Quote of the week, McKibben calls for a ‘climate strike’ while an MSNBC poll goes horribly wrong

qotw_cropped

Weepy Bill McKibben is fed up, because he says nobody is listening to the climate sirens any more. He says in an MSNBC editorial published on Tuesday April 1st, that we need a climate labor strike. I think it isn’t an April fools joke, but it’s hard to tell with Bill since most of his writings are borderline crazy even on regular weekdays.

He writes:

So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more. Work with what you’ve got. We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described then we’ll tell you what’s coming next.

Oh, what a GREAT idea!

  • Imagine weeks without Michael Mann bloviating about his hockey stick, or his lawsuit, or how the #Kochmachine is funding opinion contrary to his, worldwide.
  • Imagine weeks without Stephan Lewandowsky claiming climate skeptics deny the Moon Landing without actually ever having asked any of them.
  • Imagine weeks without Gavin Schmidt thumbing his nose at people on Twitter that he thinks aren’t worthy of having an opinion.
  • Imagine weeks without Kevin Trenberth having to search for his missing heat and offering excuses for why it has disappeared.
  • Imagine weeks without Jonathan Overpeck lecturing us on Twitter about how we have to “tackle climate change threats”.
  • Imagine weeks without Andrew Dessler saying “Skeptics should keep their mouths shut. Here’s why: Dick Lindzen talking about environmentalism”
  • Imagine weeks without anyone referencing the new IPCC report as gospel.
  • Imagine weeks without weepy Bill claiming that #divestment is going to stop fossil fuels from being used, when all it does is shift it somewhere else.

You get the idea. The world would be a kinder, gentler place if climate scientists and their fanboys went on strike. Personally, I’m all for it. I could use the rest.

While we are on the subject of weepy Bill’s MSNBC article, I note there is a poll at the bottom of it asking this:

Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?

And here is the poll result as of  about 10:30PM PDT Tuesday evening.

MSNBC_poll

No: 2,718 votes Yes: 947 votes I am not sure: 91 votes

With those kind of numbers, I don’t think WUWT readers need to weigh in.

When you can’t even get the ultra-left MSNBC crowd to agree with your premise of climate change being a threat, maybe a strike isn’t the answer; maybe it’s just time to just give up.

 

 

 

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Quote of the Week. Bookmark the permalink.

195 Responses to Quote of the week, McKibben calls for a ‘climate strike’ while an MSNBC poll goes horribly wrong

  1. Pete Brown says:

    Does the tick in the chart mean that most people are answering in the affirmative?

  2. NZPete54 says:

    This is music to my ears. Nice post Anthony.

  3. Peter Miller says:

    “So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports.”

    No fear of this ever happening from the grant addicted. Their comfortable lifestyles depend on churning out the BS as fast as they can. The highly profitable business of ‘crying wolf’ about the prospect of imminent Thermageddon is not about to end anytime soon.

    The BS is a mixture of:

    i) Biased and highly inaccurate climate models, nearly all with pre-conceived results.
    ii) Papers where the raw data and methodology is not disclosed, or partially hidden behind paywalls.
    iii) Papers written where the original data has been so manipulated/homogenised/tortured or cherry picked to make the results meaningless.
    iv) Promoting economic policies designed to cripple the western world’s economies.
    v) A censorship war against those who dare to question that the science is not settled.
    vi) Papers which totally ignore the effect of natural climate cycles and the evidence of the geological record which clearly shows CAGW does not exist.

    On the minus side, if it ever happened WUWT, Jo Nova, Climate Audit, the GWPF, etc would see a steady decline in readership after a few months.

  4. Oldseadog says:

    Typo? Had to tell or hard to tell?

  5. David says:

    What were they predicting 25 years ago? Has it happened?

  6. markstoval says:

    Typo alert.

    “Imagine weeks without Michael Mann bloviating about his hockey stick, or his lawsuit, or how the #Kochmachine is funding opinion contrary to his, worldwide.” … should be world-view or world view I think.

    [Reply: No, try re-reading it. ~ mod.]

  7. klem says:

    The result of that poll will be taken seriously at MSNBC. I’m sure they are trying figure out why their ratings have been so poor lately, and they want to know where their viewers stand on this question. Now they know.

    I’ll bet they start changing their tune at MSNBC with respect to climate alarmism, their ratings and revenue are at stake. Nothing like good ol’ money to cause a news outlet to make some changes.

  8. ConfusedPhoton says:

    “So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. ”

    I think he meant

    So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the pseudo-scientific community to churn out more alarmist reports.

  9. Jonathan Berber says:

    Pete Brown said “Does the tick in the chart mean that most people are answering in the affirmative?”

    There’s always a tick at that position on the circle. Users can click on each section of the circle in turn. The section goes yellow and a pop-up box indicates what it means and how many voted for it. Right now the Yes vote is 24% (995 votes), No 73% (2990), Not Sure 2% (95).

  10. Robertvd says:

    More or less the same as the 98% Consensus on Dear Leader Care.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/98-consensus-reached/

  11. TC says:

    From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.

  12. michael hart says:

    I’m hoping for “years” or longer, not “weeks”.

  13. RichardLH says:

    No
    3,069 votes

    Yes
    996 votes

    I am not sure
    95 votes

    And rising

  14. jones says:

    Jimbo,

    When you read in on this article would you please please happen to have one of those lovely little lists of what predictions were extruded by this crowd 25 years ago? (for 25 years time if you get me?).

    I will copy and paste to a word doc for later argumentative use!!!

    Please…

    Luuurve your work by the way.

  15. garymount says:

    MSNBC was featured prominently in a recent movie I watched, Sudden Impact, and seeing as I endured such inanity, I felt I deserved to participate in their poll. Its at 74% No now.

  16. It is always important to take part in these surveys. It is rather like taking part in a de-militarization process. I am hoping that the total can reach 97% to 3% as that would jog their memories down at MSNBC. Perhaps they will learn a bit more about the real percentages with respect to climate alarmism.

  17. Ronald says:

    There is nothing wrong whit climate science its the pseudo science you call climate science wits is wrong.
    Your problem is not the number of reports but what is in it. People tent to stop believing if the things you tell are wrong. And indeed all reports you make are wrong so instead of complaining about us not believing better start making reports in line whit the real world.

  18. Greg says:

    “You get the idea. The world would be a kinder, gentler place if climate scientists and their fanboys went on strike. Personally, I’m all for it. I could use the rest.”

    Go on strike , or just shut the f up with their corrupt masquerading of a political agenda as climate science. Either would suit me fine.

    Weepy says: “We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described ”

    Well no, actually climate science has wasted most of the last quarter century trying to prove what they already “knew” to be the case, instead of doing scientific research. Their models and the whole paradigm is an abject failure. So maybe going on strike from producing and endless stream of propagandist garbage and take say, five years, off to do some real research and come back when they have some real understanding of how climate works and some models that work.

    Now if any of them are capable of analysing system behaviour let them go on a propaganda strike and get on with the job. If they are not capable, I hear Walmart are hiring ….

  19. garymount says:

    Make that “Deep Impact”.

  20. Greg says:

    Weepy says : “….when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described ”

    “when you deal with the trouble we’ve already caused ” would be more like it.

  21. Greg says:

    TC says: From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.

    Very good point ! A tick sign is usually used to indicate affirmation yet that 74% segment is the NO votes. Very misleading.

  22. hunter says:

    McKibben, who admitted to being a deliberate liar about being an American Indian in order to get attention, is on to something here.
    Perhaps the companies that have been funding climate obsessed profiteers like McKibben could go on strike.
    He also admits something interesting: That the ‘climate science’ industry is churning out products designed to scare us into accepting the idea that the world is ending due to CO2 and to give himself and their pals more and more of our money.

