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.
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.
And, of course, ceasing to exhale is also a given.
Since there appears to be another Jeff who is calling people bozos, I’ll go by “Jeff in Seattle” instead.
Likewise, why don’t you since you believe it WILL happen. Anyway Bangladesh has always been prone to disaster, after all, we seem to have a telethon or concert for them every decade for the last 40 years at least.
Personally I don’t believe in passing laws for things that aren’t likely to happen.
“BTW, lest you think I’m ragging on you, I’m not, and I thoroughly enjoy your contributions to this blog.”
Oh, not at all, not at all! And I yours. (SIR!)
Andrew
I’ve no idea where you get those numbers. Maybe Harlan Watson wrote them for you. It sounds like lobby group fodder, anyway.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that signing up to Kyoto causes economic hardship, either.
As the only notable non-signatory, the US currently has a basket case of an economy and the dollar has been busy going down the toilet for quite some time.
The greenback is currently gurgling just above the u-bend and let’s hope for all our sakes that you escape the final flush. But it looks like a close-run thing.
You bleat on and on about your energy security, instigating a Middle East bloodbath in the attempt to correct that. You constantly bemoan the high price of your gasoline yet insist on driving your monstrous monster trucks which only serve to make that problem worse.
Meanwhile your banks and financial institutions are desperately selling themselves to foreign investors in the Far East and (shock, horror) islamic states.
You close your eyes to the blindingly obvious and serious threats to our environment, and hold up your hands behind a mountain of playground bully tactoics and ‘Hey, it isn’t us’ excuses.
Time to wake up, buster. Because if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. And frankly, a world majority would probably say right now that you are the problem.
The European economy is far from perfect, I’ll concede, but the evidence that your mindlessly irresponsible Kyoto stance has assisted the American people’s prosperity simply does not exist.
Unfortunately, there’s more. Since the kind of blinkered, arrogant and frankly objectionable comments you have made above seem rather to typify the approach of US policy makers to a range of important international problems.”Yeah, so we’re rude and aggressive, but put up with it,” to paraphrase your golden prose above.
The short-sighted and narrowly self-interested agendas adopted by Washington in recent years have greatly endangered the standing and perception of America abroad. That’s regrettable for all of us.
Remember that here in the UK we are your greatest allies and admirers.
When even your good friends are telling you that you’re way out of line, it’s more than high time to look closely at what you’re doing.
Kyoto destroying national economies? Don’t make me laugh.
Curious. It’s not ‘just’ CO2 that’s ‘a problem’, it’s our species general excessive consumption of ALL planet resources, even like ‘this’ here inter-nittering … Yes, Devil’s Advocate here. Consider the POWER and the GRID that is ‘fueling’ this ever-demanding energy-gussling EXTRAVAGANCE. When the plug is pulled, and bets on, it WILL BE PULLED, then what? How will ‘we’ COPE then? Also, think of the millions who have been ‘denied’ this privilege, (a privilege that we increasingly take as our ‘Right’…) Do ‘we’ have any Right and/or Obligation to deny these ‘aspiriing’ Others access to the ENERGY that supports this ‘extravagance’ (how ever it is ‘generated’) ??? Will not their ‘need’ further ‘tax’ the imited resources? How can ‘we’ then POLICE the environment ‘globally’ when we so poorly manage our own ‘resources’ locally? The social and political ramifications of ‘who has access’ is just as important as ‘how’ we access … Should this be a ‘government’ responsibility? or a ‘corporate’ one? and how does that work if you don’t live in a functioning ‘democracy’? Hmmmmm? Who’s gonna WIN in this inevitable ‘show-down’? Brains or brawn? Money alone, or money and might? As ‘citizens’ of the planet surely we should ALL be ‘invested’ in this ‘discussion’.
Wind farms and solar seem like viable alternatives, but even so, it is our own greed and consumption that is hurling us toward this unsustainable ‘crisis’. A new conceptual paradigm is needed altogether in the MAINSTREAM of THOUGHT that embraces the planet itself as a living organism – this may actually open up our minds/eyes to little explored renewable options at the present time, ie. the oceans, geothermal conduits, space itself… We have got to move away from just ‘using’ the planet, and actually start ‘looking’ and ‘listening’ to ‘it’ differently.
