1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
    1970s: Killer Bees!

    Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

    Don’t litter, be kind to animals, recycling’s for suckers (it’s all going to end up in the ground eventually), so stop feeling guilty… Go out there and embrace all the bounty that comes with being a 21st century American — you know, like Obama, who says he believes in Global Warming with his mouth but proves he doesn’t with the $15 million he just spent on oceanfront that we’re told is doomed to flooding.

    This piece has been updated to correct a duplicate posting and add another hoax prediction.
    Image
    User avatar
    High on Death
    Site Admin
     
    Posts: 1312
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:27 pm


  • He'll be dead before it floods is the thing(Bill Gates that is). the next 200 years what science has been saying, don't know anything about the hacks you listed. Should I list all times religious people have failed to predict the end of the world and say religion is false? That is what I believe but using the fringe members to discredit that would be the wrong way to go about it. Most of scientists have been saying we'll be losing the ice caps if we don't do anything in 100's of years. But now we also got people covering caps with blankets and coming up with new ways to slow them down. People coming up with ways to remove the tons of mercury and methane under some of the bigger ice caps as well as coming up with ways to extend its life. The process of the ice caps melting is a long one and the most dangerous one. Desalinating the water to that extent could do lots of fucked up things, change or stop trade winds and currents, kill off different species and yes if all of the caps were to melt the coast's of the world would be very different.

    We are in the time where a lot say it's to late to stop but maybe not, we didn't cross that threshold too long ago. Maybe we can come up with a way to protect the ice caps even more so and come up with other ways to remove excess carbon and other gasses. But like I said, its been 100's, not 100, hundreds, of years for us to start to see the full effects of global warming/climate change. Listing people that make a buck off stupid people's fears is not an argument.
    AriFeannor
     
    Posts: 122
    Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:07 am


  • I'm not a fringe whacko. I'm scientifically and mathematically literate. I learned the scientific method in jr. high school, which is all I need to know that AGW is a total fraud, there being no statistically significant, observable data supporting this so-called "theory". And despite the claims, there is none. No correlation between human activity and "climate", and perhaps more importantly, no indication whatsoever that any of these proposed reductions in CO2 will make any measurable difference whatsoever.


    It's all bullshit, Ari. It's about politics and control, not the environment.
    Image
    User avatar
    High on Death
    Site Admin
     
    Posts: 1312
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:27 pm


  • So all the links I could provide measuring the rise in CO2 you wouldn't believe. Especially the spike marking world wide industrialism.
    AriFeannor
     
    Posts: 122
    Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:07 am


  • High on Death wrote:No correlation between human activity and "climate"


    There very much is correlation.

    There is a planet with rising global temperatures (e.g. the global average temperatures ARE higher than in other recent periods, the Artic and Antartic ice cover extent IS lower, and so on).
    There are humans on this planet who have increasingly expanded their polluting footprint in there.
    These two things are FACTS.
    Both FACTS correlate in time.

    Now, is there causation? That is of course what we cannot prove using the scientific method, as you suggest. We would need a second Earth. We would need millions of years of recordings made with the same temperature recordings methods we use now. We would need to control for thousands of factors we cannot control for. So they only thing we have are imperfect data, statistics, and an understanding of the science underlying global warming, which we can extrapolate from lab conditions to the whole world with some degree of confidence.

    This is where the "anthropogenic" in the AGW acronym comes to play. Based on the above, most scientists claim GW have an anthropogenic component to it. You may disagree with it, if you deliberately choose to ignore what most scientists (who, believe or not, are not in the pockets of whomever you think they are) say.

    So it's the causation you may not believe in, but not the correlation.
    dckx
     
    Posts: 249
    Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:35 am


  • AriFeannor wrote:So all the links I could provide measuring the rise in CO2 you wouldn't believe. Especially the spike marking world wide industrialism.


    Well, you could try me, but I'll be skeptical I'm sure. No doubt some of the data you show me will come from volcanic areas. Or it will be extrapolated predictions, not actual data. How exactly do you put a single number for CO2 concentrations, or temperature, to a gigantic, hugely complex global weather system? And where has it been proven that rising CO2 predicates rising temperatures? Maybe it's the opposite, that rising temperatures cause increaased atmospheric CO2? And again, where is the slightest indication that any of these proposed "solutions" will do a damned thing?

    I've been hearing the same dire warnings since the 1980s. First it was going to be that we all burned to death by the year 2000. When the year 2000 rolled around, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING had happened. So they keep bumping up the doomsdays deadline by 10 years at a time, but still the climate is the same as it's ever been.

    We can argue the science if you care to take the time. This guy right here makes the case better than I could. https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.or ... rming-2012

    A few quick points:
    1. This guy is a Nobel laureate or whatever but I don't really know his credentials or what area he won it for. I'm not relying on his title to give what he's saying any weight; he just explains the way I feel about the validity of manmade climate change.
    2. I originally say this video on youtube but today I couldn't find it. Had to do a search using duckduckg, meaning its likely that that video is being supressed by google. Because they love science so much.
    3. Just the fact that they say that this theory is UNDENIABLE and UNCHALLENGEABLE should be scaring the hell out of people who claim to worship SCIENCE!
    Image
    User avatar
    High on Death
    Site Admin
     
    Posts: 1312
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:27 pm


  • dckx wrote:There is a planet with rising global temperatures (e.g. the global average temperatures ARE higher than in other recent periods, the Artic and Antartic ice cover extent IS lower, and so on).
    There are humans on this planet who have increasingly expanded their polluting footprint in there.
    These two things are FACTS.


    Not so much.

    1. There is a planet that is in the middle of a brief (in geologic terms) warming period between ice ages. Where I type at this very moment, there once was a mile-thick sheet of ice. And it went away, all on its own, without human intervention. And it WILL be back again, and there is absolutely nothing humanity can or could do to change that fact. Regarding ice coverage, also disagree. Seasonal variations aside, there is not significant loss of ice or detectable change of sea levels. There just isn't.

    2. Humans pollute, true. There is and has been clear evidence of pollution and its effects on the environment and health. Smog, acid raid, water pollution. All these things are real. And there's also clear evidence that pollution has been reduced. Clean Air act, changes to power plant regulations, etc. have very clearly reduced smog and water polloution. In many ways the envirionment is cleaner now than its been in decades.

    But is CO2 pollution? I do not believe it is. In fact, CO2 is absolutely essential to life. Carbon is the very basis of organic chemistry! And in our geological past, CO2 levels were much higher than today, and plants grew much larger as a result.

    dckx wrote:Now, is there causation? That is of course what we cannot prove using the scientific method, as you suggest. We would need a second Earth. We would need millions of years of recordings made with the same temperature recordings methods we use now. We would need to control for thousands of factors we cannot control for. So they only thing we have are imperfect data, statistics, and an understanding of the science underlying global warming, which we can extrapolate from lab conditions to the whole world with some degree of confidence.


    No, I don't think you'd need to create a second solar system to prove something, but if its the case that you would, well then I guess that means your theory is not a theory. If you need to build confidence, then you've got a lot of work to do. AOC likes to compare the Green New Deal to WWII. But like fighting a war you need popular support, and the proponents DO NOT HAVE IT, despite their constant claims that "virtually everyone agrees." NO WE DO NOT!!! NOT BY A LONG SHOT!!

    From Wikipedia: The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

    So, the scientic method is the logical process we follow to determine truth. To just say "we don't have time for that" is just an excuse to push the preferred results, and that's a mistake that people make ALL THE TIME, in all areas. To claim someone who supports the scientific method in this case is ANTI-SCIENCE is just absurd.
    Image
    User avatar
    High on Death
    Site Admin
     
    Posts: 1312
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:27 pm


  • High on Death wrote:Not so much.

    1. There is a planet that is in the middle of a warming period between ice ages. Where I type at this very moment, there once was a mile-thick sheet of ice. And it went away, all on its own, without human intervention. And it WILL be back again. Regarding ice coverage, also disagree. Seasonal variations aside, there is not significant loss of ice or detectable change of sea levels. There just isn't,

    2. Humans pollute, true. There is and has been clear evidence of pollution and its effects on the environment and health. Smog, acid raid, water pollution. All these things are real. And there's also clear evidence that pollution has been reduced. Clean Air act, changes to power plant regulations, etc. have very clearly reduced smog and water polloution. In many ways the envirionment is cleaner now than its been in decades.