  23. Jer0me says:

    I have to agree. If they stop the rampant alarmism until can verify the next 25 years of predictions, I’ll be happy.

    If it is anything like as good as the last 25 years of predictions, my prediction is there’ll be no more predictions. But that is just a prediction, of course.

  24. ConTrari says:

    McKibben ends his piece with a couple of interesting statements, first, that “preachers can preach about climate change”: Is he referrring to priests, or has he picked up the idea that alarmists are rather like religious preachers?

    Second; “You can’t scare politicians with the news that the world is ending.” Does he seriously mean that the world is ending? In that case, I can understand why alarmists are losing ground by the mile.

    “We all have day jobs, and in those jobs we can sometimes do some good on these issues: preachers can preach about climate change, and carpenters can build solar homes. But our other important role is as citizens. On nights and weekends we have to do the (also volunteer) work that at this point is the only thing that can make a difference.

    Because it’s perfectly clear by now that you can’t scare politicians with the news that the world is ending.”

  25. H.R. says:

    For once I’m 100% behind Weepy Bill. Go for it!
    STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!

    Even if it takes years of not producing another CAGW paper to bring the average Joe/Jane to their knees begging for more catastrophic climate claptrap, I will support the striking climascientologists.

    (Sheesh! What a maroon. Does Bill even read what he writes?)

  26. Angech says:

    Time for john cooks computer voting to be called into action?

  27. Chris Wright says:

    To be honest, if there were no climate science at all the world would be an infinitely better place.

    The poll stands at yes=1005, no=3252, so the yes vote has just under 24%
    It’s good to see the sceptics have a strong lead, but I still feel sad that around a quarter of the people have been so badly misled. But what can you do if even the President of the United States is so delusional that he thinks global warming is actually accelerating?
    Chris

  28. tagerbaek says:

    Hell yes, strike now. Last chance before the grant money machine grinds to a halt, putting them on permanent vacation.

  29. Sasha says:

    jones says:
    ” …would you please please happen to have one of those lovely little lists of what predictions were extruded by this crowd 25 years ago? (for 25 years time if you get me?).”

    Already done :
    Updated list of things “caused by global warming”:
    http://linkis.com/wp.me/uQESG

    note: This has been going on for so long now that some of the links are dead.

  30. Lew Skannen says:

    So climastrologers are now at the three year old tantrum stage. That’s what happens when you spoil the child with endless indulgence. Donna Laframboise is so right when she describes the IPCC as a delinquent teen that has been spoilt rotten and never heard the word ‘No’.

  31. thegriss says:

    Once GetUp! in Australia get wind of this, the Yes vote will jump by about 100.

  32. Sasha says:

    It is interesting how quickly this latest IPCC report got buried in the news schedules. Some of the MSM never reported it at all, and most of those that did were careful to disable their Readers Comments/Feedback sections.

    Nevertheless, the climate hysterics are still trying to close down the debate and deny “deniers” a voice on the worn-out argument that they are unqualified to comment on the “settled science” of climate change. This doesn’t stop them allowing views to air that agree with them even when the contributor is unqualified.

    Here is a prime example from today’s Independent:

    Government accuses BBC of creating ‘false balance’ on climate change with unqualified sceptics
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/government-accuses-bbc-of-creating-false-balance-on-climate-change-with-unqualified-sceptics-9231176.html

    Notice the (completely unqualified) Bob Ward is allowed free comment.

  33. Ben D says:

    “In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more.”
    ———————————————————–
    ….and risk losing all the NWO bribe money flowing into the coffers of the CAGW team? Haha now that’s funny!!!

  34. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    I Imagine it’s time to cast all those possibilities as new lyrics to the Beatle’s “Imagine”. Sadly, I lack the talent. Elmer? Do you have the time to take a crack at it?

  35. Greg says:

    “…until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more”

    So until we bow to your dictates on energy policy, based on corrupt science, lies and criminal activity, you’re going to stop producing corrupt science?

    NO PROBLEM GUYS. We’re right behind you.

    BTW do we need to contribute to a strike fund or do you count on still getting 24 billion dollars per year in funding while producing nothing of value, as you have been doing for the last 25 years?

  36. mellyrn says:

    75% “No” @ 7am EDT

    A few weeks ago, there was an article about Gore speaking in ?Nebraska, maybe? I scrolled through nearly all the 700+ comments, and found only one that -didn’t- trash him and his views. I am heartened. The sooner this hyperemotional weather blows over, the better.

  37. Kit Blanke says:

    The comments on the MSNBC page meet both meanings of ‘hysterical’

  38. Mindert Eiting says:

    Go on strike while the world is ending? We have two kinds of strike, refusing to work for a while in order to get more wage, and hunger strike. The latter is done by people who are desperate. So McKibben simply can stop eating today if this is what he wants.

  39. Sundance says:

    Interestingly the 25% that believe that climate change is a threat to them is similar to the Pew Poll numbers of those “extremely worried” about climate change. Sounds like Bill McKibben is filled with recursive fury.

  40. policycritic says:

    Go and vote.

  41. policycritic says:

    Go and vote.

  42. philjourdan says:

    McKibben – the wannabee victim, is now playing little billy stompy feet!

    In this case, since I am not his parent (that would be grounds for suicide), I say let him do his stompy feet! And if anyone notices, they can tell us about it.

  43. Leigh says:

    ” maybe it’s just time to just give up.”
    As long as the tap of public moneys is still running flat out, thats never going to happen.

  44. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    The colour code and the tick are designed to mislead the casual viewer into thinking that most vote are in the affirmative, which they are not. Dishonnesty abounds on the side of the warmists.

  45. The members this new movement will come to be known as the “climate trappists”.

  46. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Whatever you do, don’t interrupt Bill McKibben.

  47. Martin Clark says:

    None of this lot do any work that the rest of us would miss, so a conventional industrial strike isn’t going to work. Has to be a hunger strike. McKibben doesn’t look like he’d last long. Might actually do one mann some good.
    By the way, what happened to the Phillipino hunger striker at the Warsaw conference? Has he croaked yet?

  48. Tom in Florida says:

    McKribben still doesn’t get it. These “reports” have nothing to do with anything other than generating income for those issuing the report.
    Always remember these immortal words: “Further research is needed”

  49. ozspeaksup says:

    at 77% now:-)

  50. Ric Werme says:

    > Imagine weeks without Kevin Trenberth having to search for his missing heat and offering excuses for why it has disappeared.

    Snarkier version:

    Imagine weeks with Kevin Trenberth having to search for his missing heat instead of offering excuses for why it has disappeared.

    77%

    and

    Go Bill, go!

  51. ozspeaksup says:

    ay, April 2, 2014 12:38:00
    Listen to MP3 of this story ( minutes)
    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3976695.htm

    Alternate WMA version | MP3 download

    ELEANOR HALL: An Australian National University science academic says it is time to call in the advertising industry to make sure that the warnings from climate scientists hit home.

    This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report which revealed that climate change will have severe, pervasive and irreversible effects on the planet and on human survival.

    Dr Rod Lamberts, says scientists have done all they can to alert governments to the need for action, but that professional marketing may be more effective.

    Simon Lauder has our report.

    SIMON LAUDER: Scientists have been raising the alarm about climate change with increasing urgency for decades. This week the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri said he hoped the panel’s latest report will jolt the world into action.

    RAJENDA PACHAURI: If the world doesn’t do anything about mitigating the emissions of greenhouse gases and the extent of climate change continues to increase, then the very social stability of human systems could be at stake.

    SIMON LAUDER: The deputy director of the Australian Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the ANU, Dr Rod Lamberts, says the latest IPCC report has failed to make a difference to the debate.

