50 Years of Failed Climate Change Predictions

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
cei.org

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...
cei.org cei.org

This just goes to show, as I say, we need to be careful and take care of our home, it is the only one we have... But somewhere along the line, it seems modern climate change research abandons science for agenda and in some case science fiction and crystal ball predictions. It is big business. It used to be only Republicans that were good at creating a boogeyman to be afraid of and leveraging that fear for votes. Now the Democrats are the undoubted masters of it. Trump is Hitler (LOL!), the modern Red Scare, racism EVERYwhere - to the point they'll even manufacture it when it is convenient, and climate change - the world is going to end unless you vote Democrat! Glad I walked away (#walkaway) from this obvious liberal propaganda.
 
Last edited:
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,076
12,172
146
SlowSpyder said:
cei.org

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...
cei.org cei.org

This just goes to show, as I say, we need to be careful and take care of our home, it is the only one we have. But somewhere along the line, it seems modern climate change research abandons science for agenda and in some case science fiction and crystal ball predictions. It is big business. It used to be only Republicans that were good at creating a boogeyman to be afraid of and leveraging that fear for votes. Now the Democrats are the undoubted masters of it. Trump is Hitler (LOL!), the modern Red Scare, racism EVERYwhere - to the point they'll even manufacture it when it is convenient, and climate change - the world is going to end unless you vote Democrat! Glad I walked away (#walkaway) from this obvious liberal propaganda.
Click to expand...
CEI is an climate change denial think tank. I don't think you should be putting much stock in them, unless you're specifically attempting to verify your own feelings.

Hint: You can find someone that agrees with just about anything on the internet, doesn't make it true. We're smack dab in the middle of an extinction level event, and in Vegas, the house would be on civilization collapsing. If you wish to continue burying your head in the sand, feel free to. Don't expect to convince anyone else to join you, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anarchist Mae, whm1974, Burpo and 4 others
S

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
[DHT]Osiris said:
CEI is an climate change denial think tank. I don't think you should be putting much stock in them, unless you're specifically attempting to verify your own feelings.

Hint: You can find someone that agrees with just about anything on the internet, doesn't make it true. We're smack dab in the middle of an extinction level event, and in Vegas, the house would be on civilization collapsing. If you wish to continue burying your head in the sand, feel free to. Don't expect to convince anyone else to join you, though.
Click to expand...


That they may be. That being said, all they did here was compile a lengthy list of incorrect climate change predictions over the years.
 
Commodus

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,210
6,809
136
We still have to accept the broad scientific consensus that human-made climate change is real, and that we have to curb our emissions to keep warming to a minimum.

Besides, the science deniers always seem to forget that there are almost always short-term benefits to emissions reduction efforts. Even if there was no long-term reason to worry... oh no, fewer people will suffer the effects of air pollution, noise and fracking, whatever shall we do?
 
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,076
12,172
146
SlowSpyder said:
That they may be. That being said, all they did here was compile a lengthy list of incorrect climate change predictions over the years.
Click to expand...
That's an idiotic concept at face value. I could literally come up with millions of 'incorrect predictions' about anything. That's how science works. You make observations, you make predictions, you eliminate the ones that don't pan out experimentally or observationally, then you refine your predictions. The only purpose this article serves is to discredit the science of climate change, which is already established as a fact. The only conclusion I can derive is that the persons who made the article have either a vested financial interest in their angle, or they have a vested philosophical (religious?) reason for doing so. Either way, you shouldn't be reading this nor sharing it, unless you share the same interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anarchist Mae, darkswordsman17 and dank69
Paratus

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,669
13,412
146
Ice melting world wide?
Yup
201907.gif

HonestBountifulIrishsetter-size_restricted.gif

GrandioseAdeptAsianlion-size_restricted.gif


Sea level rising ?
Yup
global_average_sea_level_change.png

1568822933119.jpeg

Storms strengthening due to global warming?
Yup


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...mate/hurricane-harvey-climate-change.amp.html

Lol @SlowSpyder
 
S

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
[DHT]Osiris said:
That's an idiotic concept at face value. I could literally come up with millions of 'incorrect predictions' about anything. That's how science works. You make observations, you make predictions, you eliminate the ones that don't pan out experimentally or observationally, then you refine your predictions. The only purpose this article serves is to discredit the science of climate change, which is already established as a fact. The only conclusion I can derive is that the persons who made the article have either a vested financial interest in their angle, or they have a vested philosophical (religious?) reason for doing so. Either way, you shouldn't be reading this nor sharing it, unless you share the same interests.
Click to expand...


It just goes to show, people take climate change too far, it isn't always science any more. I agree we can impact our environment and should take care. But it has become an agenda and in may ways seems to be built more on fear and crystal ball predictions than logic. It is too bad when science gets politicized. The liberals have done that with climate change and now it isn't always truth.
 
D

darkswordsman17

Lifer
Mar 11, 2004
23,073
5,554
146
[DHT]Osiris said:
That's an idiotic concept at face value. I could literally come up with millions of 'incorrect predictions' about anything. That's how science works. You make observations, you make predictions, you eliminate the ones that don't pan out experimentally or observationally, then you refine your predictions. The only purpose this article serves is to discredit the science of climate change, which is already established as a fact. The only conclusion I can derive is that the persons who made the article have either a vested financial interest in their angle, or they have a vested philosophical (religious?) reason for doing so. Either way, you shouldn't be reading this nor sharing it, unless you share the same interests.
Click to expand...

Don't be a stupid science bitch! ;)

 
S

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,076
12,172
146
SlowSpyder said:
It just goes to show, people take climate change too far, it isn't always science any more. I agree we can impact our environment and should take care. But it has become an agenda and in may ways seems to be built more on fear and crystal ball predictions than logic. It is too bad when science gets politicized. The liberals have done that with climate change and now it isn't always truth.
Click to expand...
Alright, so let's put it this way. As of right now, the *MINIMUM* predictions from established climate science will be global, expensive, and probably catastrophic to at least some percentage of life on this planet. The maximums may be all over the from, waterworld to mad max to world on fire, but let's not care about that, let's care about the minimums. Given the minimums that we're already seeing, should we just say 'welp, science clearly can't figure its shit out and explain it in a way my dumb self can understand, i guess we should do nothing', or should steps be getting taken to lessen the effects?

You have too much concern over 'agendas' and what talking heads are telling you. Try focusing on what's happening in the world around you and what that means for your children (if you have them) or at least your friends' children.
 
S

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I hope Trump can swing a deal for Greenland. Looks like climate change could make it a nice habitable sizable landmass.
 
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,076
12,172
146
SlowSpyder said:
I hope Trump can swing a deal for Greenland. Looks like climate change could make it a nice habitable sizable landmass.
Click to expand...
I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but the point at which Greenland and northern Canada become arable land is well past the point at which the rest of the planet becomes a hellscape. You might see some post-modern civilizations up there, once the bombs are done doing their thing.
 
Paratus

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,669
13,412
146
SlowSpyder said:
I said that we can impact the environment and should take care. That doesn't mean liberals and those with a liberal agenda haven't been dead wrong with their wild FUD-based predictions about what it means for the future.
Click to expand...

Deniers predictions: Global warming has paused!

Reality:
GlobalAverage_2018.png

heat_content2000m.png


Lol @ denier predictions.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,405
6,079
126
Myron Ebell is the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. He is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a loose coalition formed in 1997 which presents itself as "focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis".[2][3]
In these organizations, Ebell has been central in promoting climate change denial, distributing his views to the media and politicians.[2] Ebell, who is not a scientist,[7] has been described as a climate change skeptic,[8][9] a climate contrarian[3] and a climate change denier.[4][5][6] Ebell claims that he advocates "for sensible energy policies that benefit everyone. Instead of policies that simply reacts [sic] to alarmism."[10]
In September 2016, Ebell was appointed by then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to lead his transition team for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[8]

In short, a piece of shit who, by supporting the interests of wealthy people, has carved out a nice salary for himself. Slow, do you make an income like that too or are you just a not for profit gas bag with such low self esteem you need the negative attention you generate. It might be worth a few minutes of thought to ask yourself how you can to be considered so mentally defective by so many rather rational people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69 and [DHT]Osiris
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
SlowSpyder said:
all they did here was compile a lengthy list of incorrect climate change predictions over the years
Click to expand...

looking at those: a lot of the things predicted we addressed, many of the others we either haven't gotten to the time the prediction was made for, or the prediction was such that behavior would have to change by X to prevent damage at some uncertain time in the future.

one that i'd like to bring up in particular is the 'climate model failure' chart which purports to show that the models are wrong because almost all of them are above the obverservation. this one is a deception because it picks a single base year, 1979. you don't use single base years because the data is peaky. UAH uses a 30 year baseline.
 
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,076
12,172
146
ElFenix said:
looking at those: a lot of the things predicted we addressed, many of the others we either haven't gotten to the time the prediction was made for, or the prediction was such that behavior would have to change by X to prevent damage at some uncertain time in the future.

one that i'd like to bring up in particular is the 'climate model failure' chart which purports to show that the models are wrong because almost all of them are above the obverservation. this one is a deception because it picks a single base year, 1979. you don't use single base years because the data is peaky. UAH uses a 30 year baseline.
Click to expand...
Also worth pointing out, the vast majority of those are news articles, which thrive on eyeballs, which of course encourages 'creative writing'. Not to say alarmism isn't due, just that it can lead to the perception of incorrect predictions.
 
E

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
Yeah, the emphasis on articles out of the popular press rather than scientific journals is notable. See, for example, all the global cooling articles.

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be

Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom