There’s an article in the New York Times pushing a something called “the five stages of climate grief” done by a professor at the University of Montana. This got me to thinking about the regular disaster forecasting that we see published in the media about what will happen due to climate change.
We’ve seen this sort of angst broadcast before, and it occurred to me that through history, a lot of “predictions of certainty” with roots in scientifically based forecasts have not come true. That being the case, here is the list I’ve compiled of famous quotes and consensus from “experts”.
Top Ten Science based predictions that didn’t come true:
10. “The earth’s crust does not move”– 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. See Plate Tectonics
9. “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project
8. “That virus is a pussycat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988
7. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
6. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
4. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth).
3. “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.
2. “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.
1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?
So the next time you hear about worldwide crop failure, rising sea levels, species extinction, or “climate grief” you might want to remember that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Actually, myrmecos, the parallels with continental drift are especially striking, for you see, Mr Wegener was also a meteorologist. And what’s more, he came from out of his field! Take that everyone who says non-climate scientists can’t comment!
AP!
I just did the GIGO thing over on the Reluctant Optimist, making the same point and using the same variant. Small world.
Andrew:
Like so totally. Expert witnesses participate in trials all the time. But it’s up to the jurors to determine the verdict. Heck, “experts” in the subject in question are ruthlessly (and quite properly) excluded from juries. And perish the day when it is otherwise.
Evan,
Well then, as they say “great minds think alike”. 😉
But I’ll have to give credit to you sir, because that is where I saw it. It just seemed more applicable here.
Andrew,
Regarding melting railroads, permafrost and PDO: the PDO has never, ever before in the history of earth, acted upon the system it’s acting on now (nor has solar variance, or magentic pole shifts)..simply because the system it’s acting on now has never, ever before existed. Has it?
You can pull any single componant out of this wonderfully-iter-related system that you want…all you have is one single component of the system. Try driving to work with just a steering wheel or a just a coffee-cup holder! You can do it, but you’re missing something.
Nothing acts alone, if the PDO is an example of “The Answer”…that’s ok if it works for you. I just don’t think there is “an answer”….and if there is “One Answer” I bet no-one in this discussion right now knows what it is.
And I suggest that in complex natural phenomenon 2+2 very often appears to equal 5 (especially at the scale we’re talking).
Chances are in the end, we’ll all be surprised. If there’s a Blogg in the Thereafter, hopefully Anthony will be maintaining it and we’ll keep in touch; I wager you a case of Pale Ale.
Jd
I totally agree with this post. There is so much alarmist thinking out there. People just need to calm down, and look at the facts.
Please don’t base the fact that science was wrong on a few things to think that science is wrong. Yes there are wrong things in science. Our work is an accumulation of works based upon other works with the total the summation of thoughts which have come thus far. It is by far very plausible, but not without a 0% doubt factual. But taken science as a whole, I’d say we were right 99.9% of the time, and if all you can list is ten things that science has been wrong about, it seems a pretty small list to the things science has been right about.
Hi,
Great post!
The media love scary predictions and repeatedly instigate these ‘moral panics’. Global warming, Muslims, Hoodies (kids in hooded tops)… the list goes on.
However, I feel its messages are more difficult to negotiate when it is reporting scientific research. I find it useful to remember:
Research is funded by someone, often with an agenda.
News channels are similarily funded, by people who most definitely have agendas.
And on global warming, we could dispute this and agree with that. However, to ignore a large number of eminent scientists on either side of the debate is foolish.
Europe’s worry is that the US view is coloured primarily by economic concerns and its administration will protect business first. And business pays for science.
Predictions, Predictions, Predictions! I’m compiling some for the future of the Web at http://ellismark.wordpress.com/ Come and have a go!
Still, I think it’d be better if we actually concern ourselves with scientific predictions like global warming etc. To think, scientific predictions are usually reliable and rational. Remember that there were still thousands of other scientific projections that actually came true as expected. And who knows? Those global warming stuff might actually come true, and you wouldn’t want that.