Farmers, and/or ‘native’ people, generally understand this ‘concept’ better than most city dwellers … When was the last time any of you actually lifted a handfull of soil and UNDERSTOOD that this is what feeds us? … O sure, ‘scientific extrapolations’ and ‘injections’ maximize Monsanto’s yield etc, but even so, the elemental composition for REAL GROWTH is IN THE PALM of YOUR VERY OWN HAND. Start there …
Sorry, but you folks who say we have to “do something” even if we’re wrong about CO2 are hypocrites, because you’re not doing the one thing that would make any sort of difference, giving up a technological lifestyle. Every peck of the keyboard means you’re part of the “problem”, regardless of where you get your power (how do those windfarms get manufactured and repaired anyway? Through the oil infrastructure.)
I agree with what Scott said 100%. The main focus of the discussions should be on the dangers of “Extremist Environmentalism” and not on some phony, politically driven nonsense about a minor trace gas (CO2) of which only a tiny percent comes from human activity.
Speaking of scientific predictions that didn’t come true, how about all the environmental extremist produced science of the past that turned out to be nothing but lies for political advantage? They weren’t wrong; they were lies! DDT which could have saved millions of lives is just now starting to get some of the science corrected because it took years to correct/standup to the envirnmentalist political science…
We have to change the discussion from the damages of a trace gas to the damages of environmental extremism or we will all lose in the end!
‘****************************************************************************
joyce
Noone is arguing about doing our part for the environment. What we are against are extemists who use the environment for politcal power. They inturn ruin sciense and actually set us back. There is “ZERO” scientific evidence of AGW. While we can measure “Forcing” for various properties of compounds such as CO2, there is simply no way to calculate all the other forcing when it comes to our climate, that includes warming itself.
Facts:
1. AGW is not proven nor is it truely even rational. (It is still politically driven just as when it started)
2. CO2 is not a pollutant no matter what some political environmental court may tell us.
3. Al Gore’s move has been repremanded by a British court as too be exagerated (extremist) yet it is force feed to our kids. (How is that for harm?)
4. Environmental extremism has caused us to not only fall behind in our need for energy independence, but it is has helped to line the pockets of other extremist groups.
5. Many third world countries have millions of children dieing because they are not afforded the same opportunities that these extremist environmentalist themselves enjoy such running water and electricity.
Don’t be fooled. Todays environmentalist are not only wrong, they are dangerous…
Joyce,
“Logic” and “facts” were used similarly, and successfully by “scientists” in the tobacco industry for many decades. I envy anyone with such confidence concerning “Facts” relating to exceedingly complex natural phenomena. It sure must be nice; call me insecure.
Also, there has not been a more economically and politically-convenient label than “Environmentalist” since perhaps, “Pinko-Commies”, in the opinion of this humble scientist. The label might even, perhaps, prove useful for another 50 years or so.
People should be wary of such confidence; on either side of the long-term climate debate. My mind is open, as it should be (although evidence appears real and alarming).
It’s too early in the game to make a conclusion one way or the other, as so many Blogg contributers obviously have already done. That’s not how science and reasoning are supposed to work. The stakes are pretty high now, and it’s pretty early in the game for all of our armchair opinions to be taken too seriously.
Sincerely hopeful to be eating crow (which I’ve had to do before),
Jd
“You close your eyes to the blindingly obvious and serious threats to our environment, and hold up your hands behind a mountain of playground bully tactoics and ‘Hey, it isn’t us’ excuses.
“Time to wake up, buster. Because if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. And frankly, a world majority would probably say right now that you are the problem.”
But the “majority” has been saying that on and off for the last fifty years. Remember how we were going to run out of food by 1980 and all our resources by 2000? (Not to mention global cooling.)
I have been hearing dire predictions of disaster around the corner ever since I can remember. The proposed solutions have always been suspiciously similar.
Someone allegedly asked Nostradamus about the secret of his success. He is said to have replied, “I never predicted anythong in the short run.”
Finally it seems that this lesson has been learned: Now, the predictions are no longer around the corner, but we must nonetheless take–immediate–action because we are poised at “the tipping point”. (And, yes, the same dang “solutions”. Unlike the “problems” the solutions never seem to change. It’s like a steady tapping, all in the same spot.)