    ROD LAMBERTS: This looks to me to be unfortunately the case of the same thing happening over and over again, where people who support the science and are concerned about what the science is telling us believe that throwing more and more facts at the issue in the public space will make a difference, and I seriously doubt that it will.

    SIMON LAUDER: He says it’s time for a less scientific appeal.

    ROD LAMBERTS: If the goal is to affect change, then I believe we need to step more into the realms of advertising and marketing and so on, in terms of delivering messages that are supported by what the science is telling us, but don’t have the science in those messages.

    That’s not what we need anymore.

    SIMON LAUDER: And why do you think that would work?

    ROD LAMBERTS: I think it would have a much better shot at working because we’ve seen evidence, there’s evidence to suggest appealing to people’s emotions will have a stronger effect than trying to appeal to their brains via some kind of, you know, fact channel.

    So there’s something to be said there.

    I don’t think the climate stuff is being put into real, everyday contexts very well for people. So, it is very hard to relate these kinds of broad scale reports to your everyday life.

    SIMON LAUDER: And presumably, the target of an advertising campaign would be politicians?

    ROD LAMBERTS: Probably not. I think many of those folks; their positions are not set by the science necessarily, but their positions are fairly set by the other forces. I think it’s more about the people in the middle; people who may or may not change, who aren’t really sure what to believe, aren’t sure what they can do.

    A lot of people thinking about it a lot could create more groundswell than we’re getting now, and it’s quite clear that a big report – even a 40 page executive summary – is not the way to do that. We need to test further I think on these sorts of things. Try them out.

    SIMON LAUDER: Another question I have about using advertising and marketing which is, I guess, divorced to the science to some extent. Does that open up the opportunity for critics and sceptics to label it a scare campaign again?

    ROD LAMBERTS: Yeah, they’re doing that anyway. I just don’t think that matters anymore. If people are truly backing their science and they’re genuinely worried, then it strikes me as crazy that you wouldn’t step up and do something further or, at least, support further action that isn’t just the repetition of facts and carefully worded scientific reports.

    The bottom line is if you believe it, then you’ve got to start acting. That’s really where we’re at right now.

    SIMON LAUDER: It’s not a new idea; there are already ads which attempt to spread the word about climate change.

    VOICEOVER (excerpt from climate change advertisement): This is the biggest threat humankind has ever faced. Humans have caused this…

    SIMON LAUDER: Copywriter and creative director at Jara Consulting, Jane Caro, says advertising isn’t effective if it’s too shocking, but she doesn’t believe more scientific facts will be convincing on their own.

    JANE CARO: Facts have never changed anyone’s mind about anything, sadly. It’s very hard for scientists to understand this, because they’re highly rational people, but in actual fact, no-one has ever been rationalised out of a belief.

    There are only two things that change people’s attitudes and behaviour, particularly their behaviour, and they’re two emotions, and they’re hope and fear.
    =================
    enough to make you puke!!!
    good old aunty at it again

  52. John Law says:

    Does that mean we won’t have any climate as usual, in the UK, while the strike lasts; can you let us have a date so I can book my holidays!

  53. jauntycyclist says:

    Psychology could hold the key to tackling climate change

    “Funded by a €1.5M grant from the European Research Council, Dr Lorraine Whitmarsh from the University’s School of Psychology will for the next five years lead an international team tasked with providing evidence to support this theory.”

    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-psychology-key-tackling-climate.html#jCp

    Maybe hypnosis is the cure for climate change? anyone got a watch? You are getting sleepy. You will sign a grant for $1million.When i snap my fingers you will wake up and remember nothing.

  54. pete says:

    I agree that they should go on strike. It’s their sacrosanct right written in any democratic constitution, as long as they don’t get paid for the duration of their strike. Furthermore I hope that their days on strike would be many; many as in ‘forever’.

  55. Bruce Cobb says:

    I couldn’t get the MSNBC link to work. Here’s the link to the Weepster’s article (with poll at bottom) instead: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/time-for-climate-scientists-to-go-on-strike
    We’re up to 76% now. Yes, they are deliberately trying to hide the fact that their poll is going horribly against them with that check mark. LOL.

    As fun as it is to say “Weepy Bill”, it’s getting a bit old. Here’s his weepy article, posted on Mother Jones Dec. 13, 2009, about halfway thru the failed Copenhagen Accord: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/reason-and-faith-copenhagen
    Notice the upbeat roll-up-our-sleeves tone at the end. Climatism really is all about emotions, not science or facts. Oh, but has happened, some 4+ years later? The Cause has done nothing but backslide, and now the emotion has turned to anger and petulance. “Petulant Bill” may not have the same ring to it, but it’s more current at least.

  56. JJB MK I says:

    @Peter Miller
    April 2, 2014 at 1:19 am

    Great observations! You forgot to add:

    vii) Papers where the main content and research are completely divorced from the abstract and conclusions.

    This seems to be a common theme in a deluge of worthwhile and worthless scientific papers that shoehorn in Climate Change as a grant-seeking afterthought..

  57. Bruce Cobb says:

    Greg, I couldn’t get your msnbc link to work either. Is it possible they are blocking folks from WUWT?

  58. Bruce Cobb says:

    Yep, I believe that is precisely what they are doing. I copied and pasted the link in a different browser, and voila, it worked.

  59. Man Bearpig says:

    I vote they all go on indefinite strike.

  60. JustAnotherPoster says:

    I’d love ALL climate scientists to go on strike. They might find that the world keeps running and no one notices. Or gives a …..

    Prehaps the phrase “This is the sort of weather we should expect from climate change” should go in the bin.

    Its doing my head in. Heard it this morning in the UK about our little pollution problem were having….

  61. JustAnotherPoster says:

    If you did a poll of reverends asking if they believed in god? you should get a 100% correct response rate, as their jobs and career depend on it.

    Similarly if you asked climate scientists if they believed in “climate change” of course the response rate should be 97-100%…..

    So next time someone asks you that 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change, respond with isn’t that exactly the same as asking members of the clergy if they believe in god ?

  62. Man Bearpig says:

    ozspeaksup says: ….

    I must say, I have to agree with Rod where he says ‘I dont think’ and a couple of sentences later where he reinforces the statement,

  63. Daniel says:

    None of the MSNBC links work for me when clicked via this blog. All subsequent attempts to load in a blank window (using the same browser) fail too. However, when using a Private Window (or another browser entirely, entering the links manually), the pages load immediately.

  64. Eliza says:

    I really don’t get it! Or I must be really stupid the poll chart above is saying that 72% believe climate change IS a threat to their lives!!!

  65. Doubting Rich says:

    It’s 78% now

  66. Eliza says:

    Ok I did not see the bottom line explanation. The tick is very confusing however LOL

  67. Mark Hladik says:

    Sasha:

    Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.

    It is me, or a typo in the link?

  68. jaffa says:

    No – 78%, Yes – 20% currently.

    Warmists will interpret the vote as a sign that their message isn’t being understood by the stupid ‘general public’, more exaggeration and faster arm-waving will be necessary. Eventually climate scietivists & their followers will actually start to burst, leaving fewer to do more arm-waving – which I hope will prove to be a tipping point.

  69. Eliza says:

    There is serious problem with the yes tick just loom at a few of the comments. AW youd better make 100% sure that its not a yes.
    @squigglycat
    3 hours ago

    What is the TICK there for. It Seems to Say YES, but is actually NO. Why would anyone want to confuse like that?
    reply

  70. Sasha says:

    Mark Hladik says:
    April 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
    Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.

    Try these links (they all work for me).

    http://linkis.com/wp.me/uQESG

    http://quixoteslaststand.com/

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Anyone else having problems?