Still, I think it’d be better if we actually concern ourselves with scientific predictions like global warming etc, so that we would try to be more responsible to the environment, to ourselves. To think, scientific predictions are usually reliable and rational. Remember that there were still thousands of other scientific projections that actually came true as expected. And who knows? Those global warming stuff might actually come true, and you wouldn’t want that. Just a reminder.
Gee. Everyone getting in such knots … ranting and raving. I’m just a passer-by, but honestly, where’s the fire? This old planet is gonna keep turning round and round long after we, as just one of tens of thousands of planet-sucking species, expire. That’s natural and normal and ‘progress’. We can attempt to ‘control’ all we want by ‘blowing & banging’, but at the end of the day, we are toast. It is EXTREME HUBRIS to believe that our species will ‘out survive’ evolution. Perhaps it is the dawning of this ‘idea’ that has everyone in such a panic ? ie. there’s no ‘god’ to make a ‘deal’ with, no government that will ‘protect’ us, no reasonable/rational ‘solution’ to this pending REALITY ? All I can suggest is this: calm down, try to live good and reasonable lives, be the best you can be. Stop abusing the planet that sustains us daily and start loving Life and the living instead of hating them.
As a incidental unproven but curious ‘side-bar’ THOUGHT consider this: Polar Magnetic Flips…
General consensus is that we are in the midst of a preliminary ‘shift’ because of the recorded decreased magnetic strength of planet polarity. Guesstimates suggest that the shift takes from 7000-11000 years overall. Apparently we are long overdue for the next ‘flip’. During the unstable period prior to the actual flip the sun’s radiation increases, (the current magnetic field acts as a sun screen, yet, as it destabilizes/weakens it’s effectiveness to block radiation diminishes….). This ‘flip’ may explain certain species ‘extinctions’ and/or rapid geophysical transformations, ie. glaciers melt/advance, tropical forests dry up/drown, dinosaurs etc.
See links for more general info….
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_poles_040407.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_9910
27.html
All in all, monitoring is one thing, but CONTROL is quite another. Would it make you boys feel better if you had the power to stop the globe from spinning, the tides from rising and falling, the sun from shining altogether? Is that what you gents really WANT? … come on now fellas. settle down, use those great gifts you’ve obviously got to greater end – THAT’S how you’ll make the world ‘better’…. love and kisses, c
Roads said-
“At home, we have been using electricity supplied by a wind power company since 2003 and at no extra cost. So you can switch today.”
Really? You have a direct power connection between your home and the wind farm? Meaning you live next to, or inside, a wind farm facility? Or, you have a third-party-owned wind turbine on your property that supplies your power? Or, you have a power company that is completely isolated from the rest of the power grid, and only has wind generation, with no spinning reserves and no storage, so calm days mean blackouts? Neato!
I suspect rather that you believe you are receiving “pure wind energy” from your local power distribution company because you checked a box on your electric bill. Power companies do not have the ability to route wind energy (or energy from any particular power generation source) through the distribution grid to your house. What you have succeeded to do is, well, check a box. Whilst it doesn’t achieve anything but give you a warm inner glow, consider yourself lucky that your power company didn’t charge you an extra fee each month for checking the box, like many distco’s in the U.S. are doing.
Saying that the the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has never before influenced Alaskan climate is absurd. It’s only a shame I don’t have records of Alaskan Temperatures that go back further to prove it. I explained how its supposed to work, and I explained that its correlated, and on and on. In case your wondering, there is nothing “unprecedented” about the PDO at present. But of course PDO doesn’t melt railroads! Railroads can only be melted at temperatures you’d find on the surface of Venus or something!
I never claimed PDO was the “answer” I just think its infinitely more important to Alaskan climate than GHG’s. But I don’t gamble, and I don’t drink, so I’m afraid i can’t bet on that.