How about actually measuring the temperature correctly using properly sited and gridded stations? Then compare data with the existing setup. That will confirm or disprove the existing measurements.
CHEAP, EASY, QUICK. In one short year we can have the answer. Let the chips fall where they may. Do that and this liberal won’t kick.
Refuse to do that in the face of what the observations of the surface stations have revealed, and you cannot, by definition, actually be in favor of open science or the scientific method.
Refuse to do that and you cannot, by definition, claim to be a liberal.
Jay from Seattle,
What exactly are you referring to regarding DDT?
Being a biologist, I’m just a little curious about what exactly you’re referring to.
Jd
John,
I gave DDT as just one example. I could fill a page with lies from the extremist environmental movement, but I wanted to give an example that everyone could relate to.
Googleing DDT should give you all you need to know. I’ll provide a couple of links to what I believe to be a good reference to what I am talking about. I have seen a few good articles in newspapers lately, but I could not find them to share with you.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html
Andrew,
You could make huge money off it. At least until it got hit by an asteroid or something and either shattered or turned around and reflected light back at us. Didn’t you watch the whole Futurama episode?
No, I never watch futurama. I think of a reason why we would make an accluding satellite out of glass. Silicone is heavy and we need it parked well away from Earth.
I envision something like a beach ball, possibly made out of mylar or carbon fibre. During transport it would be folded up like any hot air balloon. Once it reaches orbit then it could be inflated by remote control. It wouldn’t reflect sunlight back at Earth in any circumstance, asteroid collision, meteor strike, (springs a leak?) because it is situated between the sun and us. The most it could do is scatter sunlight away from us.
AGW is the postulate that we can control the weather on the warm side. Seems far fetched, but we can’t really tell. Best we can say is maybe.
Anthropogenic global cooling however is within our reach. Easily attainable. Several methods are feasible. Sprinkling the atmosphere with aerosol is the most discussed method. I don’t like it because we have no direct control. Once it’s done we live with the result, good or bad.
Satellite eclipse however is totally reversable. If it goes south – the Potomac and the Thames start icing over – we just send a command from Houston for the ParaSol to change orbit.
Affordable , controllable, and the tech is already proven.
Roads- you sound like a wind power producer’s brochure. Here are some facts regarding wind energy:
1. Wind farms currently cost $2500 – $4000 per kW of installed peak capacity. The higher values are associated with offshore wind farms. Compare this with $600 for gas, $1500 for coal, $2200 for nuclear.
2. Wind farm availability at the best sites has been demonstrated to be almost 30%. Averaged over many sites, the number is closer to 23%. If you have an average load requirement of 100 MW, you need to build at least 300 MW – 400 MW of wind to meet it.
3. Wind generation cannot be scheduled. To maintain reliable grid operations as mandated by law, the power system operator must- a) keep wind (and solar) power generation penetration to somewhat under 10% of total generation capacity to maintain system stability; b) have energy storage added to ride through wind output swings, or c) have additional generation capacity added that can be scheduled or rapidly dispatched. The second choice can be achieved economically only by using hydro pumped storage. There are few places in the world with the hydro resources available (Norway, Sweden, Quebec being good examples). The last choice typically requires an additional 80 MW of conventional generation for every 100 MW of wind generation added to the grid.
4. Wind energy isn’t free. Although there are no ongoing fuel charges, there are substantial costs associated with maintenance, particularly the rebuilding of gearboxes every other year.
So, if the UK power grid acquires 2% of its capacity from renewable energy sources, then your house is 2% carbon neutral as far as electricity goes, assuming that wind generation is carbon-neutral.
environmentalchristian ,
I think you should follow your own advice. If you truely have studied both sides of the issue (I doubt it), then there is no way you could have come to any other conclusion than that it is politically driven nonsense.
Frankly, most environmentalist don’t even care if it is true. That is not their main goal anyway. Don’t be so niave. Hell, most of the environmentalist don’t even really understand what the so called greenhouse affect is or how it works. Think for a second about how ridiculous it is to calculate CO2 change as to a measure to any real climate change. Think about how the weather/temperature changes on any given day or hour for that matter. How does it change? What causes it to change? To what degree does it change? What does the IPCC, which is a governmental organization, say is their most extreme said outcome in temperature change? What “forcings” do they use to come to their conclusions? Do you see any problems with the “Forcings” they chose? Why would they only chose to
Wait a second. I should stop here for a second because I realize what I am writing is not going to change any minds. Lets go a different direction. Environmentalchristian, since you have studied both sides of the issue, how about you explain to everyone here (In laymans terms) how the greenhouse affect works? This should be good.
Yesss..That’s a good idea. Better yet, skip that part and go right to positive feedbacks that amplify the force of Co2, taking us from roughly 1.3c warming all the way to 3 to 4 degrees. Later, you can tell us how the models handle cloud formation and precipitation. Gee, I hope asking for detailed explanations doesn’t make me “anti-science”!
I’ve driven by wind farms in Southern California a couple times in the last 5 years, on the edge of the Mojave desert. Each time I’d say fewer than 5% of the turbines were turning. I don’t call that reliable. Similarly other smaller groups of wind turbines I’ve seen either never turn, or only one or two in the group ever move. Surely that can’t be because they provide so much power they’re hardly needed.
As for solar, I’d love to use it, but the angle of the sun’s rays here in Western Washington don’ provide good solar power. That and the overcast conditions we tend to have from fall through spring would also be disastrous during the time when power is needed most.
One of the problems with large wind turbines is maintenance. I say this from a position of experience because my brother in law was president of a firm that made gear boxes for the majority of wind turbines in S. Cal. Maintenance is difficult and costly for these units which is why you often see many of them “feathered” and not turning.
Vibration is a big issue on large turbines which leads to higher maintenance.
As for solar, I put at 10KW system on my own home three years ago, and a 125KW system on a local school as my project of being a school board member. Solar works, but the payback period is usually a decade or longer.
Roads, one, I never said it was hurting any economies. And if it isn’t that’s becuase almost no one is meeting there set goals. Second, those numbers are FACT. Get over it. The situation in the economy of the US has nothing to do with Kyoto. Sometimes economies do well, sometimes they don’t, for a variety of reasons.
“Not part of the solution” very well, happily part of the “problem”. No big deal, I’m healthy for not panicking. Let worrying destroy you. I won’t worry myself into the ground.
Hello there Anthony,
As an aside, do you happen to know the highest-efficiency solar cells available at the moment, and what best efficiency was 10, 20, and 30 years ago? I wonder how quickly advances in materials technology will change this?
There was something on PBS a few years ago where an independant researcher in California (He’s well known but I can’t remember his name) was working on photovoltaic materials that potentially could be used as covering surfaces (you can drive nails through them and use them as shingles!). Apparently he was also working on materials that would return around 30% +. If I remember right, he said at 30% and above, overcast days aren’t a problem. Have you heard of this?
Jd
REPLY: John, my previous post tracking such changes should answer all your questions.
Paper tiger… you said – “AGW is the postulate that we can control the weather on the warm side. Seems far fetched, but we can’t really tell. Best we can say is maybe. Anthropogenic global cooling however is within our reach. Easily attainable. Several methods are feasible. Sprinkling the atmosphere with aerosol is the most discussed method. I don’t like it because we have no direct control. Once it’s done we live with the result, good or bad. Satellite eclipse however is totally reversable. If it goes south – the Potomac and the Thames start icing over – we just send a command from Houston for the ParaSol to change orbit.
Affordable , controllable, and the tech is already proven.”
Wow, scary stuff because one can see you aren’t ‘kidding’. Your final statement contradicts your previous paragraph – ie. CONTROLLABLE vs NON-CONTROLLABLE. Frankly, I’m not really very interested in you or your ‘god-lite’ types tampering with the skies … thank you very much. Go play tackle football or something and get all that ‘controlling stuff’ out of your system.
What is becoming apparent here is that any ‘change’ will be at the behest of the government of the day knee-jerking to the winds of the marketplace. ‘We’, the little people, are somewhat at their ‘mercy’. New technologies can only reach ‘the masses’ through efficient economies of scale. Those ‘scales’ take money and will. It is galling how ‘First World’ countries continue to pillage and rape the earth for oil. It is such backward outdated thinking that continues to aggravate this apparent ‘crisis’ . As long as Americans support a government in bed with the billion dollar oil/gas industries and vica versa, kiss innovative and necessary enivornmentally initiatives good bye. There just cannot be any significant change until those dinosaurs are voted or vetoed out of office. Exxon et al will not go ‘down’ without a fight. It is in their best interests to defy, denounce, destroy and deny ‘the obvious’. To be sure, rapid ‘extremism’ on either side serves no long term purpose. But the issue remains, who CONTROLS the ENERGY?
p.s. Reliance Power IPO sets world record of $200 bn last friday…. Gotta think about that….
“It is unprecedented, even if you call it plain euphoria. Nowhere in the world has an initial public offer of shares by a new company evoked as much response as the Reliance Power issue that closed on Friday.
For a company that is yet to commence business or show income from operations, investors from across the world placed bids worth $200 billion for its shares worth $2.9 billion on offer. Retail investors put in 5.1 million applications for shares worth $47 billion or Rs 188,000 crore. Since as per rules, retail applicants can pay just a fourth of the total money initially, at least Rs 50,000 crore has been invested in the issue. For the sake of comparison, the collections are a fourth of the total direct tax collections for last year.
The overwhelming response for the issue is based on expectations that Reliance Power will be able to complete its 13 power projects in the next couple of years. The sale will increase the wealth of Anil Ambani, already India’s third richest man after his Reliance Energy quadrupled in value last year. His wealth more than tripled last year to $45 billion, according to Forbes magazine, behind elder brother Mukesh Ambani and Lakshmi Mittal. On listing of REPL, there is speculation that Anil may replace Mukesh as the richest Indian…”
John D,
Here’s another exciting breakthrough in solar technology.
There is just a whole lot of cool stuff coming down the alternative energy pike right now.
Not at all. Just leave your technological life behind and go live in the woods. You will never need to worry about oil prices again. Of course, basic needs like shelter, water, and food could be major problems.
What? You’re still using a computer? You obviously don’t really believe there’s a problem.
“It is galling how ‘First World’ countries continue to pillage and rape the earth for oil. ”
And St. Chlorophyl did speak, saying:
i. And then did he Green Mother Gaia reach forth with her leafy fingers, and in her wellspring of mercy and wisdom bequethed to us, unworthy man, the Green Blessing of the Internal Combustion Engine. And the Environment was SAVED. And the Great Mother spake, saying it is good.
ii. And the Blessed Green Engine, savior of the Forest Primaeval and bane of the woodman’s wrongful axe, did create the Folding Green (wealth) that hath permitted us, unworthy man, to end starvation and poverty to the four corners of the, er, sphere. And it was good. And good was an understatement.
iii. And the only tragedy that did yet remain that the ‘Second’ and ‘Third’ brethren among us did not adequately share in the bounteous Green Goodness of the Blessed Green Engine, and the Green-blessed petrol, Friend of Tree, foe of foul coal and destructive hoof. And this is bad. Thus we, unworthy man, shall pray to Gaia to guide and encourage our unfortunate brethren in their Green-blessed, offshore drilling endeavors.
iv. And it was writ in writing that the Blessed Green Engine, friend of larch and pine and oak and beech and elm and sequoia and palm and yew and ginko and baobab and (skip a bit, brother) . . . did, in fact, enable us, unworthy man, to clean up the messy bits of the world. And this is expensive. But with all that created wealth we, unworthy man, can and do afford it. For it is said most wisely: if no oil, then no trees, less food, little wealth, and no cleanup.
v. And then, having harvested the green Goodness of the Blessed Engine and empowered exclusively thereby, we, unworthy man, shall unlock vast powers that will perpetuate Green Goodness for a very damn long time indeed . . .
(The remaining text remains to be translated.)
“Of course, basic needs like shelter, water, and food could be major problems.”
Go green: Hack down some trees, off some animals, clear cut some land and spread crud all over it, dump your crap in the streams . . . of course things could get a little tight in the odd off-year, in which case, being a traditionalist, I recommend a little raiding and pillaging to tide one over.