    But is CO2 pollution? I do not believe it is. In fact, CO2 is absolutely essential to life. Carbon is the very basis of organic chemistry! And in our geological past, CO2 levels were much higher than today, and plants grew much larger as a result.


    Concerning point 1, let's leave aside the explanatory level for a second. The accumulated data (as unreliable as it may be) points out that temperatures have been rising in the past centuries. So that's a fact, no matter what's causing it and what are the effects on the world (e.g. sea-level rise, or ice caps depletion).

    Concerning point 2, please provide data backing-up that claim. As far as I know, there may be policies tailored towards reducing pollution (many of them probably at least partially informed by global warming data, by the way). But sad as it may be, policies do not always inform practice. So I'd highly doubt the world's atmosphere, as a whole, is less polluted now than in decades. But of course I'm open to see data suggesting otherwise.

    But, assuming point 2 holds (that is, greenhouse related pollution remains high), then you do have correlation. When two things change together, they are correlated. That does not imply causality. With observed data you can infer correlation. For causation, you need experimental data. And we will never have that. So the best we can do is use our unreliable observed data, our somewhat related experimental data, and propose theories that explain both. And that's what the scientific community has been doing since the 80s.

    This doesn't preclude people taking political advantage of these issues (on both [or more likely multiple] fronts), or that some are too alarmist and so on.
    dckx
     
    Posts: 249
    Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:35 am


  • Late and I'm high so I'll just respond to the second one for now. EDIT Next day now not high I'll update.

    Concerning point 1, let's leave aside the explanatory level for a second. The accumulated data (as unreliable as it may be) points out that temperatures have been rising in the past centuries. So that's a fact, no matter what's causing it and what are the effects on the world (e.g. sea-level rise, or ice caps depletion).

    Not exactly. It's shown temperatures increasing, and then decreasing. Like it has been for as long as the Earth's been the Earth. Temperature never increased like the warnings promised, and they never predicted a temperature decrease, at least not before it happened.

    And to highlight a key point that was mentioned in that video, how exactly does one determine what the "average" temperature of the earth is at any given moment? What is the precision of those estimates? Repeatability? Numbers without statistical relevence HAVE NO MEANING!

    Concerning point 2, please provide data backing-up that claim. As far as I know, there may be policies tailored towards reducing pollution (many of them probably at least partially informed by global warming data, by the way). But sad as it may be, policies do not always inform practice. So I'd highly doubt the world's atmosphere, as a whole, is less polluted now than in decades. But of course I'm open to see data suggesting otherwise.

    Are you asking for proof of the effectiveness of Clean air act and other legislation in reducing smog, acid rain and stuff like that? I'm sure I can find something... but I thought it was well known. Smog used to be pretty brutal in a lot of cities. Air quality in summertime very unhealthy. Maybe I'm being a bit anectdotal now, apologies, but genuinely, air quality is greatly improved in recent decades. Acid rain fucking up ponds has been reduced quite a bit as well. But regardless, my point was, there is real pollution, and then there is carbon dioxide. Not the same thing.

    And as an educated, intelligent, fairly young man who obviously takes an interest in environmentalism and science, why do you suppose it is that you've never heard of any actual positive results of environmental legislation from the past? One would think that environmental successes would be celebrated. Perhaps because pointing out improved air and water quality wouldn't help scare people into supporting more radical legislation? Perhaps because simply looking at real data and numbers overall undercuts the global warming scaremongers?

    Update: Some links as requested:
    https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overv ... les-health
    https://www.britannica.com/story/what-h ... -acid-rain
    Image
    User avatar
    High on Death
    Site Admin
     
    Posts: 1312
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:27 pm


  • I noticed that that link the video doesn't work. I looked up the name Ivan Giaever on google, these type of videos seemed to be delisted. Searched youtube found this one buried down a bit. quality isn't great.

    "Once its on the internet it's there forever!" was the old admonition. BULLSHIT!!! Our big tech masters are trying to wipe our collective memory. We are not allowed to think for ourselves.

    Image
    User avatar
    High on Death
    Site Admin
     
    Posts: 1312
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:27 pm



Return to Political Topics




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron