Skip to comments.Failed Predictions of Climate Alarmists Make Future Predictions Suspect
Posted on 08/10/2018 7:15:46 PM PDT by Coleus
Its hard for the average citizen to read the news these days and not be worried for the future of the planet. We are told that 13 of the last 16 years have been the warmest on record. We hear that coastal cities such as New York and Atlantic City, as well as nearly all of Florida, are at risk of flooding due to unprecedented sea-level rise. We are told that the wildfires in California and Greece are the worst ever recorded, and that these fires represent a new normal because of man-made climate change.
But to get a good gauge of such predictions, it is wise to look at how similar predictions have turned out in the past. So, dont sell your beachfront property just yet.
Beginning back in 1988, certain scientists have been predicting climate doom, some of which should already be evident. That was the year when James Hansen, then the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified before Congress that the greenhouse effect was causing warming on Earth and that man was at least partially responsible for it.
Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming, Hansen told Congress. Its already happening now.
Hansen and fellow scientist Michael Oppenheimer reported that if the buildup of carbon dioxide and methane continued at the current rate, the Earth would be between three and nine degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the years 2025-2050, and that sea levels would rise between one and four feet in the same time frame.
Now, of course its not 2025 yet, but thats only seven years in the future, and unless Hansen and Oppenheimer predicted that the warming would happen all at once (they didnt), their predictions dont seem to panning out, as global temperature has risen only slightly more than 0.5° F in that time.
Sea-level predictions are also not on pace with Hansen and Oppenheimers prognostications, as even the highest data sets show only a 3.15 rise since 1990, which, as climatologist Dr. Judith Curry points out, is hardly unprecedented.
The rate of sea-level rise during the period 1925-1960 is as large as the rate of sea-level rise in the past few decades, Curry said. Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans dont seem to be the blame for the early 20th century sea-level rise, nor for the sea-level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.
When carbon-credit salesman Al Gore joined the climate fray with his documentary An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, the climate lies only worsened. Gores film predicted a 20-foot sea-level rise in the near future owing to ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica. As you can see, it hasnt happened yet. Gore also predicted the devastation of low-lying Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu because of sea-level rise. But Tuvalu and some other island nations have actually grown in size since Gores pronouncement. A British judge concluded in 2007 that the film contained at least nine factual errors and was, therefore, a political film not a scientific one.
Whenever these predictions of doom dont pan out, the climate charlatans simply move the prediction back another few decades, long past the time when theyll actually have to answer for them. Its a shell game. The real global warming is always under a different cup.
A good illustration of this is the tipping point game that alarmists have been playing for more than two decades. If we dont act in a certain amount of time, then the planet is doomed, they say. In 2009, Prince Charles told us we had a mere 96 months before it was too late to save the planet. That 96 months was up last year. The former head of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, told us in 2007, If theres no action before 2012, thats too late. If the proper action was taken before 2012, Pachauri never told us about it. In 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown once ridiculously asserted that there were only 50 days to save the world from global warming."
People such as Prince Charles, Gore, Pachauri, Brown, and Hansen dont deal in real science; they pedal fear masquerading as science to the gullible. When challenged, they pull out the 97 percent of scientists agree on global warming malarkey, as if that ends all discussion on the subject. They compare skeptics of anthropogenic global warming to holocaust deniers, as if there were some moral equivalence between the two. They willingly prevaricate, obfuscate, and outright lie in order to frighten the masses.
But the masses have caught on. Polls show that climate change is consistently near the bottom of issues that people are concerned about.
As the climate-alarmist movement ever so slowly fades from our consciousness, the alarmists are becoming more desperate; their shrill cries and declarations of doom sounding even more unhinged than they were before.
When did Rush’s countdown clock stop ,Oh wait never mind we’re all dead
I think theyve quietly dropped the 97% of scientists agree lie.
The new thing is banning all discussion on the big social media platforms.
It never gets old:
8 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day In 1970.
The computer models used by climate “scientists” were never intended to be used the way these so-called researchers are using them. They are completely worthless at predicting climate more than a few months, maybe, maybe 3 to 5 years out at best. That’s only if you’re willing to accept a very low confidence level in the prediction. Running these models out a couple of decades is pure fantasy. Running them out a century or more is simply a waste of electricity and CPU cycles. The problem is not only intractable for computation, it is not nearly well enough defined. Not to mention the completely random acts of nature such as volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. that are not only unknown, but cannot be known. There is a better chance of the movie Star Wars coming true than any one of these computer predictions.
Why can’t all these PhDs understand that growth can never drastically outpace resources? The less resources around the lower the fertility rate? If you look at any animal population in a given area it never outpaces its resources.
Genesis 8:22 (not on Al Gore’s reading list).
Oh crap he was doing real good until spell check said pedal instead of peddle.
All these people are liars. Pot addicts. Man made global warming lunatics. The rest of liberal trash. They're all alike.
John 8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
You might try not misusing bible citations, which is another form of yielding to the devil’s lies.
By the way, why did we not have “marijuana addiction” problems to speak of until the days of “reefer madness”? People will find some way to abuse their bodies if other ways are somehow banned. This is going at the problem from the wrong angle.
How do you escape? Overstating a case is also a lie.
That is NOT true. Check any pond with bluegill and / or green sunfish and a lack of enough predators (fishermen, bass, large channel catfish, etc...) The bluegill and / or greenies will explode in numbers, but will be stunted and usually are in in poor body condition. This situation will continue until something drastic is done to reduce their numbers: Often the solution is to kill all the fish in the pond and start over (cheaper & faster than stocking large predators). Something similar happens with deer & lack of predation in some areas: You wind up with large populations of animals in generally sub-par condition.
I rather suspect that there are also multiple feedbacks involved that we just don’t have enough data to properly model. For example, if temps and / or CO2 levels rise a little, do diatoms in the ocean increase their metabolic rate and partially counteract the rise?
Well it really isnt about the climate is it. It is about one world government controlling the common citizens and regulating every aspect of their lives.
You mean I bought property in Palmdale that Won’t become Ocean front Property in 10 years when I retire??
Can I SUE Al Gore for deceptive advertising?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.