No Climate Doomsday Warning Has Come True

[LowDown]

The report cites 30 predictions made by experts, government scientists, and global leaders, including former Vice President Al Gore and Britain’s Prince Charles.

"More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science," said authors Myron Ebell and Steven J. Milloy.

"While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited," they added.

Some examples:

1967 - Stanford University expert Paul Erlich predicted "time of famines" in 1975.
1971 - A top NASA expert predicted an "ice age"� by 2021.
1988 - It was predicted that the Maldives would be under water by last year.
2008 - Gore said the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013.
2009 - Charles said there was just 96 months left to save the world.

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

 

[Surface Detail]

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

Who cares what a bunch of random people said? What's the logic here? Some people were wrong, therefore other people must also be wrong? Sounds like something an idiot would come out with :roll:

The actual science and predictions are in the IPCC reports.

 

[Glitch]

Who cares what a bunch of random people said? What's the logic here? Some people were wrong, therefore other people must also be wrong? Sounds like something an idiot would come out with :roll:

The actual science and predictions are in the IPCC reports.

That is a lie. There is no science in the IPCC reports. The IPCC is a government body that pushes leftist propaganda. It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

 

[PoS]

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

Very true. However since this climate alarmism has become a religion, they dont care how wrong they are since theyre all fanatics who dont have a clue as to what's going on. I would compare them to ISIS or Al Qaeda.

 

[Phys251]

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

Cherry-picked examples turn out not to be true. More at 11, where we debate the important question: Is water wet? We'll hear both sides, because we give you fair and balanced coverage!

 

[LowDown]

Who cares what a bunch of random people said? What's the logic here? Some people were wrong, therefore other people must also be wrong? Sounds like something an idiot would come out with :roll:

The actual science and predictions are in the IPCC reports.

I don't think many advocates of global warming doom have ever read the actual working group 1 report. I've never seen advocates quote from it.

 

[Quaestio]

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

But what have the majority of scientists said?

I guess really lame strawmen arguments and dishonesty are all Climate Truthers have left when they don’t have science, evidence and facts.

 

[Quaestio]

That is a lie. There is no science in the IPCC reports. The IPCC is a government body that pushes leftist propaganda. It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Is that your pathetic excuse for not reading the WG1 reports on the Physical Science Basis?

 

[Quaestio]

Very true. However since this climate alarmism has become a religion, they dont care how wrong they are since theyre all fanatics who dont have a clue as to what's going on. I would compare them to ISIS or Al Qaeda.

You really do love your lazy lame dishonest strawman arguments and hysterical Climate Truther rhetoric.

 

[Quaestio]

I don't think many advocates of global warming doom have ever read the actual working group 1 report. I've never seen advocates quote from it.

You’ve just shown that you certainly haven’t read any of them. The Working Group I reports are on the physical science basis. The Working Group II reports assess impacts.

Or were you being deliberately dishonest in your OP?

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

~ Makes me wonder what these UN people are really up to ...

:giggle1: This guy looks like Jack LaLanne ➡

 

[Quaestio]

~ Makes me wonder what these UN people are really up to ...

What does the OP have to do with the UN?

What have the majority of scientists said? Not a couple of random people in the OP’s pathetically transparent strawman.

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

What does the OP have to do with the UN?

~ It's surprising that you even ask that question...

 

[distraff]

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

One thing you have to consider is that before the 90s, climate science was still in its infancy so predictions before that were very hit or miss. They didn't have the computers, and all the global temperature and historical data we do today. Next, your 1988 prediction doesn't mention anyone in particular. Al Gore and Prince Charles aren't scientists and their predictions don't reflect the scientific community. You also like you point out individual people who make predictions, without looking at what the scientific community as a whole is saying, so you are in danger of cherry picking failed predictions, while ignoring the rest of the scientific community. It would be better to reference past IPCC predictions about today and see if those predictions were completely wrong.

 

[Quaestio]

~ It's surprising that you even ask that question...

So what is your answer?

 

[PoS]

You really do love your lazy lame dishonest strawman arguments and hysterical Climate Truther rhetoric.

LOL okay then, show proof that there is a coming climate apocalypse. Go on.

 

[bluesmoke]

The more their predictions fail the more shrill their warnings. The more their science is proven false the more filled with certainty they are. Apparently the facts of the climate are not really the issue.

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

The following are excerpts from the link given further below which gives links to much of what is said in the excerpts:

“Climate change should really be called climate destabilization. It's created more extreme and frequent blizzards, heat waves, and other forms of extreme weather. This includes tornados, wildfires, hurricanes, blizzards, floods and landslides, heat waves, and droughts. It also includes violent storms, whether they be dust, hail, rain, snow, or ice.”

“This is causing a mass extinction of sea life. For example, around half of the world’s coral reefs have died in the last 30 years.”

“The industries most at risk are agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. Maine is already seeing a decline in its lobster catches. Natural disasters have already cost 23 million working life years since 2000. On the other hand, efforts to stop climate change would create 24 million new jobs by 2030.”
“Climate change creates mass migration around the world. Immigrants are leaving flooded coastlines, drought-stricken farmlands, and areas of extreme natural disasters. Since 2008, extreme weather has displaced 22.5 million people according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. By 2050, climate change will force 700 million people to emigrate.”

“In 2017, the U.S. Department of Defense reported that climate change is a “direct threat” to U.S. national security.”

Climate Change Facts and Economic Effect

Yes, damage from climate change by way of AGW is currently happening. All of which is evidence of fact that we are on a path the leads to things getting worse to the point of self-destructive consequences. Whatever "doomsday" prediction that comes true, will not result in the elimination of the human race. Whomever of us is left will live wherever we can on what food we can provide ourselves.

 

[longview]

One thing you have to consider is that before the 90s, climate science was still in its infancy so predictions before that were very hit or miss. They didn't have the computers, and all the global temperature and historical data we do today. Next, your 1988 prediction doesn't mention anyone in particular. Al Gore and Prince Charles aren't scientists and their predictions don't reflect the scientific community. You also like you point out individual people who make predictions, without looking at what the scientific community as a whole is saying, so you are in danger of cherry picking failed predictions, while ignoring the rest of the scientific community. It would be better to reference past IPCC predictions about today and see if those predictions were completely wrong.

U, Computers and computer models existed before the 90's, and any 1988 predictions likely came from James Hansen,
who was the one ringing the alarm bells back then.
Also the ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5 C for doubling the CO2 level was from a 1979 report.

 

[Quaestio]

LOL okay then, show proof that there is a coming climate apocalypse. Go on.

What ‘apocalypse’? See there’s your lame strawman argument again.

Or maybe you’re a religious nutter like so many of your fellow climate science deniers and you believe you’re going to be Raptured any day now...

 

[ataraxia]

That is a lie. There is no science in the IPCC reports. The IPCC is a government body that pushes leftist propaganda. It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

It is the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet.

 

[ataraxia]

One thing you have to consider is that before the 90s, climate science was still in its infancy so predictions before that were very hit or miss. They didn't have the computers, and all the global temperature and historical data we do today. Next, your 1988 prediction doesn't mention anyone in particular. Al Gore and Prince Charles aren't scientists and their predictions don't reflect the scientific community. You also like you point out individual people who make predictions, without looking at what the scientific community as a whole is saying, so you are in danger of cherry picking failed predictions, while ignoring the rest of the scientific community. It would be better to reference past IPCC predictions about today and see if those predictions were completely wrong.

Actually, many of the predictions from back in the 1960s have proven to be surprisingly prescient. I don’t know what these posters here are talking about when they say none of the predictions have come true. Odd.

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

 

[longview]

Actually, many of the predictions from back in the 1960s have proven to be surprisingly prescient. I don’t know what these posters here are talking about when they say none of the predictions have come true. Odd.

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Yes they were fairly accurate, but you have to consider their findings.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241:TEOTAW>2.0.CO;2

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of
raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C.

An ECS of 2 C is not entirely impossible, but lets check the numbers.
an ECS of 2 C would mean a multiplier of 2/ln(2)=3.09, so 3.09 X ln( 2018 CO2/1967 CO2), should tell us how much warming we
should expect for that change in CO2.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
3.09 X ln(408.52/322.16)=.73 C, the actual observed warming is .87 C (GISS), so the 2 C is plausible,
but you would have to account for the other variables.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes they were fairly accurate, but you have to consider their findings.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241:TEOTAW>2.0.CO;2

An ECS of 2 C is not entirely impossible, but lets check the numbers.
an ECS of 2 C would mean a multiplier of 2/ln(2)=3.09, so 3.09 X ln( 2018 CO2/1967 CO2), should tell us how much warming we
should expect for that change in CO2.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
3.09 X ln(408.52/322.16)=.73 C, the actual observed warming is .87 C (GISS), so the 2 C is plausible,
but you would have to account for the other variables.

The unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet disagrees with you. Sorry.

 

[longview]

The unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet disagrees with you. Sorry.

Not really! The consensus is simply that average global temperatures have increased over the last century,
and that Human activity is likely involved.
The consensus does not speak to how sensitivity the atmosphere is to added CO2.
If you want to point out some error you think I made with the math, then please do so!

 

[ataraxia]

Not really! The consensus is simply that average global temperatures have increased over the last century,
and that Human activity is likely involved.
The consensus does not speak to how sensitivity the atmosphere is to added CO2.
If you want to point out some error you think I made with the math, then please do so!

The consensus is that the uncertainty in risk is high enough that it makes continuing the status quo unacceptable.

"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries."
-American Physical Society