  71. beng says:

    Nice thoughts, but huge amounts of cash are being dangled in front of the alarmists (or is perceived at risk) — even more than usual now because of the upcoming Nov elections. It’s like asking the mob-syndicate to stop shaking down people on their turf if cash suddenly appeared in the people’s hands.

  72. Sasha says:

    Mark Hladik says:
    April 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
    Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.

    If all else fails, try this:
    http://quixoteslaststand.com/?s=things+caused+by&submit=Search

    then click on the first link returned.

  73. Tom J says:

    I wonder where they would intend to stage this strike. Cancun? Durban? Bali? Tahiti?

  74. JimK says:

    The Tick represents your vote, I suspect.

  75. BruceC says:

    IMHO, I think you will find the ‘tick’ is what you voted. Had you voted NO, the tick would be in the NO section.

    Just a thought.

  76. wws says:

    McKibben’s article on CP is truly illuminating – I suggest everyone read it! I found that, just like him, I was crying by the end – but with tears of laughter that were almost impossible to stifle!!! When he gets to the part where he and his followers are in a church in Copenhagen, watching the Holy bits of Coral and the Withered Ears of Corn being paraded down to the altar in some bizarre parody of the sacrament (I’m not kidding, read it!) I realize that he’s not even trying to hide the fact anymore that this movement has become a bizarre religious cult with its own ceremonies and dogma.

    No surprise when he calls for preachers to speak on his behalf this from the pulpit!!! That’s really all he’s got left, isn’t it???

  77. Gary Pearse says:

    Well, they must have a veritable fortune in their strike fund and they do need a break. I can’t wait to hear what their demands will be.

  78. wws says:

    p.s. I realize that the weepy Bill article is from 2009; however, this is the first time I’ve ever made myself read it all the way through. That should never be forgotten, and my thanks for reposting the link!

  79. Dipchip says:

    The thing that this poll tends to tell me is that; the only people interested in educating themselves about climate change are the skeptics. The people the alarmists are attempting to indoctrinate arn’t listening. In other words all the progressive voters are to busy collecting and spending government give aways and could care less about tommorow.

  80. markopanama says:

    This morning the link worked from my ipad and the total no vote was 79%

  81. Dipchip says:

    That should be too busy and also the current vote is at 78%

  82. Scott Scarborough says:

    The web page does not allow me to vote. I selected “NO” and then clicked on “Cast your vote” and I get an error message: “please make an answer selection to cast your vote.” Are they not allowing “NO” votes anymore?

  83. Boulder_Skeptic says:

    Put me down as a “No” on the question, “Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?”. As of 7:25am MDT we have:
    4286 No (79%)
    107 Not Sure (2%)
    1059 Yes (19%)

    I was tempted to answer “Yes” when I considered the excessive taxation that is coming, the decrease in my liberty and choices, and the EPA regulations already implemented and pending, etc., but that seemed to be reading too much into the question.

  84. Jeff Alberts says:

    Sasha says:
    April 2, 2014 at 3:40 am

    jones says:
    ” …would you please please happen to have one of those lovely little lists of what predictions were extruded by this crowd 25 years ago? (for 25 years time if you get me?).”

    Already done :
    Updated list of things “caused by global warming”:

    The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.

  85. _Jim says:

    Up to 79% . “NO” . now … and what a deceiving graphic, too!

    Can’t leftists be open, honest and forthright on anything?

    .

  86. Scott Scarborough says:

    I see no insects in this graphic!

  87. DJ says:

    6:41am Pacific time…. It’s 79% No.

  88. Robert Wykoff says:

    Will the strikes include not attending multi-million dollar junkets to the worlds tropical resorts?

  89. Col Mosby says:

    Here’s my suggestion for turnabout’s fair play : design a survey to be administered to global warmists (include the big guns as well as rank and file). The questions are devised to measure just how alarmist the respondents are to various events. In other words , to what extent they believe that catastrophe’s occur. A perfect question would be :
    “How many deaths and casualties: resulted from the nuclear accident at Fukushima , Japan?
    a) 957 deaths, 17,000 injuries;
    b) 35 deaths, 6,347 injuries
    c) 0 deaths, 2 injuries
    d) 5,200 deaths, 56,000 injuries.
    c is the correct answer. Repondents must not be allowed to look up the correct answer.

  90. Mickey Reno says:

    Oh yes, please, punish us evil deniers by going on strike! Please! Yes. Two thumbs up!

  91. _Jim says:

    re: Mark Hladik says April 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
    … Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.
    It is me, or a typo in the link?

    A few questions:

    1) What DNS (Domain Name Server) are you using?
    2) What browser and version are you using?
    3) What virus-protection software do you have running?
    4) What does a trace route or ping look like to the site http://www.msnbc.com ?
    5) Does the address resolve to: 23.75.250.231 during the ping or tracert?

    .

  92. jeff 5778 says:

    Striking workers don’t get paid.
    Not going to happen.

  93. _Jim says:

    re: Greg says April 2, 2014 at 4:37 am
    Here’s another MSNBC poll to try:
    http://pollpot.people.msnbc.com/_news/2014/04/02/23348855-do-you-understand-a-tick-mark-to-represent-disagreement-with-a-proposed-question#51390

    Greg, that’s a “tick” question …

    And the blog name, is that a play on ‘Polpot’ (another patron saint to communists, nottobeconfusedwith, say, Idi Amin, patron saint of cannibalists?)

    .

  94. ed K says:

    When an English major speaks of science you have to listen.

  95. _Jim says:

    re: Daniel says April 2, 2014 at 5:31 am
    None of the MSNBC links work for me when clicked via this blog. All subsequent attempts to load in a blank window (using the same browser) fail too. However, when using a Private Window (or another browser entirely, entering the links manually), the pages load immediately.

    Sounds like a server denial based on the referral page URL (and that would be: “WUWT”) … BTW it worked okay for me, using Chrome and simply opening the link in a new ‘tab’ …

    .

  96. pat says:

    please go on a permanent strike, bill. hopefully, your MSM friends will come out in solidarity with you. especially bloomberg & reuters point carbon, who are the “analysts” referred to in the following, & whose “predictions” would seem to be as woeful as the IPCC’s:

    2 April: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: EU Carbon Pares Gains as Analysts Revise 2013 Emissions Estimate
    Carbon permits pared gains as analysts said European Union data showed emissions from factories and power stations probably fell more than their predictions made earlier today…
    Emissions in the EU’s carbon market fell 3 percent to 4.2 percent last year on a like-for-like basis from 2012, according to analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which earlier estimated a drop of 1.6 percent. Point Carbon, a unit of Thomson Reuters Corp., revised its estimate to a 3.1 percent drop from a fall of 1.6 percent earlier today…
    Last year’s fall in emissions is close to the median forecast for a 3.8 percent decline by seven analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News…
    The European Commission data show “several installations increased their covered emissions scope between 2012 and 2013,” New Energy said in an e-mailed statement. “This is likely due to the inclusion of new sectors and gases, or an aggregation of previously separate installations into single ones. This appears to particularly affect steel, refining and combustion installations.” ….
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/eu-carbon-rises-after-2013-emissions-fell-slower-than-expected.html

  97. John says:

    The American public has had enough of the lies.

  98. Mark Hladik says:

    Sasha:

    Link to Quixote worked; thanks!

    Jim: Unable to answer those questions. The height of “tech-savvy” for me is getting and sending e-mail … … …

    Mark H.

  99. Shano says:

    It worked for me. 80% no at this time. How long before they take it down and claim it got spammed by a dee NY er website?

  100. jakee308 says:

    I think they should go on a hunger strike and not eat until the whole world admits they’re right (no matter the facts) OR until global warming is proved to occur beyond a scientific reasonable doubt.

    Ol’ Al and Michael could lose a few pounds.

  101. At 10:18 EST
    Yes: 1077( 18%) , No: 4853 (80%), Not sure: 107 (2%), Total: 6037

  102. Mark Bofill says:

    That’s an outstanding idea. Go on strike, please.
    Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

  103. ferdberple says:

    So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports.
    ============
    Agreed. Cut the funding on climate research and spend it on something useful like repairing infrastructure.

    rather than blame flooding on “global Warming”, as if there is nothing that can be done, spend the money instead on flood control and prevention.

    or is the claim that we never had floods in the past before global warming, so there is nothing we can do except stop using fossil fuels?

    how will sitting cold and in the dark make flooding less a problem in the future? how will paying more and more taxes to churn out endless climate studies prevent future floods? take the money being spend on climate research and instead spend it on engineering better infrastructure.

  104. Robert Brown says:

    It’s up to 81% no. I added my tiny sliver to the result.

    I vote yes on the strike, as well. Actually, I don’t care if climate scientists keep working and even keep their funding. I just want them out of politics, I want to see statistical competence in the field, and I want uncertainty to be clearly explicated instead of presenting paper after paper containing Bayesian arguments with catastrophic warming (predicted by the GCMs) as a near-certain Bayesian prior. IF global warming proceeds at the pace predicted by GCMs (which we consider “very likely” because we are told that they are very reliable), THEN baby seals will perish. If we simply succeeded in getting the words “very likely” changed to “possible”, or “possible, but unlikely” what a difference it would make!

    rgb

  105. Gary Pearse says:

    “..it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports.”

    He at least understands that it isn’t really science. Scientists don’t just ‘churn’ out reports on demand. Activists, journalists and political committees do that sort of thing. I find myself agreeing with Bill on some points, although he may be unaware he is making these points. I would heartily endorse his latest – yeah let’s let these tired, frenzied scientists go on strike for a few years.

  106. JohnWho says:

    TC says:

    April 2, 2014 at 1:56 am

    From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.

    Of that, there is no doubt.

    Currently:

    81% NO – 5042 votes

    17% YES – 1082 votes

    2% I Am Not Sure – 107 votes

  107. Berényi Péter says:

    Poll results right now –

    Yes: 1,084
    No: 5,061
    dunno: 107

    Therefore 81% do not see climate change as a threat, neither to their life nor to their well-being.

  108. richard says:

    hovered at 82% then went back one.

  109. JohnWho says:

    When you can’t even get the ultra-left MSNBC crowd to agree with your premise of climate change being a threat, maybe a strike isn’t the answer; maybe it’s just time to just give up.

    “Give up?” Maybe, but better would be for them to “Accept reality”, something they probably can not do since it would go against their ideology.

  110. John Whitman says:

    He [Bill McKibben] writes:

    So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more. Work with what you’ve got. We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described then we’ll tell you what’s coming next.

    - – - – - – - – -

    Bill McKibben,

    I strongly support your idea of a strike by all the so-called CAGW ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists you are referring to!!!! Please push your strike idea into reality!!!!

    Then, the skeptics in the climate science dialog will have much more grant money and space available in journals.

    John

  111. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    It was 79% about 20 minutes ago when I voted. The copy of the pie chart at the top of the WUWT article is just a snapshot, methinks. If you click the link to the BM MSNBC article you can scroll down and vote. At least I had no trouble.

    Over 5000 responses when I voted.

  112. richard says:

    Im not sure what the point of the polls are, they always come out on the no side even when they try a phycological trick of putting a tick on the chart to try and signify this is how many are saying yes.

    How many more do they need to do.

  113. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    Oh and by the way. When you read the McKibben article from 2009 (please do), scroll down to the comments and read the first one.

    Coffee, nose, keyboard!!

  114. richard says:

    as in the question is ” do you see you life threatened by ……….” on the main chart with the yellow tick as in saying yes .

    oh the little tricks they play to try and massage the figures upwards for a yes.

  115. Brad says:

    May need to review the poll, 76% now say answer 1, everything at once?
    Also, did the answers change?
    1 – everything
    2 – cost benefit
    3 – not clear we should act
    4 – not sure

  116. Taphonomic says:

    Throughout history there have been false prophets making dire predictions. As their predictions fail to pan out, people pay less and less attention to them. They revise their predictions and their bloviating about their predictions becomes more strident. People tune out more. This appears to be happening now as it is becoming obvious that the global warming models are cow dung.

    As for the idea of a climate labor strike, bring it on. Imagine whole global and government agencies shut down.

    Now as for a strike, I have a different idea: A Day Without Electrons.

    CAGW proponents and environmentalists rail against coal fired electricity (and environmentalists against nuclear), so how about all the hard working people that keep the electrons coming from those power plants take one day off and shut down coal and nuke plants. That would have an impact.

  117. Brendy says:

    Updated results show the percentage of those who do not perceive a threat as up from 72 percent to 81 percent. Clearly a trend which will soon demonstrate that it is “extrememly likely” that no one cares.

  118. Robert W Turner says:

    Just a single day without reading that the world’s climate will turn on its head tomorrow and if not tomorrow the next day would be refreshing.

  119. JohnWho says:

    Not sure what some of you are looking at – it is still at 81% “NO”.

  120. Lou Skannen says:

    I sorta fudged on the poll. Climate change is a threat to my health and well-being because politicians are using it as an excuse to pillage my bank account and, in general, make my life more miserable.

  121. Mindert Eiting says:

    Still using Windows XP on my old computer. Could not make the no-vote. Computer began running like mad and antivirus program had to remove 13 adware tracking cookies.

  122. John Whitman says:

    I just voted at the poll.

    It says 82% of votes are NO to climate threat.

    John

  123. richard says:

    in the 5 mins or so i was following the poll it was 55 no and 15 yes.

  124. more soylent green! says:

    Q: Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?

    A: No, I see the stop climate change movement as a threat to my lifestyle and well-being.

  125. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    You all are misreading the graph. I checked just now: 1,091 rational, consensus-science-based votes saying “yes, I am threatened by climate change” and 108 climate-communication-impaired votes for “I don’t know/not sure”. If you do the math, that means 91% agree climate change is a serious problem and 9% indicate we need to fund more climate education initiatives.

    Since the scientific consensus is overwhelming, the 5,242 big oil-funded climate-denialist pathetic and criminal attempts at disinformation do not matter and should be ignored.

    More research is necessary, which is why I will be working with other noted experts in the field to publish a paper tentatively titled “Denialist Delusion, or How Climate Change Impairs Basic Math and Statistic Skills in Selected Populations of Climate Change Deniers”. It is clear from research to date (and the MSNBC poll is a perfect recent example), that people with climate denial and other conspiricist ideations have greatly impaired math and other reasoning skills compared to the normal population who correctly accept consensus science. What needs further exploration is just how climate change is accelerating this decay. We propose novel new modelling techniques to project the effects of higher temperatures on both basic and advanced reasoning skills.

    Early results with multiple model runs seeded with a range of starting parameters indicate this problem is likely much worse than previously suspected. The implications if this trend continues are quite likely catastrophic.

    Failure to take immediate action can only be considered gross criminal negligence. We have only a few more years before large numbers of people will be incapable of even the most basic rational behavior and must be maintained in carefully controlled environments for their own good.

  126. Curious George says:

    I don’t recall ever asking the “scientific” community to churn out more reports. Go on strike, by all means. Gangster communities should go on strike, too.

  127. HGW xx/7 says:

    For the first time in my life, I would like to thank MSNBC voters. Because of you, my day is starting on a great foot and I might have gained a smidgen of hope for the future :-)

  128. Sasha says:

    Jeff Alberts says:
    The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.

    OK. Hang on to your hat!
    The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions, so here are 107:

    FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

    1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
    Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

    ****

    2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

    ****

    3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

    Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

    ****

    4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
    Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

    ****

    5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
    Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

    ****

    6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
    Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

    ****

    7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
    Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
    Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

    ****

    8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
    Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

    9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
    Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

    ****

    10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
    Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

    ****

    11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
    Spiegel, 1 April 2000

    ****

    12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

    3Sat, 26 June 2003

    ****

    13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
    IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

    ****

    14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
    Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

    ****

    15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

    and

    “ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
    Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

    ****

    16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
    Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

    ****

    17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
    Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

    ****

    18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
    Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

    ****

    19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
    Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

    ****

    20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
    FOCUS, 24 May 2006

    ****

    21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
    Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

    ****

    22. “Winters: wet and mild”
    Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

    ****

    23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
    Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

    ****

    24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
    Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

    ****

    25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
    Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

    ****

    26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
    Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
    Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

    ****

    27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. [...] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. [...] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
    Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

    ****

    28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. [...] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
    Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

    ****

    29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
    German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

    ****

    30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
    Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

    ****

    31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
    Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

    ****

    32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

    ****

    33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
    State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

    ****

    34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
    Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

    ****

    35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
    David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

    ****

    36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
    BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

    ****

    37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
    Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

    ****

    38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
    Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

    ****

    39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
    Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

    *****

    40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
    Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

    ****

    41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
    IPCC Climate Change, 2001

    ****

    42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
    IPCC Climate Change, 2001

    ****

    43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
    IPCC Climate Change, 2007

    ****

    44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
    WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

    ****

    45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
    Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

    ****

    46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
    Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

    ****

    47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
    Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

    ****

    48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
    Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

    ****

    49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
    Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

    ****

    50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
    Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

    ****

    51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
    BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
    [BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]

    ****

    52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
    Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

    ****

    53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

    “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

    ****

    54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
    NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

    ****

    55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
    Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

    ****

    56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
    Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

    ****

    57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”
    Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008

    ****

    58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
    Guardian, 14 February 2004
    [4 January 2013: “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.”]

    ****

    59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
    David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

    ****

    60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”
    Spiegel, 3 June 2006
    [The Local 2013: “Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record ... I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season.”]

    ****

    61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe

    Reuters, Nov 09, 2012

    FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.

    “The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”

    ****

    62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
    Guardian, 26 August 2006.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/26/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

    ****

    63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)

    “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)

    Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

    ****

    64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”
    Telegraph December 14, 2006
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536852/The-hottest-year-since-1659-spells-global-doom.html

    ****

    65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”
    BBCs Climate Change Experiment
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml

    ****

    66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)
    67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)
    The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:
    http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/PageFiles/19049/SumIB_uk.pdf
    Impacts of climate change in Belgium
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
    Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.

    ****

    68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
    NASA, June 2, 1999
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

    ****

    69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
    Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

    ****

    70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
    David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
    February 14, 2004
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/14/climatechange.scotland

    ****

    71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”
    Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/03/research.sciencenews

    ****

    72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”
    Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard
    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/british-seasons-start-to-shift-6358532.html

    ****

    73. “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
    Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
    Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

    ****

    74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

    ****

    75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”

    ****

    76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”

    ****

    77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
    [Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won't be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]

    ****

    78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”

    ****

    79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

    ****

    80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

    ****

    81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

    ****

    82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “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.”

    ****

    83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

    ****

    84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

    ****

    85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

    ****

    86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

    ****

    87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”

    —****

    88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

    ****

    89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”

    ****

    90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

    ****

    91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

    ****

    92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

    ****

    93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

    ****

    94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

    ****

    95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

    ****

    96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”

    ****

    97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

    ****

    98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

    ****

    99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”

    ****

    100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

    ****

    101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”
    [Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]

    ****

    102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

    ****

    103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

    ****

    104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
    [Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

    ****

    105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

    ****

    106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

    ****

    107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

  129. JohnWho says:

    Sasha says:

    April 2, 2014 at 8:37 am

    Jeff Alberts says:
    The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.

    OK. Hang on to your hat!
    The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions, so here are 107:

    Geez, Sasha, great list.

    And, I suppose, those are only the ones off the top of your head, right?

  130. TheLastDemocrat says:

    Sasha’s comment is holding true – I heard a few blips abt this in the mainstream media – a teaser headline to a national story on the local news site, nothing in the local news, some notice at the mainstream media news sites, and nothing else.

    The rock hit the water, made a few ripples, sunk, and the ripples faded away pretty quickly.

  131. EternalOptimist says:

    I would like to speak up for the Polar Bears. Yes! b*gger off Bill, and give us a rest

  132. Eliza says:

    Wow it really does look like most ordinary folk are getting sick and tired of AGW BS. The GOP should make this a major agenda (anti AGW) for the next election they may garner a lot more votes that they might think! BTW you have to click on the GRAPHIC ITSELF toi see the results.

  133. harkin says:

    MSNBC’s own readers are telling them that not only are they not alarmists but also that the site keepers haven’t a clue as to how to show a poll.

    #because science

  134. klem says: “…I’ll bet they start changing their tune at MSNBC with respect to climate alarmism, their ratings and revenue are at stake. Nothing like good ol’ money to cause a news outlet to make some changes.”

    No, they’ll just change the numbers, and all is good. Remember, this is Post-Normal logic they’re using.

    As of now, it’s 82% No, with 7083 total votes.

  135. Barbara Skolaut says:

    “until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more”

    Please, please, please, please, please . . . .

  136. Matthew R Marler says:

    Oh, what a GREAT idea!

    Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. Delightful!

  137. _Jim says:

    re: Sasha says April 2, 2014 at 8:37 am

    Any chance of getting that organized from earliest to latest prediction for next time? Nice work BTW.

  138. Bob Tisdale says:

    Anthony, but if the climate science community and alarmists went on strike, what would we have to laugh about?

  139. Steve Oregon says:

    “maybe it’s just time to just give up”

    Of course. McKibben and friends should shut their pie holes and surrender.

    Then go on a Greenpeace save the whales junket?
    Or occupy wall street?
    Or get a job?

  140. CC Tiger says:

    I thought that I would behave like a progressive and record my vote 100 times or until my iPad ran out of battery power. You can imagine my surprise when I was only allowed to vote once ( on the iPad smile. This poll might be legitimate; however, I appreciate the post that humorously concluded that the results would state that “91% believe that global warming is a threat to our civilization”. I hope that this CAGW tripe will forever discredit the UN.

    On another subject, do you think that the US will veto a UN vote to declare Palestine a state?

  141. Curious George says:

    From Bill McKibben’s editorial: “Read this report and you can’t deny the reality.” I like the chutzpah.

  142. CRS, DrPH says:

    Climate science community go on strike?? A bunch of rent-seeking, talentless academics who are very, very lucky to score the only gig they have?

    I’d enjoy it, as well as the rest of us, but don’t hold your breath. In true “end of the world” quasi-religion mode, they will grow ever more shrill with their doom & gloom before exploding, Monty Python-style. I’d buy tickets to that last bit.

  143. majormike1 says:

    The MSNBC poll (I just voted) is now up to 83% “No”.

  144. Tim Obrien says:

    Maybe the public just isn’t buying it any more after the failed forecasts, the 50million climate refugees that didn’t happen, the extinctions that didn’t happen, the no Arctic ice that didn’t happen, the flooded cities and coastlines that didn’t happen etc etc etc…

  145. John Whitman says:

    Who does Bill McKibben think he is with the strike meme? ‘John Galt’?

    He’s the anti-’John Galt’.

    John

  146. Brad says:

    Something is weird at MSNBC. Here is a link to the poll I went to (via Google) this morning, and subsequently commented on:
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-how-should-we-address-climate-change
    This poll says 76% think we should go balls-to-the-wall in fighting climate change?

    The difference in opinions between this and the original poll listed in this post is strange?

  147. eyesonu says:

    McKibben says:

    “So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more. Work with what you’ve got. We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described then we’ll tell you what’s coming next.”
    =================

    I long for the day! But then when a fruit cake like he speaks, well that is just icing on the cake.

    Can I have it both ways?

  148. Peter Ward says:

    Up to 83% negative on the poll! And the comments are good too.

  149. Bruce Cobb says:

    Climate whiz Bill Sez:
    “When you pour carbon into the air, the planet heats up and then all hell breaks loose. That’s basically what you need to know.”
    Wow, color me convinced. Who knew science could be so simple? Where do I sign up to be a Climate Crusader?

  150. Louis says:

    But if they get 7 million out of 300 million to say yes, they’ll take a victory lap, just like Obama did with Obamacare.

  151. Bruce Cobb says:

    Never mind, I think I see where; it’s right next to a sign that says “park your brains here”.

  152. MattS says:

    Greg says:
    April 2, 2014 at 2:28 am

    TC says: From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.

    Very good point ! A tick sign is usually used to indicate affirmation yet that 74% segment is the NO votes. Very misleading.
    ========================================================================

    Actually, since you have to vote to get to the results as far as I could tell, I assume the check mark indicates the section that represents the way the user voted..

    PS No is up to 83%

  153. Anything is possible says:

    MattS says:
    April 2, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Actually, since you have to vote to get to the results as far as I could tell, I assume the check mark indicates the section that represents the way the user voted..

    PS No is up to 83%

    ===============================

    Yup, it does. I just voted differently twice using 2 different ID’s (purely in the interests of research of course) and it confirms which way I voted on both.

  154. Anything is possible says:

    Climate scientists going on strike is the best idea Bill McKibben will ever have.

    Thirty years would seem like an appropriate length of time……

  155. Terry Comeau says:

    It’s up to 83% now. LOL.

  156. Jimbo says:

    Before this WUWT post I had already registered my vote. Quite a shocking result! This is why they imagine there is a well funded opposition. There isn’t, people have had enough of the garbage and scare mongering.

  157. Frank Kotler says:

    Well, I just voted “no” on the poll. On the strike, however, I vote “yes”. And if they refuse to strike, lock ‘em out!

  158. Bob B. says:

    If the results were reversed, this poll would be touted very loudly by the MSM, progressive politicians and all the warmist sites. They way it stands now, you will not hear a peep from any of them.

  159. William Astley says:

    The warmists’ propaganda still has some traction among true believers and is still repeated as a mantra as long as the past warming does not reverse. Reversal of the 0.7C warming of the last 70 years is only possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by something else (it’s the solar magnetic cycle and something that is related to the solar magnetic cycle) besides the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    I find the late climate war exchanges and propaganda, in the context of recent observational evidence and at least eight observations/analysis results/logical pillars that identifies the mechanisms, that supports the assertion that an abrupt climate change event (cooling) is imminent, to be surreal. I am struggling to imagine how the climate wars will change if the reality is the planet is unequivocally cooling.

    There is a physical reason for the sudden activation of Svensmark’s GCR ion mediated cloud formation at both poles. A physical change (sudden increase in Antarctic sea ice all months of the year) and the start of recover of Arctic sea ice requires a change, to cause what is observed. Warming of the Antarctic region is not the explanation as the planet has not warmed in 15 years, so there is no warming change to cause what is observed.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.3.31.2014.gif

    In a large part due to the climate wars, the scientific community has failed to solve the puzzle ‘what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle’ and ‘what causes the cyclic warming and cooling events’ that occur during the glacial and interglacial periods. The warmist scientists have failed to explain (ignored) why the pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not agree with the pattern of warming that should be observed if CO2 has the forcing function and have ignored the fact that the pattern of warming in last 70 does match the pattern of warming observed in past cyclic warming events which (both logical pillars) supports the assertion that past warming events and the warming period of the last 70 years are due to the same forcing function. The warmists scientists have failed to explain why there was a period of no warming for 16 years (an end to warming is difficult to explain if CO2 is the forcing function as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase and the CO2 forcing does not turn off, the end of warming indicates that something in the high regions of the atmosphere causes the CO2 mechanism to saturate as the higher regions of the atmosphere did not warm in the last 70 years, the higher regions of the atmosphere should have warmed based on the general circulation models, if the CO2 warming mechanism saturates something else caused the warming in the last 70 years). The warmists scientists and media are remaining silent concerning the fact that there is now the start of cooling both poles.

  160. John Whitman says:

    There has already been a strike by a small core group of so-called climate ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists in this 21st century. Those scientists, of whom Michael Mann (PSU) seems to be typical and whom also seems to be the unofficial leader, have been on strike for ~15 years to prevent providing their published work product info. The info they have not provided is: specific used data, exact detailed methodology, function actual code, all work related emails and overall correspondence.

    Consider that without them supplying such info on their published work product then they have not actually been participating in and party to any scientific process or within professional integrity guidelines. Thus, their work cannot be yet included in the domain of science. Their successful strike to produce things not within the domain of science continues.

    What Mr McKibben is in effect asking for with his strike call is for all other ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists to join Michael Mann and the small core group of his associates on their ongoing ~15 years strike where they have failed to produce both within the formal domain of science and also failed within the code of professional scientific behavior.

    John

  161. Clive says:

    The MSM is governed by advertizing dollars and winning some sort of popularity contest, i.e winning ratings and readership.

    With 83% of MSNBC’s readers not believing the climate junk they peddle, when do they start to realize their editorial slants start to upset people. Their stance HAS to affect readership and ratings.

    CAS
    Alberta
    Where AGW has caused ALL of the lakes in Alberta to be frozen solid still. Ice melt here is at least two weeks behind where it was a few years ago. “Ice off” has been late the past few years compared to ten years ago.

  162. u.k.(us) says:

    The game is not going my way, I’m gonna take my ball home, and won’t everyone be sorry then.

    Sorry if this is redundant.

  163. Jimbo says:

    The results poll forces you to have to click to see the result. Yet they put a tick right next to the 83% that said NO. I they trying to mislead. PS don’t forget to click SEE ALL, there are now 20 with most being hostile to the CAGW poll.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-see-climate-change-threat-your-life-or-well-being

    Gallup
    March 13, 2014
    In U.S., Most Do Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat
    Nearly two in three believe global warming will happen during their lifetimes
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/167879/not-global-warming-serious-threat.aspx

    What a wonderful day. :-)

  164. brians356 says:

    FYI folks, the tick mark on the pie chart is just to indicate the poll winner (regardless of the position relative to the question.) Simple, yes?

  165. re: Sasha (at 8:37) list of 107 failed predictions.

    Fantastic work, Sasha! Do you have a version of the list with hyperlinks to the source?

    Anthony, Sasha’s list needs to be added as a separate post in the “Climate Fail Files.” It’s a keeper.

    And thanks for showing us your site, Donna Quixote.

  166. NRG22 says:

    I just voted and the tally was 9,056 votes.

    No – 7,528 (83%)

    Yes – 1,402 (15%)

    I am not sure – 126 (1%)

  167. Sasha says:

    _Jim says:
    April 2, 2014 at 9:14 am
    Any chance of getting that organized from earliest to latest prediction for next time?

    Thank you for your kind comments. The list was gathered from my own files and several other websites as an answer to another poster’s question. The Viner quote was duplicated because I was in a hurry and a bit tired so I rushed the editing. Your idea to put this in chronological order is a good one and maybe this will be done later. It looks like this list may form the backbone of a database of failed climate predictions – maybe Anthony would be happy to do it?