I’m not so damn sure that I’m right, but the alarmists damn sure think that they’re right. My position is that all we’ve done is gotten better at measuring things (in some cases) and become more aware of our surroundings. As a result, any little perturbation “alarms” some of us.
The so-called Ozone hole is a perfect example. There is absolutely zero evidence that the “hole” was never there. It was discovered in the 1950’s, and wasn’t alarming to anyone then, becuase there was no evidence that it was anything but natural. Even now after the banning of CFCs 30 odd years ago the hole is still there, hasn’t had any real net change in over 50 years.
Every little change is shown as “evidence” of human-induced climate change without without any legitimate causal factor. As a result we hear such rubbish as sea levels rising 30 meters in 50 years, thousands of species going extinct every year (though no one can name them), islands being gobbled up due to sea-level rise right now (when actually it’s due to tectonic subduction or erosion due to locals destroying the protective reefs), every glacier receding (when in reality only a moderate percentage of examined glaciers are actually receding, and less to do with temperature than precipitation), etc, ad nauseum.
So yes, it’s fair to “whine” about antarctic sea ice being at a record maximum when alarmist like to ONLY point out arctic sea ice being at a record minimum. After all we’re talking about “global” warming, aren’t we? Should all places be warming? If it were, then neither pole should be able to reach a record maximum in sea ice.
Anyway, I don’t see anything alarming here, I see a slow, steady trend that’s most likely been going on for thousands of years, up and down.
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent
Boy, Anthony, could you have imagined the can of worms you were opening up when you published your somewhat tongue-in-cheek list a couple days ago?
And Evan, thanks again for the promotion.
REPLY: Thank goodness it wasn’t slashdotted. 🙂
Andrew,
“the PDO has never before influenced Alaskan climate” is not at all what I wrote. You might want to look at that again.
What I tried to write was:
1) the PDO is acting on a moving target. 2) The target has never before been in this “position”, (a condition owing to our purturbations). 3) Interpreting natural phenomena and making predictions based on limited information is tricky. 4) Complex phenomena are unpredictable and most often non-linear (we’re generally surprised), 5) Interpreting complex phenomoena should never over-emphasize a single cause (like the AGW-Solar argument). and 6) People need some humility and stop acting like self-centered children.
I welcome alternative views on any one of these points.
Since tee-totalors cannot know, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is a really good beer. Hmmm. I’ll drink a cold one for you.
Jd
Sorry John, grossly misunderstood. But I’m not trying to overemphasize one cause, just trying to remind people that there can be other important phenomenon that influence these things. It really is over simplified to say “its this” or “no its that” as in a non-linear chaotic system with “moving targets” becuase of, yes, human perturbations, there can be surprises, and it is not simple enough to just explain all in one way.
I’m not a teetotaler, I’m just 16 (actually, 17, now). Any self-centered childishness is inherent, not intentional. 😉
I’ll drink some lemonade for you though. 🙂
Nice to “meet you” Andrew!
I’d like to see Alaska someday.
Best regards.
Jd
“But I’ll have to give credit to you sir, because that is where I saw it. It just seemed more applicable here.”
#B^1
And I’ll have to give credit to Herman Kahn, because (I think) he was the one that invented the take-off on the phrase. (Or maybe it was one of “Herman’s Hermits”.)
“It’s natural for people to be fearful of others of greater intelligence and maybe explains why someone like Bush was elected not once but twice.”
Jimmy Carter was one of the most intelligent men ever elected to the office. (A fear not–entirely–without historical justification, mayhap?)
>And Evan, thanks again for the promotion.
Hmmm. I thought that one addressed a Lt. Cdr. as Cdr. Please clarify.
It’s not even possible to know that.
And the best way to do that is through progress and wealth generation. Not by curbing same. We do need to control ACTUAL pollution (which CO2 ISN’T) and the US has done quite a bit to accomplish this, moreso than many other countries who constantly bash us. The way to be prepared for “climate change” is by being prepared, not by attempting to limit tiny portions of an essential trace gas in the atmosphere. We can no more control the climate than stop the sun shining.
But, if you REALLY believe that CO2 is evil, we shouldn’t be seeing you here, since surely you woudl have given up your carbon-spewing lifestyle and gone to live in a cave somewhere. That’s the only viable “solution” to stopping CO2.
Paminator:
You asked for details on how offshore wind energy supply works, and I’m happy to assist.
In fact you can buy your own domestic wind turbine from our largest hardware supplier in any town for £1,498 each, but I haven’t got my own just yet. The prices are coming down, and the designs are improving so that this is rapidly becoming a much more cost-effective proposition.
In the meantime, I buy my renewable electricity from my power company, and it works like this. For every unit of electricity that I use, the power company purchases one unit of its electricity from offshore windfarms around the UK.
Wind energy is a fantastic energy resource in this country. We have a very extensive area of continental shelf which lies beyond the sight of land, and we have the offshore technology from our North Sea oil and gas industries to exploit it. And, most importantly, we have a lot of wind.
You could argue that wind energy doesn’t provide power when the wind is not blowing, but you only have to go down to a beach on the western coasts of our islands to know that this is hardly ever true.
Our islands stretch 1,000 km from north to south, so that on the extremely rare occasions when we have dead calm conditions in one area of sea around our coast, the wind is still blowing somewhere else. Those windless periods can be accurately forecast these days, and the energy companies plan for them, and on the very few dead calm days we have, they turn up the gas turbines in our conventional power stations. The reaction time to increase the power on demand in this way is very swift, so there is little redundancy required within the system.
Overall, the result is that whilst the wind around our coasts is not 100% reliable, the application of wind farms serves to reduce our conventional hydrocarbon-based energy usage in this country significantly.
We are already supplying more than 2% of our energy needs in this country from renewable sources. That doesn’t sound like much, but it’s over 1 million homes. At that figure, we lag far behind Denmark, Germany and Spain. The former produces 11% of her energy from renewable sources (mostly wind – like the UK, Denmark is a very windy place).
Denmark has placed itself firmly at the forefront of wind energy technology. The investment made into research and development has paid off in economic terms – they are leading suppliers of such installations across the world. The design and manufacturing of turbines, components and tieback engineering provides many jobs across what is a rapidly expanding industry there.
As is often the case, early adopters and investors in new technology are able to build a technological lead which is capable of catalysing the development and massive growth of a nationally-important industry (look at how Eriksson and Nokia built huge telecommunications industries in Sweden and Finland respectively).
The EU has set a target that 20% of energy supply should be provided from renewable sources by 2020 and this looks achievable. The rising price of oil and gas means that the economics have dramatically improved. The price of oil and gas is certain to increase in the longer term as supplies are used up and this equation will continue to improve. As we build more offshore wind farms across a range of locations, the reliability of the supply also continues to increase.
The net result is that by ‘ticking that box’ as you put it, the domestic electricity we have used in our house is over the past five years, whilst not perfectly carbon neutral, is certainly not all that far away. That’s one small change, by one family, but it’s far from insignificant and such actions do add up.
You say that all of this ‘doesn’t achieve anything’, but that’s really not the case.
Roads, how much do you think Kyoto has lowered global temperatures? And how much do you think it is expected to (or was) had the US signed on?
First:
About 0.004549943 °C for about $438, 000, 000, 000
Second, by 2050, with the US signed on
.04 °C, maybe as much as .15 °C
And technologies to provide all the power we use without any emissions do not presently exist.
So yeah, the things your doing? Effectively they do nothing.
Hmmm. I thought that one addressed a Lt. Cdr. as Cdr. Please clarify.
Come to think of it, Evan, you may be right. You would certainly be correct if you were speaking directly to me. I’m not really sure what the rule is in addressing a LCDR in writing. After all, I did retire 18 years ago, so I don’t get addressed by rank much any more.
BTW, lest you think I’m ragging on you, I’m not, and I thoroughly enjoy your contributions to this blog.