    Some quotes are not referenced fully and have no links, but this is not a thesis for a Doctorate, just a bit of fun at the expense of people who should know better. This is in no way a comprehensive list; I left out about 150 other predictions, most notably the predictions covering millions of “climate refugees” and various ridiculous claims about sea levels,the Arctic and the Gulf Stream. I thought putting everything I have into one post would be too much.

    My favorite quote is about the cannibals (77).

  168. pat says:

    i just tried to vote for the first time but, no matter how many times i choose “no” & click to vote, i’m told i haven’t made a choice. obviously i haven’t made the “right” choice, but….

  169. Walter Sobchak says:

    I am volunteering to carry a picket sign for this one.

  170. Eamon Butler says:

    Just cast my vote. Currently at 83% with 7904 votes for NO.

  171. Gary Pearse says:

    Since these nimrods are now using “carbon” instead of carbon dioxide, shouldn’t Bill change his web site address to: 12/44 *350.org to 95.45.org? There is only 95.45 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. From now on, we should refer to his site as 95.45.org.

  172. Rational Db8 says:

    McKibbon would LOVE a “climate strike” because the more research that comes in the worse the entire AGW hypothesis is looking.

  173. luysii says:

    They have clearly stopped taking votes, as the numbers are unchanged from a few hours ago.

  174. Chuck Bradley says:

    83%no at 10:38PM Eastern Daylight Time.

  175. Eric Gisin says:

    Pet Peeve: Why do people still call it MSNBC? It was changed to NBC News years ago.

  176. Hoser says:

    Wait, one of the pollsters at MSNBC, I think his name was Chad, said they are going into the back server room to check the mouse position records associated with clicks. Voters must have been confused about where to click, particularly the ones living in Florida. You can be sure they will come back with the correct results shortly. It doesn’t matter how many times they have to go back there, you can be sure they will count every click.

  177. Chuck says:

    On the 107 Failed Climate Predictions…… I don’t see how the predictions made by these people are any different from the failed predictions that psychics make each year. No one pays much attention to them either.

  178. angech says:

    PAT YOU MAY HAVE TO GIVE SOME DETAILS FIRST AND THEN IT LETS YOU INTO THE VOTING WHEN YOU GO BACK

    [Avoid all caps. Mod]

  179. rgbatduke says:

    FYI folks, the tick mark on the pie chart is just to indicate the poll winner (regardless of the position relative to the question.) Simple, yes?

    Simple, absolutely, and if they only provided a key on the figure, or even a hover box (so that if the mouse hovers above yellow) the word “No” appears) it would be fine. But without a key, the checkmark is redundant, yellow is obviously the winner (that’s the point of the chart in the first place) so the natural tendency is to read the checkmark as “yes” — I did when I first looked and thought “Gee, Anthony is wrong, a lot of yes votes must have come in”.

    Only when I clicked through to the numbers did I see what the colors meant and realized that No was indeed the overwhelming victor.

    There are lots of ways to lie and mislead (as well as lots of ways to be merely incompetent) in a graphical presentation of data. A pie chart/circular chart without a legend decorated with an unnecessary checkmark is certainly one of them. Whether it is deliberate or malicious or simply incompetence at work is impossible to say from the outside, but either way every addditional click on a website to new depth is “effort” and fewer and fewer people proceed. Of all the people that voted, some percentage didn’t look at the second page. Of all the people that spent time on the second page and saw the confusing chart, a (probably significant) fraction saw the check and large yellow area with its big-text label, interpreted it as “yes wins”, and didn’t click through to the actual results. By putting the results two steps removed from the poll, they guaranteed that over half of the voters will never look at the actual results.

    What never happens is somebody sees the chart and assumes that the checkmark labels the No vote. No is “the wrong answer” according to the biases of the poll creators and the way the question was framed and its context. There are all sorts of subtle cues that you are supposed to vote Yes in order to be a good citizen (after all, they’re covering the IPCC meeting trumpeting doom as “fact”).

    rgb

  180. gnomish says:

    I think it’s likely the climate psychics drummed up the troops to astroturf that poll, too.
    Would be funny if the no votes do get to 97%. It would be a tipping point for mockery.

  181. MattS says:

    RGB,

    “What never happens is somebody sees the chart and assumes that the checkmark labels the No vote.”

    Actually, you are wrong. The check-mark doesn’t always fall on the no. The check-mark marks the segment that the user voted for. This has already been tested. If you vote yes, the check-mark will be on the smaller yes segment.

  182. rgbatduke says:

    Ah, no kidding. Well, that still sucks. Why not just provide a legend? Are these people idiots?

    Don’t answer that.

    I commented directly in the discussion following to that effect. Grrrr.

    rgb

  183. Brad says:

    “richard says:
    April 2, 2014 at 2:49 pm
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-how-should-we-address-climate-change

    this is one they will be touting.”

    Richard, how do you square the large difference between the two poll results?

    So here is a thought guys – What if it is a setup and they announce that the poll was intentionally biased by those climate deniers over at WUWT, playing with the poll?

  184. Revnant Dream says:

    Maybe its just time to just give.

    They never will, to many folks have wallets to fill.From researchers to civic bureaucracies . Besides its becoming the UN’s favourite Religion besides Islam.
    To many governments see this as a reason to pillage the middle class for tax dollars to feed themselves. True or false, they couldn’t give a hoot. Its the money they want.
    The UN sees it as Marxism in action by transferring wealth from those Nations who produce it. To those who don’t or ever will, from religious to medieval cultural practices that bring poverty.
    This has nothing to do with science & all to do with socialism along with a pseudo-science of climatology. Trying to squeeze the World for funds with a bogus theory.

  185. Ratt says:

    Hahahah, up to 85% now.

  186. Keith Sketchley says:

    Hey, I’d vote for the scientists McKibben means going on strike (given the context he means the alarmists) – they’d shut up. ;-)

    Others would probably get more money for real research, at least they’d be able to work in peace to develop predictive methods.

  187. Chuck Nolan says:

    RichardLH says:
    April 2, 2014 at 2:10 am
    No
    3,069 votes

    Yes
    996 votes

    I am not sure
    95 votes

    And rising
    —————————————-
    Don’t you find it amazing 4160 even read the blog?
    The fabulous part is every single one of the 4160 voted.
    cn

  188. Chuck Nolan says:

    Chris Wright says:
    April 2, 2014 at 3:26 am
    To be honest, if there were no climate science at all the world would be an infinitely better place…
    But what can you do if even the President of the United States is so delusional that he thinks global warming is actually accelerating?
    Chris
    ———————————–
    Chris, you know damn good and well that the power brokers not only don’t believe their lies they don’t care as long as you believe them.
    Our POTUS doesn’t believe in CAGW although he is trying to help build a crisis that he can “keep from going to waste.” I think these are Chicago’s Godfather’s words?
    They’re not stupid…only criminal.
    cn

  189. Chuck Nolan says:

    Mindert Eiting says:
    April 2, 2014 at 4:08 am
    Go on strike while the world is ending? We have two kinds of strike, refusing to work for a while in order to get more wage, and hunger strike. The latter is done by people who are desperate. So McKibben simply can stop eating today if this is what he wants.
    ———————————–
    In the past, people with deep, deep belief in their cause would go on a hunger strike until their demands were met. Dick Gregory went on a hunger strike to demonstrate against racism. You can bet that will never happen with the CAGW crowd like NGOs and government employees. Hell, you can’t even get these guys to stop their hypocritical lifestyles.
    cn

  190. MarkW says:

    There going to stop wasting money by producing even more flawed and biased studies.

    There’s a downside here?

  191. RobRoy says:

    Alarmists on strike. That means, hopefully, we’ll see some sceptical scabs.

  192. Gail Combs says:

    The poll is still open on April 9th, It is now 12K and the vote is 82% NO! (9,976 votes)

Comments are closed.